Effects of Seedling Substrate and Hydroponic Versus Aquaponic Nutrient Solution on Growth, Nutrient Uptake, and Eco-Physiological Response of Lemon Basil (Ocimum × citriodorum)
Metadata
- Cite key: signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025
- Item type: Journal Article
- Authors: L. Signorini, G.C. Modarelli, P. Di Pierro, A.L. Langellotti, C. Cirillo, S. De Pascale, P. Masi
- Affiliation: Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Portici, Italy (Signorini, Di Pierro, Cirillo, De Pascale, Masi); Leibniz Institute of Vegetables and Ornamental Crops (IGZ), Großbeeren, Germany (Modarelli); Center for Innovation and Development of the Food Industry (CAISIAL), University of Naples Federico II, Portici, Italy (Di Pierro, Langellotti, Masi)
- Journal: Plants 14(13) (2025), article 1929
- Date: 06/2025 (published 23 June 2025; received 2 May, revised 10 June, accepted 18 June 2025)
- Date added: 2026-07-15
- DOI: 10.3390/plants14131929
- Funding: Rago Group (agricultural company, Battipaglia, Salerno), under the project “Innovation in Cultivation Techniques for Leafy Vegetables to Reduce Environmental Impact through the Reduction of Chemical Fertilizers”; National Biodiversity Future Center — NBFC (EU NextGenerationEU, NRRP Mission 4 Component 2 Investment 1.4, Code CN_00000033, CUP E63C22000990007); Italian Ministry of Education and Research (MUR), PRIN project “VFARM — Sustainable Vertical Farming” (project code 2020ELWM82, CUP J33C20002350001)
- URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14131929
- PDF:
Signorini et al. - 2025 - Effects of Seedling Substrate and Hydroponic Versus Aquaponic Nutrient Solution on Growth, Nutrient.pdf
Opinion
Two well-instrumented, clearly reported sub-experiments bolted together: a clean 4-substrate germination screen (Experiment 1) that feeds its winning substrate into a genuine 2×2 factorial aquaponics-vs-hydroponics x substrate trial (Experiment 2). The factorial design is a nice structural improvement over single-substrate AP-vs-HYD comparisons elsewhere in this vault, and the full leaf/stem/root mineral panel (P, K, Ca, Mg, S, NO3) split by organ is unusually complete. Two things temper confidence: (1) fish-side reporting is essentially nil — only a stocking density (8.7 kg/m3) is given, with no feed, growth, or survival data at all, even by the low bar of decoupled-system papers in this vault; (2) Experiment 2’s own Methods section states a significance threshold of p<0.005, which is inconsistent with every one of its seven results tables’ own footnotes (which use the standard p<0.05/0.01/0.001 asterisk scheme) — almost certainly a typo, but it means several of the paper’s “significant” claims (leaf DM%, root length, stem Ca) would flip to non-significant if the literal Methods text were applied. The “replicates” underlying every table’s n=9 are also not clearly independent physical systems (3 plants × 3 replicates, un-differentiated) — a common aquaponics-literature pseudoreplication risk that the paper doesn’t address. The flavonoid/mineral-uptake findings (52.5% higher FlvM, higher stem/root Ca and Mg under aquaponics) are the most citable results and are mechanistically well-discussed against the vault’s other basil/lettuce eco-physiology papers.
Abstract
Lemon basil (Ocimum × citriodorum) is a highly valued aromatic plant renowned for its distinct citrus aroma. This study aimed to evaluate sustainable substrates and cultivation systems for its production. Two complementary and sequential experiments were conducted: an initial experiment designed to compare coconut fiber mixed in varying proportions with perlite to rock wool, evaluating their effectiveness during germination and early growth (experiment 1), and a subsequent experiment aimed at assessing plant performance in a decoupled aquaponic system relative to hydroponics utilizing the best-performing coconut fiber-perlite mixture from the first phase along with rock wool as substrates (experiment 2). The substrate with 70% coconut fiber and 30% perlite (F70:P30) significantly improved seed germination, leaf number, and total leaf area of seedlings. The decoupled aquaponic cultivation system resulted in a 52.5% increase in flavonoid content, accompanied by higher calcium and magnesium uptake in stems and roots compared to hydroponics. These findings clearly underscore the potential of coconut fiber substrates mixed with perlite as sustainable alternatives to rock wool, reducing environmental impact, disposal costs, and health risks. Similarly, aquaponic cultivation emerges as a valuable strategy for sustainable lemon basil (Ocimum × citriodorum) production, offering comparable yields to hydroponics while improving plant nutritional and phytochemical quality through beneficial plant-microbe interactions. These results provide practical evidence supporting the adoption of environmentally friendly substrates and cultivation practices, thus contributing significantly toward sustainable intensive vegetable production systems.
Summary
This paper reports two sequential experiments at the University of Naples Federico II (Portici, Italy). Experiment 1 germinated lemon basil seeds on four substrates (three coconut fiber:perlite ratios plus 100% rock wool control) in a controlled growth chamber under a shared half-strength Hoagland solution, finding that 70% coconut fiber + 30% perlite (F70:P30) gave the best combination of germination %, leaf number, and leaf area, comparable to or better than rock wool. Experiment 2 then transplanted 20-day-old seedlings grown on F70:P30 and on rock wool into a 2×2 factorial comparing decoupled aquaponic (fish-tank RAS water, Nile tilapia) versus hydroponic (half-strength Hoagland) floating raft systems, over a 38-day cultivation period, measuring growth, gas exchange/chlorophyll fluorescence, leaf pigment indices, and leaf/stem/root mineral content. Total leaf biomass and leaf number did not differ significantly between aquaponic and hydroponic systems or between substrates, but aquaponic cultivation significantly increased leaf dry matter percentage, roughly halved root length, and — the paper’s headline result — increased the flavonoid index by 52.5% relative to hydroponics, alongside significantly higher calcium and magnesium uptake in stems and roots. Gas exchange and chlorophyll fluorescence parameters showed no significant differences between systems or substrates. The authors interpret the flavonoid increase as a response to mild osmotic/salinity stress from higher sodium in the aquaponic solution, and conclude that both F70:P30 coconut fiber and decoupled aquaponics are viable, more sustainable alternatives to rock wool and hydroponics respectively, without a growth penalty and with a phytochemical-quality benefit.
Experiment data
- Location: University Centre for Innovation and Development in the Food Industry (CAISIAL), University of Naples Federico II — Department of Agricultural Sciences, Portici, Italy (40.8161°N, 14.3504°E, 29 m a.s.l.)
- Design: Two sequential experiments. Experiment 1 (not extracted to trials.csv, see Extraction notes): 4 substrate treatments (F50:P50, F70:P30, F90:P10, 100% rock wool) × 3 replicate containers, completely randomized design, controlled growth chamber, shared half-strength Hoagland nutrient solution throughout. Experiment 2 (source of both trials.csv rows): 2×2 factorial — cultivation system (decoupled aquaponic A vs hydroponic H) × substrate (F70:P30 “F” vs 100% rock wool “RW”) — in a greenhouse, floating raft units, 20 plants/m2.
- Replicates / n: Exp.1: 3 replicate containers/substrate (24 seeds/container, 72 seeds/treatment), n=12 plants for growth measurements. Exp.2: stated as “3 plants × 3 replicates × 2 substrates × 2 cultivation systems” (36 plants total); every results table reports n=9 per treatment cell — whether the 3 “replicates” are independent physical systems or plant-level sub-samples is not stated (see Extraction notes).
- Duration: Exp.1: 15 Nov–6 Dec 2022, germination monitored daily for 7 days, growth measurements at 20 days after sowing. Exp.2: 6 Dec 2022–13 Jan 2023, single destructive harvest at 38 days after transplant (= 59 days after sowing).
- Organisms: Lemon basil (Ocimum × citriodorum) / Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)
- Statistics: Exp.1: one-way ANOVA + Tukey’s HSD, p<0.05. Exp.2: two-way ANOVA (cultivation system × substrate) + Tukey’s HSD; SPSS v27; cluster heatmaps via ClustVis (Euclidean distance, complete linkage, log(x+1) transform). Exp.2’s Methods states p<0.005 but all seven Exp.2 results tables use the standard p<0.05/0.01/0.001 convention — WARN-MATERIAL, see Extraction notes.
- Substrate selection (Exp.1): F70:P30 germination 80.56% vs RW 81.94% (both significantly > F50:P50 63.89%, F90:P10 66.67%); F70:P30/F50:P50/F90:P10 all significantly taller, more leaves, and more leaf area than RW
- Growth (Exp.2): Leaf number, leaf area, and leaf/root fresh weight did not differ significantly by cultivation system or substrate (all ns); leaf dry matter % significantly higher under aquaponics (CS p=0.03); root length significantly shorter under aquaponics (CS p=0.04)
- Flavonoid index (FlvM): aquaponic mean 0.93 vs hydroponic 0.61, a 52.5% increase (CS p<0.001), substrate ns
- Mineral uptake: stem Ca +21.9% and stem Mg +37.5% under aquaponics vs hydroponics; root Mg +37.9% under aquaponics; leaf nitrate and P/K/Ca/Mg/S ns between systems
Substrate selection for seedling establishment (Experiment 1)
This paper: Across four substrates (F50:P50, F70:P30, F90:P10, 100% rock wool), F70:P30 and rock wool gave the highest germination % (80.56% and 81.94% respectively, both significantly above F50:P50’s 63.89% and F90:P10’s 66.67%, p=0.04). All three coconut fiber/perlite mixes produced significantly more leaves, taller seedlings (avg. 7.24 cm, 24.2% taller than RW), and greater total leaf area (23–46% greater than RW, p=0.01) than rock wool, while rock wool produced significantly higher shoot and root dry matter % (22.9% and 46.0% higher respectively) — the authors attribute the coconut fiber advantage to its higher water retention and cation exchange capacity (CEC), and the RW dry-matter advantage to its more inert, structurally stable physical properties. A cluster heatmap (Figure 1) grouped RW as a distinct cluster (high germination, high DM%) separate from the three coconut-fiber mixes, with F70:P30 closest to RW on germination and root length among the three mixes. F70:P30 was carried forward as the “F” substrate into Experiment 2 on this basis. This experiment has no aquaponic arm and does not produce a trials.csv row (see Extraction notes).
Compared with:
- todo He et al. 2022 — rockwool vs. coir comparison for greenhouse cucumber (chemical element, growth, fruit quality); cited as supporting coconut fiber’s higher CEC/water retention driving germination advantage. (p.10)
- todo Barrett et al. 2016 — review of environmentally sustainable growing media for soilless cultivation; cited alongside coconut fiber’s lower environmental impact/disposal cost vs rock wool. (p.10)
- todo Mansour et al. 2014 — health implications of processing/using natural wool insulation products, cited as the source for rock wool’s handling health risks. (p.2, p.10)
- todo Inden and Torres 2004 — four-substrate tomato growth/quality comparison, cited as supporting rock wool’s stable physical structure enhancing root growth (used again for Experiment 2’s root-DW result). (p.10)
Growth and biomass (Experiment 2: aquaponics vs hydroponics)
This paper: Total leaf number, leaf area, and leaf/root fresh weight did not differ significantly between aquaponic and hydroponic systems or between substrates (all ns, Table 3). Root dry weight was 22.8% higher in rock-wool-grown plants than coconut-fiber-grown plants regardless of system (S p=0.02). Leaf dry matter % was significantly higher under aquaponics than hydroponics for both substrates (9.49% and 9.40% vs 8.51% and 8.68%, CS p=0.03, CS×S p=0.03) — the authors attribute this to beneficial aquaponic-solution microbial community interactions with roots. Root length was significantly ~19% shorter under aquaponics than hydroponics across both substrates (CS p=0.04), which the paper attributes to increased sodium/salinity stress in the aquaponic solution rather than any negative effect on overall biomass or photosynthesis (gas exchange and chlorophyll fluorescence showed no significant treatment differences at all, Table 5).
Compared with:
- todo Modarelli et al. 2023 — already extracted in this vault as
modarelliHydroponicAquaponicFloating2023; cited here for corroborating “comparable yields between hydroponic and aquaponic systems” for basil specifically. (p.9) - todo Inden and Torres 2004 — cited again for rock wool’s stable physical structure explaining its higher root DW here. (p.9)
Flavonoid content and eco-physiological response
This paper: The flavonoid index (FlvM, MPM-100 meter) was 52.5% higher under aquaponics than hydroponics across both substrates (0.93 vs 0.61, CS p<0.001), while the chlorophyll content index (CCIa) showed no significant difference (CS p=0.27). Gas exchange (net photosynthesis A, intrinsic WUEi) and chlorophyll a fluorescence (ΦPSII, Fv/Fm, NPQ) were statistically indistinguishable between cultivation systems and substrates in every case (Table 5), meaning the flavonoid increase was not accompanied by any detectable photosynthetic penalty or benefit. The authors hypothesize the flavonoid increase is a protective secondary-metabolite response to mild osmotic/salinity stress from elevated sodium in the aquaponic solution (Table 10: Na 41.23 mg/L in AP vs 10.35 mg/L in HYD, ~4× higher), consistent with lemon basil’s known sensitivity to producing elevated flavonoids under mild salinity.
Compared with:
- todo Braglia et al. 2022 — already extracted in this vault as
bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022; cited as prior evidence of increased flavonoid/phytochemical concentrations in aquaponically-grown aromatic/food plants. (p.10) - todo Flores-Aguilar et al. 2023 — bioactive compounds of endemic medicinal plants (Cuphea spp.) in aquaponics; cited alongside Braglia for the flavonoid-increase pattern. (p.10)
- todo Tarchoune et al. 2010 — antioxidative responses of Ocimum basilicum to NaCl/Na2SO4 salinization; cited as the mechanistic basis for the osmotic-stress/flavonoid-response hypothesis and for the root-length-reduction-under-salinity interpretation. (p.10)
- todo Ciriello et al. 2022 — morpho-physiological and biochemical responses of hydroponically-grown basil cultivars to salt stress; cited specifically for lemon basil’s particular responsiveness to mild salinity producing elevated flavonoids. (p.10)
- todo Cramer et al. 1986 — effects of NaCl/CaCl2 on ion activities and cotton root growth; cited alongside the salinity/root-growth mechanism discussion. (p.10)
- todo Chiquito-Contreras et al. 2022 — review of aquaculture production systems/waste management for agricultural fertilization; cited (with Lobanov) for the hypothesis of beneficial aquaponic microbial community-root interactions. (p.10)
- todo Lobanov et al. 2022 — already extracted in this vault as
lobanovPlantsDictateRoot2022; cited alongside Chiquito-Contreras for the root-microbiome mechanism behind the leaf DM%/nutrient findings. (p.10) - todo Mourantian et al. 2023 — already extracted in this vault as
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023; cited for corroborating stable photosynthetic performance across cultivation methods (basil, same broader research context). (p.10)
Mineral nutrition and tissue nitrate
This paper: Leaf nitrate and leaf P, K, Ca, Mg, S did not differ significantly between aquaponic and hydroponic systems or between substrates (all ns, Table 7). In the stems, aquaponic cultivation gave 21.9% higher calcium (CS p=0.038) and 37.5% higher magnesium (CS p=0.009) than hydroponics; the highest stem magnesium specifically occurred in aquaponic plants on coconut-fiber substrate (A-F, CS×S p=0.032, Table 8). In the roots, calcium was 20.8% higher on coconut fiber than rock wool regardless of system (S p=0.020), and magnesium was 37.9% higher under aquaponics than hydroponics regardless of substrate (CS p=0.032, Table 9). The authors attribute the aquaponic-side Ca/Mg advantage to microbial activity (nitrifying bacteria and associated root-microbiome effects) enhancing nutrient solubility/uptake in the aquaponic solution, and the substrate-side effects to coconut fiber’s higher cation exchange capacity compensating for its smaller root system relative to rock wool.
Compared with:
- todo Aslanidou et al. 2023 — already extracted in this vault as
aslanidouNutrientsUseEfficiency2023; cited for corroborating distinct nutrient uptake patterns driven by aquaponic-solution microbial activity. (p.10-11) - todo Eck et al. 2021 — root microbiome composition of lettuces of varying age in aquaponics; cited (with Kasozi) for the nitrifying-bacteria/nutrient-solubility mechanism. (p.11)
- todo Kasozi et al. 2021 — review of the complex aquaponic microbiome and bacterial ecosystem significance; cited alongside Eck. (p.11)
- todo Tuckeldoe et al. 2023 — effect of coconut coir substrate on yield/nutritional quality of sweet pepper; cited for coconut fiber’s high CEC enhancing nutrient availability. (p.11)
Linked claims
- Decoupled aquaponics achieves comparable leaf yield to hydroponics in lemon basil
- Aquaponic cultivation increases flavonoid content relative to hydroponics
- Aquaponic cultivation increases stem and root calcium and magnesium uptake relative to hydroponics
- Coconut fiber-perlite substrate is a viable rock wool alternative for seedling germination
- Mild salinity/osmotic stress in aquaponic solution may drive elevated flavonoid content
Citations to chase
- todo He, L. et al. (2022) — Comparison of Rockwool and Coir for Greenhouse Cucumber Production: Chemical Element, Plant Growth, and Fruit Quality, Heliyon 8:e10930
- todo Barrett, G.E.; Alexander, P.D.; Robinson, J.S.; Bragg, N.C. (2016) — Achieving Environmentally Sustainable Growing Media for Soilless Plant Cultivation Systems — A Review, Sci. Hortic. 212:220–234
- todo Mansour, E.; Loxton, C.; Elias, R.M.; Ormondroyd, G.A. (2014) — Assessment of Health Implications Related to Processing and Use of Natural Wool Insulation Products, Environ. Int. 73:402–412
- todo Inden, H.; Torres, A. (2004) — Comparison of Four Substrates on the Growth and Quality of Tomatoes, Acta Hortic. 644:205–210
- Modarelli, G.C. et al. (2023) — already extracted in this vault, see
modarelliHydroponicAquaponicFloating2023 - todo Flores-Aguilar, P.S.; Rico-Chávez, A.K.; Rodriguez-deLeón, E.; Aguirre-Becerra, H.; Zamora-Castro, S.A.; Soto-Zarazúa, G.M. (2023) — Bioactive Compounds of Endemic Medicinal Plants (Cuphea spp.) Cultured in Aquaponic Systems: A Short Study, Agriculture 13:2018
- todo Tarchoune, I.; Sgherri, C.; Izzo, R.; Lachaal, M.; Ouerghi, Z.; Navari-Izzo, F. (2010) — Antioxidative Responses of Ocimum basilicum to Sodium Chloride or Sodium Sulphate Salinization, Plant Physiol. Biochem. 48:772–777
- todo Ciriello, M.; Formisano, L.; Kyriacou, M.C.; Carillo, P.; Scognamiglio, L.; De Pascale, S.; Rouphael, Y. (2022) — Morpho-Physiological and Biochemical Responses of Hydroponically Grown Basil Cultivars to Salt Stress, Antioxidants 11:2207
- todo Cramer, G.R.; Läuchli, A.; Epstein, E. (1986) — Effects of NaCl and CaCl2 on Ion Activities in Complex Nutrient Solutions and Root Growth of Cotton, Plant Physiol. 81:792–797
- todo Chiquito-Contreras, R.G. et al. (2022) — Aquaculture — Production System and Waste Management for Agriculture Fertilization — A Review, Sustainability 14:7257
- Lobanov, V.; Keesman, K.J.; Joyce, A. (2022) — already extracted in this vault, see
lobanovPlantsDictateRoot2022 - Mourantian, A. et al. (2023) — already extracted in this vault, see
mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023 - Braglia, R. et al. (2022) — already extracted in this vault, see
bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022 - Aslanidou, M. et al. (2023) — already extracted in this vault, see
aslanidouNutrientsUseEfficiency2023 - todo Eck, M.; Szekely, I.; Massart, S.; Jijakli, M.H. (2021) — Microorganisms in Aquaponics: Insights on the Composition of the Root Microbiome of Lettuces of Varying Age, Acta Hortic. 1321:213–219
- todo Kasozi, N.; Abraham, B.; Kaiser, H.; Wilhelmi, B. (2021) — The Complex Microbiome in Aquaponics: Significance of the Bacterial Ecosystem, Ann. Microbiol. 71:1
- todo Tuckeldoe, R.B.; Maluleke, M.K.; Adriaanse, P. (2023) — The Effect of Coconut Coir Substrate on the Yield and Nutritional Quality of Sweet Peppers (Capsicum annuum) Varieties, Sci. Rep. 13:2742
Extraction notes
Type classification: Recorded as experiment. Experiment 2 (the source of both trials.csv rows) reports a controlled 2×2 factorial manipulation (cultivation system × substrate), stated replication (“3 plants × 3 replicates”, Methods 4.2.8), and formal two-way ANOVA + Tukey’s HSD testing — meeting SCHEMA.md Part 1’s simpler experiment test. As with pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012 elsewhere in this vault, the word “randomized” is never used for how the aquaponic/hydroponic treatments were assigned to physical raft units in Experiment 2 specifically (unlike Experiment 1, which explicitly states “a completely randomized design was adopted”). Given the stated replication and formal statistics, experiment was judged the better fit over quasi-experiment, but this is a judgment call rather than a clean match to Part 2’s stricter randomization wording — flagged here per that precedent.
Trial structure: Two trials.csv rows, both from Experiment 2 only. signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 = aquaponic (A) vs hydroponic (H) on the F70:P30 coconut-fiber/perlite substrate (“F”); -T2 = aquaponic vs hydroponic on 100% rock wool (“RW”). Unlike most other multi-trial papers in this vault, the two aquaponic rows here do not share one common hydroponic control — because substrate is itself a crossed factor, T1’s HYD control (H-F) and T2’s HYD control (H-RW) are two independently measured hydroponic treatment cells, not the same value repeated. This is stated explicitly in each row’s TRIAL DEFINITION.
Experiment 1 is not given a trials.csv row. It compares four substrates against each other under one shared nutrient solution in a growth chamber — there is no aquaponic treatment and no aquaponic-vs-hydroponic comparison of any kind in Experiment 1, so it does not fit the schema’s “one row per aquaponic treatment” structure, not even as an NA-block hydroponic-only study (the nutrient solution itself is not a tested factor there). Its results are summarized narratively above (Substrate selection section) and its winning substrate (F70:P30) is the “F” arm of Experiment 2.
WARN-MATERIAL significance threshold (both trials). Methods 4.2.8 states for Experiment 2: “Means were compared by Tukey’s HSD post hoc test at a significance level of p < 0.005” — but every one of Tables 3–9 (all of Experiment 2’s results tables) carries the standard footnote “Significance levels: ns = not significant; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001,” identical to Experiment 1’s tables, which are correctly governed by Experiment 1’s separately-stated p < 0.05. Judged a drafting typo (0.005 for 0.05); p<0.05 used throughout this note and both CSVs as the operative threshold, since seven consecutive tables consistently apply that asterisk scheme (e.g. Table 4 Leaf DM CS p=0.03, Table 8 stem Ca p=0.038, Table 9 root Mg p=0.032). Under the literal p<0.005 reading, several results treated as significant here (leaf DM%, root length, stem Ca, root Ca/root Mg) would instead be non-significant — this is a real interpretive fork, not cosmetic. Full detail in trials.csv Experimental Remarks (both rows).
WARN-CHECK NO3 vs NO3-N basis (both trials, same Table 10 values). Table 10 (p.13) gives “Nutrient concentration (mg L-1) in hydroponic (H) and aquaponic (A) systems” with a column literally labelled “NO3” (H 390.28, A 469.93 mg/L) — the paper never states whether this is nitrate-ion mass or nitrate-nitrogen mass, a ~4.43× difference per SCHEMA.md’s own listed example of this ambiguity. Recorded as printed (basis: the literal column label) in the NO3-N cell for the AP side of each trial; the paired HYD value has no dedicated column and is given in Experimental Remarks. Added to REVIEW.md by the batch merge step.
WARN-MINOR tissue-nitrate unit (both trials). Table 7’s caption text says nitrate is “in g kg-1 fresh weight (f.w.)”; the table’s own column-header row instead prints “mg kg-1 f.w.” for the same column. mg/kg fw is used (matches the table’s own header and is far more plausible for basil leaf tissue — a g/kg reading would put nitrate at 0.25–0.55% of fresh weight, implausibly high and inconsistent with comparable lettuce/basil figures elsewhere in this vault). No cell value affected, only the unit label.
WARN-MINOR plant-height terminology (both trials). Methods 4.2.4 states “plant height, leaf number, total leaf area, and root length were measured” (collar base to vegetative apex, per Experiment 1’s identical definition in Methods 4.1.5), but no Experiment 2 results table reports a parameter literally called “plant height” — Table 4 instead reports “Stem Length.” No numeric conflict exists (only one height-like figure is given per treatment); Stem Length is recorded in the Plant height trials.csv cell on the judgment that it is the same measurement under an inconsistent label, flagged for auditability since the paper never explicitly equates the two terms.
WARN-MINOR CCIa SD, Table 6, H-RW cell only (affects T2 / plant.csv only). Printed as “24.6 +/- 200” — an SD of 200 against a mean of 24.6 is implausible next to the other seven Table 6 SDs (0.03–2.23); almost certainly a typo for “24.6 +/- 2.00.” Recorded literally as printed in plant.csv, not silently corrected.
Anthocyanin index measured but never reported. Methods 4.2.5 describes measuring a leaf anthocyanin index (AnthM = log(f660/f525)) alongside FlvM and CCIa, using the same MPM-100 meter — but no AnthM value appears anywhere in Results, Table 6, or any other table. This is a genuine measured-but-unreported gap (distinct from a value the authors never attempted), noted here rather than treated as simply absent.
[not reported] fields, grouped:
- Fish (both trials): FCR, SGR, feed N/P/K composition, feed protein %, % of body weight (ration), Fish size initial/final, Feed routine, Feed regime (product identity), Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (days) — the paper states only “Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) was stocked at an average density of 8.7 +/- 5.4 kg m-3” (Methods 4.2.2) and gives no other fish data whatsoever — no feed identity, composition, frequency, weights, or mortality anywhere in the paper. Unusually sparse even among this vault’s other decoupled-system papers, since the fish here are treated purely as a water-nutrient source.
- Water (both trials): Water recycle (L/min), Water type, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, Aq pH (only a 6.2–6.3 target given, recorded under pHOptimal instead), Dissolved Oxygen (aeration ratio 0.05 v/v/min given, but no DO concentration), FUE AP/HYD, WUE (system-level; only leaf-level intrinsic photosynthetic WUEi is reported, a different quantity — see plant.csv/remarks), TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N (Table 10’s panel covers only NO3/PO4/SO4/K/Ca/Mg/Na/Cl).
- Plant (both trials): Plant Category (no categorising term used), SPAD (a different instrument/index — CCIa via MPM-100 transmittance meter, not a SPAD chlorophyll meter — is used instead and routed to plant.csv), Plant fresh weight (only per-part Leaf FW and Root FW given in g/plant, no whole-plant total anywhere), Average room Temperature (only mid-day gas-exchange measurement conditions given — 28°C, 33% RH — not a growing-season mean), Climate control, Artificial Lighting (Experiment 2 is stated to be a greenhouse trial but no setpoints or supplemental lighting are mentioned for it).
- Remineralization (both trials): term never used anywhere in the paper.
plant_measurements.csv scope: Extracted the full leaf/stem/root mineral panel (NO3, P, K, Ca, Mg, S — leaf only for S) from Tables 7–9, and the two leaf pigment/vegetation indices (FlvM, CCIa) from Table 6, split by trial (substrate) and system (AP/HYD) — 72 rows total. Leaf nitrate is duplicated between trials.csv’s dedicated Tissue nitrate AP/HYD columns and plant.csv’s mineral rows, per the convention established in pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012/levizouCircularTriTrophicSystem2025 (trials.csv gets the schema-defined summary column; plant.csv gets the full panel for panel-completeness). Gas-exchange and chlorophyll-fluorescence data (Table 5: A, WUEi, ΦPSII, Fv/Fm, NPQ) were not added to plant.csv — these are physiological rate/efficiency measurements, not tissue analytes, and do not fit any of the four plant.csv categories (biochemistry/mineral/microbiology/proximate), consistent with the exclusion made in mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023. They are summarized narratively above and preserved in trials.csv Experimental Remarks (NO COLUMN) instead.
No water panel excluded beyond what’s noted above — Table 10’s full PO4/SO4/K/Ca/Mg/Na/Cl water-nutrient panel (both systems) has no trials.csv column home and doesn’t fit plant_measurements.csv’s plant-analyte scope; preserved in each trial row’s Experimental Remarks (NO COLUMN) rather than discarded. Notably Na was ~4× higher and Cl ~8× higher in the aquaponic water than hydroponic — the numeric basis for the paper’s own salinity-stress/flavonoid hypothesis.
Tags judgment call: Tagged Meta/Fish/Tilapia (Nile tilapia, the sole aquaculture species, even though fish performance itself is essentially unreported) and Meta/Plant/Basil, reusing the vault’s existing generic Basil facet for this basil × African-basil hybrid (lemon basil, Ocimum × citriodorum), consistent with the vault’s precedent of reusing a parent-taxon facet for a named cultivar/hybrid (e.g. Romaine → Lettuce in pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012). Meta/Region/Europe per Italy.
New wikilink targets introduced: L. Signorini, P. Di Pierro (no existing author notes found; G.C. Modarelli, A.L. Langellotti, C. Cirillo, S. De Pascale, P. Masi all reused exactly as spelled in modarelliHydroponicAquaponicFloating2023). New species link Lemon basil (Ocimum × citriodorum), following the vault’s [[Common name (Genus species)]] pattern; reused existing Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) exactly as spelled elsewhere in the vault.
PDF quality: Clean text layer throughout (16 pages, standard MDPI two-column typesetting), fully extractable via pypdf, no OCR issues, no scanned/garbled pages.
Source: Signorini et al. - 2025 - Effects of Seedling Substrate and Hydroponic Versus Aquaponic Nutrient Solution on Growth, Nutrient.pdf
Data Tables
Structured data extracted from this paper into the vault's
trials.csv/plant_measurements.csvdatasets. Fields the paper didn't report are omitted. Download the full datasets (measurements).
Trial Parameters
signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) |
| Initial Stock density | 8.7 +/- 5.4 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water volume in the system | 2800 (per fish tank, x4 tanks; additional 800 L mechanical/biological filtration unit + 400 L trickling filter; RAS total not stated as one figure, Methods 4.2.2) |
| pHOptimal | 6.2-6.3 (target range, adjusted biweekly with HNO3/KOH, both AP and HYD, Methods 4.2.3) |
| EC | ~1.6 (dS/m; target, both AP and HYD, Methods 4.2.3; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY from 1600 uS/cm, see remarks) |
| Water temperature | 23 (no SD reported; constant/controlled setpoint, both AP and HYD, Methods 4.2.3) |
| NO3-N | 469.93 (mg/L; Table 10 labels this ‘NO3’, not explicitly ‘NO3-N’ — WARN-CHECK, see remarks) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Lemon basil (Ocimum x citriodorum) |
| Details | Twenty-day-old seedlings from Experiment 1 (grown on F70:P30) transplanted into decoupled floating raft units at 20 plants/m2; 38-day cultivation (6 Dec 2022-13 Jan 2023), single destructive harvest at 38 days after transplant (Methods 4.2.1, 4.2.4) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 38 |
| Plants/m2 | 20 |
| SPAD (aquaponics) | NR (paper uses a different instrument/index — CCIa via MPM-100 Multi Pigment Meter, not a SPAD meter; see plant.csv) |
| Plant height | 34.36 +/- 2.57 (Stem Length used as height, see WARN-MINOR in remarks; HYD-F = 30.80 +/- 2.08) |
| Leaf count | 127.55 +/- 7.29 (HYD-F = 125.44 +/- 12.10) |
| Plant fresh weight | NR (only per-part Leaf FW/Root FW given, no whole-plant total; see NO COLUMN in remarks) |
| Plant dry matter | 9.49 +/- 0.22 a (leaf DM%, not whole-plant; HYD-F = 8.51 +/- 0.31 b; CS p=0.03, CS x S p=0.03) |
| Tissue nitrate AP | 2451.67 +/- 631.40 |
| Tissue nitrate HYD | 3402.00 +/- 1480.88 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Floating raft system, decoupled aquaponics (Methods 4.2.1-4.2.2) |
| Media Details | F = 70% coconut fiber + 30% perlite (F70:P30); floating raft units 2 m2 each |
| Biological system already in use | Y (RAS with 800 L mechanical + biological filtration unit (Superbead, Air-aqua), 400 L trickling filter (Scubla srl), 40 W UV sterilizer (Air-aqua); aquaponic loop decoupled from hydroponic loop (Methods 4.2.2)) |
| Air supplement | Y (Air supplied at 0.05 v/v/min (aeration ratio, Methods 4.2.2); no DO concentration reported) |
| pH Buffers | Y (pH adjusted to target 6.2-6.3 using nitric acid (HNO3) and potassium hydroxide (KOH), both AP and HYD, monitored daily, solutions analyzed biweekly (Methods 4.2.3)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (HYD: half-strength Hoagland nutrient solution, full salt recipe given (Methods 4.2.3): KNO3 0.75 g/L, CaCl2 0.28 g/L, MgSO4·7H2O 0.25 g/L, H3PO4 0.04 g/L, FeSO4·7H2O 0.02 g/L, Fe-EDTA 0.04 g/L, H3BO3 0.0014 g/L, MnCl2·4H2O 0.0011 g/L, ZnSO4·7H2O 0.0001 g/L, CuSO4·5H2O 0.00004 g/L, H2MoO4·H2O 0.0001 g/L. AP: decoupled RAS (fish-tank) water; paper does not explicitly state whether any fertilizer was added to the AP loop or whether it is unamended fish water only — measured resulting nutrient concentrations given in Table 10 (Methods 4.2.3-4.2.4). Both systems’ EC held to the same ~1600 µS/cm target and pH to the same 6.2-6.3 target, but the mechanism by which AP EC was ‘maintained’ (if not fertilized) is not explained.) |
| Equipment | MPM-100 Multi Pigment Meter (ADC BioScientific Ltd.) for anthocyanin/flavonoid/chlorophyll indices; Infrared Gas Analyser LCi T (ADC Bioscientific Ltd.) for leaf gas exchange; Plant Stress Kit with Fv/Fm meter and ΦPSII meter (Opti-Sciences Inc.) for chlorophyll a fluorescence; ImageJ v1.50i (NIH) for plant height/leaf number/leaf area/root length image analysis; ion chromatography system ICS-3000 (Dionex) with IonPac CS12A (cations) and IonPac AS11-HC (anions) columns for mineral analysis; Thermo Scientific Expert Testers for daily pH/EC monitoring; Superbead mechanical+biological filter (Air-aqua), Scubla srl trickling filter, Air-aqua 40W UV sterilizer; SPSS v27 (IBM); ClustVis online heatmap tool |
| Control Parameters | Water temperature 23°C (constant, both AP and HYD, Methods 4.2.3); EC ≈ 1600 µS/cm target (both systems); pH target 6.2–6.3, adjusted biweekly with HNO3/KOH (both systems); aeration 0.05 v/v/min (fish tanks); planting density 20 plants/m2; gas-exchange/fluorescence measured at noon under ambient CO2 (513±25 ppm), 28°C, 33% RH, PPFD 486 µmol m-2 s-1 (Methods 4.2.6) |
| Combination | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and lemon basil (Ocimum x citriodorum); decoupled aquaponic vs hydroponic comparison, 2x2 factorial with substrate; this row = A-F vs H-F (F70:P30 coconut fiber/perlite substrate) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Europe |
| Country | Italy |
| Lat | 40.8161 |
| Long | 14.3504 |
| Average room Temperature | NR (only mid-day gas-exchange measurement conditions given — 28C, 33% RH — not a growing-season mean; see NOT DERIVED) |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g/plant (leaf/root FW, DW); % (leaf DM); cm/plant (stem length, root length); cm2/plant (leaf area); mg/kg fw (tissue nitrate); g/plant DW (leaf/stem/root P, K, Ca, Mg, S); mg/L (water nutrient panel) |
| Statistic Details | Two-way ANOVA (Cultivation System x Substrate); Tukey’s HSD post hoc; SPSS v27; cluster heatmap via ClustVis (Euclidean distance, complete linkage, log(x+1) transform); Methods states significance level p<0.005 for Experiment 2 but all table footnotes use p<0.05/0.01/0.001 — WARN-MATERIAL, see remarks; p<0.05 used as the operative threshold throughout this note |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 9 (reported as ‘3 plants x 3 replicates’, Methods 4.2.8; table footnotes state n=9; true independent-system replicate count not distinguishable from plant-level sub-sampling, see remarks) |
| AP | 40.56 +/- 4.36 |
| HYD | 53.67 +/- 8.06 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 = decoupled aquaponic (A) treatment on 70% coconut fiber + 30% perlite (F70:P30) substrate vs paired decoupled hydroponic (H) control on the SAME substrate (70% coconut fiber + 30% perlite (F70:P30)), from Experiment 2’s 2x2 factorial (cultivation system x substrate). Unlike papers elsewhere in this vault that share one hydroponic control across multiple aquaponic rows, this paper’s two aquaponic arms (A-F, A-RW) each have their OWN substrate-matched hydroponic control (H-F, H-RW) — HYD values are NOT shared between signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 and -T2. F = 70% coconut fiber + 30% perlite (F70:P30), the best-performing substrate mix identified in this paper’s own Experiment 1 germination screen (Section 2.1, Table 1-2); RW = 100% rock wool (control substrate in both experiments). Both substrates were seeded and grown to 20-day-old seedlings under IDENTICAL conditions in Experiment 1 (controlled growth chamber, half-strength Hoagland solution) before being transplanted into the A/H floating raft units for Experiment 2 (Methods 4.1, 4.2.1). | EXPERIMENT 1 (seed germination/seedling growth, Section 2.1, Methods 4.1) IS NOT GIVEN ITS OWN trials.csv ROW: it compares four SUBSTRATES (F50:P50, F70:P30, F90:P10, 100% RW) against each other under a single shared half-strength Hoagland nutrient solution in a controlled growth chamber — there is no aquaponic arm and no hydroponic-vs-aquaponic comparison at all in Experiment 1, so it does not fit trials.csv’s ‘one row per aquaponic treatment’ schema (not even as an NA-block hydroponic-only study, since the nutrient solution is not itself a tested factor). Its results (F70:P30 significantly improved germination % over F50:P50/F90:P10 by 26.1/20.8 points and matched RW’s germination; F70:P30 seedlings had significantly higher leaf number, plant height and leaf area than RW, though RW had significantly higher shoot/root dry matter %) are summarized narratively in the note’s ‘Substrate selection’ section but not extracted to any CSV. Experiment 1 is the basis for choosing F70:P30 as the ‘F’ substrate carried into Experiment 2. | WARN-CHECK NO3 vs NO3-N basis, water nutrient panel, Table 10 (p.13), applies identically to both T1 and T2 (Table 10 is not substrate-specific, only system-specific H vs A). Table 10 header reads ‘Nutrient concentration (mg L-1) in hydroponic (H) and aquaponic (A) systems’ with a column literally labelled ‘NO3’ (H = 390.28 mg/L, A = 469.93 mg/L) — the paper never states whether this is nitrate ion (NO3-) mass or nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) mass, a ~4.43x difference (schema’s own listed CHECK example). No other passage in the paper restates or clarifies this figure. Recorded as printed in Table 10 (basis: literal column label ‘NO3’, the only textual anchor available) in the NO3-N cell for the AP side (469.93); the paired HYD-side value (390.28) has no dedicated column and is recorded here for reference. Both candidate readings (as-is NO3, or /4.43 for NO3-N) are left for the user to choose. Added to REVIEW.md by the batch merge step. | WARN-MATERIAL significance threshold, Experiment 2 statistics, Section 4.2.8 (p.14) vs every Experiment-2 table footnote (Tables 3-9, p.5-8). Methods 4.2.8 states for Experiment 2: ‘Means were compared by Tukey’s HSD post hoc test at a significance level of p < 0.005.’ Every one of Tables 3-9’s own footnotes instead states the standard ‘Significance levels: ns = not significant; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001’ — the same footnote used verbatim in Experiment 1’s tables (1-2), which are governed by the separately and correctly stated p < 0.05 in Methods 4.2.8’s Experiment-1 paragraph. Given seven consecutive tables consistently apply the p<0.05/0.01/0.001 asterisk scheme (e.g. Table 4 Leaf DM ‘CS 0.03 *’, Table 4 Root Length ‘CS 0.04 *’, Table 6 FlvM ‘CS 0.00 ***’, Table 8 Ca ‘CS 0.038 *’ and Mg ‘CS 0.009 **’), ‘0.005’ in the Experiment-2 Methods sentence is judged a drafting typo for ‘0.05’ (likely a stray digit/decimal-point error, possibly copied from Experiment 1’s correctly-stated 0.05 but with an extra zero). p<0.05 is used as the operative significance threshold throughout this note and trials.csv/plant.csv Significance fields. This materially affects interpretation: under the literal p<0.005 statement, several results reported as significant here (e.g. Leaf DM CS p=0.03, CS×S p=0.03; Root Length CS p=0.04; stem Ca p=0.038) would instead be non-significant. Affects: every CS/S/CS×S significance call for Experiment 2 in this note, trials.csv, and plant.csv. | WARN-MINOR tissue nitrate unit, Table 7 caption vs Table 7 column header (p.7). Caption text states nitrate is expressed ‘in g kg-1 fresh weight (f.w.)’; the table’s own column-header row instead prints ‘mg kg-1 f.w.’ for the same NO3 column. A value of ~2.5-5.5 g/kg fw (0.25-0.55% of fresh weight as nitrate ion) would be implausibly high for basil leaf tissue and inconsistent with comparable values elsewhere in this vault (e.g. pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012’s lettuce nitrate of 143-1591 mg/kg fw); mg/kg fw is used here as the correct basis (matching the table’s own header and the schema’s mg/kg fw convention). No cell value is affected, only the unit label. | WARN-MINOR plant-height terminology, Methods 4.2.4 vs Table 4 (p.6, p.7). Methods 4.2.4 states ‘plant height, leaf number, total leaf area, and root length were measured’ (collar base to vegetative apex, per the identical definition given for Experiment 1 in Methods 4.1.5), but no results table for Experiment 2 reports a parameter called ‘plant height’ — Table 4 instead reports ‘Stem Length’. No numeric conflict exists (only one height-like figure is given at all); this is judged to be the same measurement under an inconsistent label between Methods and Results, and Stem Length is recorded in the Plant height cell on that basis. Flagged for auditability since the paper itself never equates the two terms. | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: EC 1600 uS/cm -> 1.6 dS/m (Methods 4.2.3); coordinates 40 deg 48’ 57.9” N, 14 deg 21’ 01.6” E (p.11) -> both valid DMS (minutes/seconds < 60) -> decimal 40.8161 N, 14.3504 E, consistent with the stated site (Portici, Naples, Italy). | NOT DERIVED, left NR: FCR, SGR, feed N/P/K composition, feed protein %, % of body weight (daily ration), Fish size initial/final, Feed routine, Feed regime (product identity), Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (days) — the paper states only that ‘Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) was stocked at an average density of 8.7 +/- 5.4 kg m-3’ (Methods 4.2.2) and nothing else about the fish: no feed product, composition, ration, frequency, individual/tank weights, mortality, or duration of fish rearing is given anywhere in the paper — unusually sparse even for a decoupled-system paper in this vault, since the fish are treated purely as a water-nutrient source. Water recycle (L/min), Water type, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, Aq pH (only a target range is given, see pHOptimal), Dissolved Oxygen (aeration ratio given, 0.05 v/v/min, but no DO concentration), FUE AP/HYD (no fertilizer-use-efficiency metric computed or stated), WUE (only leaf-level intrinsic photosynthetic WUEi is reported, a different quantity from a system-level water-use metric — see NO COLUMN below), TAN/NH4-N and NO2-N (Table 10’s water panel covers only NO3/PO4/SO4/K/Ca/Mg/Na/Cl, no ammonia or nitrite), Plant Category (no categorising term used), SPAD (a different instrument/index — MPM-100 CCIa transmittance index, not a SPAD chlorophyll meter — is used; CCIa routed to plant.csv instead, not force-fit into the SPAD column), Plant fresh weight (only per-part Leaf FW and Root FW given in g/plant, Table 3; no single whole-plant fresh-weight total is stated anywhere, so recording one here would be derivation — both per-part figures are given below under NO COLUMN), Average room Temperature (only the ambient conditions logged during the midday gas-exchange measurement session are given — 28C, 33% RH — not a growing-season mean room temperature, Methods 4.2.6), Climate control / Artificial Lighting (Experiment 2 is stated to be a greenhouse trial but no heating/cooling/ventilation setpoints or supplemental crop lighting are mentioned for it; the full-spectrum fluorescent lamps described in Methods 4.1.4 supplied Experiment 1’s growth CHAMBER only, not the Experiment 2 greenhouse), Remineralization (term never used in this paper), Fish trial duration (days) (the RAS/fish population’s own establishment date and rearing duration are never stated — only the 38-day plant/system trial period, recorded under Days Plant after transplant). | NO COLUMN: Full Table 10 water-nutrient panel beyond NO3 (both systems, mg/L) — PO4 (H 45.70, A 50.04), SO4 (H 80.43, A 60.04), K (H 95.77, A 40.65), Ca (H 113.64, A 107.46), Mg (H 35.98, A 31.77), Na (H 10.35, A 41.23 — notably ~4x higher in AP, consistent with the paper’s own osmotic/salinity-stress hypothesis for the flavonoid increase), Cl (H 7.63, A 59.08 — ~8x higher in AP). Leaf/stem/root mineral panels (P, K, Ca, Mg, S/leaf only; Tables 7-9) beyond nitrate — extracted in full to plant.csv (mineral category) instead, not duplicated here. Leaf FW/DW and Root FW/DW per-part biomass, g/plant (Table 3): this trial’s AP value = Leaf FW 40.56 +/- 4.36, Leaf DW 3.81 +/- 0.38, Root FW 26.33 +/- 2.79; paired HYD value = Leaf FW 53.67 +/- 8.06, Leaf DW 4.64 +/- 0.76, Root FW 31.11 +/- 3.66 — Plant fresh weight column left NR since these are per-part, not a whole-plant total (see NOT DERIVED). Root DW, g/plant (Table 4): AP 1.71 +/- 0.14, HYD 2.06 +/- 0.18. Total Leaf Area, cm2/plant (Table 3): AP 1098.02 +/- 78.09, HYD 1060.47 +/- 135.46. Root Length, cm/plant (Table 4): AP 13.704 +/- 2.16, HYD 17.42 +/- 1.68 — root length was significantly shorter under aquaponics (CS p=0.04) across substrates, discussed by the authors as a likely salinity/sodium-stress response (Discussion p.10-11). Leaf/stem/root gas-exchange and fluorescence dataset (Table 5, no dedicated schema column): A (net photosynthesis, umol CO2 m-2 s-1), WUEi (intrinsic water-use-efficiency, umol CO2 m-2 s-1 / mol H2O m-2 s-1), PhiPSII (actual PSII yield), Fv/Fm (max PSII photochemical efficiency), NPQ (non-photochemical quenching) — all five parameters were non-significant (ns) for CS, S, and CS x S in every case (Table 5); this trial’s AP/HYD means: A 9.27 +/- 0.89/8.24 +/- 0.48, WUEi 107.67 +/- 10.97/112.56 +/- 8.55, PhiPSII 0.62 +/- 0.04/0.49 +/- 0.06, Fv/Fm 0.84 +/- 0.00/0.83 +/- 0.01, NPQ 1.07 +/- 0.09/1.31 +/- 0.14. Anthocyanin index (AnthM) is described as measured in Methods 4.2.5 (formula given: AnthM = log(f660/f525)) but NO value is ever reported for it in Results, Table 6, or anywhere else in the paper — genuinely measured-but-unreported, distinct from [not reported]-as-absent; noted here rather than invented. Funding: Rago Group (agricultural company, Battipaglia, Salerno) under project ‘Innovation in Cultivation Techniques for Leafy Vegetables to Reduce Environmental Impact through the Reduction of Chemical Fertilizers’; also National Biodiversity Future Center-NBFC (EU NextGenerationEU, NRRP Mission 4 Component 2 Investment 1.4, Code CN_00000033, CUP E63C22000990007); Italian MUR PRIN project ‘VFARM-Sustainable Vertical Farming’ (2020ELWM82, CUP J33C20002350001). Experiment 1 substrate-screening results (Tables 1-2, all four substrates F50:P50/F70:P30/F90:P10/RW): germination %, shoot/root DM, plant height, root length, shoot FW/DW, leaf number, total leaf area — see the note’s ‘Substrate selection’ section; not extracted here per the EXPERIMENT-1-NOT-A-ROW note above.
signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) |
| Initial Stock density | 8.7 +/- 5.4 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water volume in the system | 2800 (per fish tank, x4 tanks; additional 800 L mechanical/biological filtration unit + 400 L trickling filter; RAS total not stated as one figure, Methods 4.2.2) |
| pHOptimal | 6.2-6.3 (target range, adjusted biweekly with HNO3/KOH, both AP and HYD, Methods 4.2.3) |
| EC | ~1.6 (dS/m; target, both AP and HYD, Methods 4.2.3; UNIT CONVERSION ONLY from 1600 uS/cm, see remarks) |
| Water temperature | 23 (no SD reported; constant/controlled setpoint, both AP and HYD, Methods 4.2.3) |
| NO3-N | 469.93 (mg/L; Table 10 labels this ‘NO3’, not explicitly ‘NO3-N’ — WARN-CHECK, see remarks) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Lemon basil (Ocimum x citriodorum) |
| Details | Twenty-day-old seedlings from Experiment 1 (grown on 100% rock wool) transplanted into decoupled floating raft units at 20 plants/m2; 38-day cultivation (6 Dec 2022-13 Jan 2023), single destructive harvest at 38 days after transplant (Methods 4.2.1, 4.2.4) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 38 |
| Plants/m2 | 20 |
| SPAD (aquaponics) | NR (paper uses a different instrument/index — CCIa via MPM-100 Multi Pigment Meter, not a SPAD meter; see plant.csv) |
| Plant height | 31.73 +/- 2.45 (Stem Length used as height, see WARN-MINOR in remarks; HYD-RW = 32.93 +/- 1.62) |
| Leaf count | 143.77 +/- 13.66 (HYD-RW = 121.77 +/- 6.59) |
| Plant fresh weight | NR (only per-part Leaf FW/Root FW given, no whole-plant total; see NO COLUMN in remarks) |
| Plant dry matter | 9.40 +/- 0.28 a (leaf DM%, not whole-plant; HYD-RW = 8.68 +/- 0.25 b; CS p=0.03, CS x S p=0.03) |
| Tissue nitrate AP | 5457.67 +/- 208.73 |
| Tissue nitrate HYD | 1643.33 +/- 815.76 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Floating raft system, decoupled aquaponics (Methods 4.2.1-4.2.2) |
| Media Details | RW = 100% rock wool (control substrate in both experiments); floating raft units 2 m2 each |
| Biological system already in use | Y (RAS with 800 L mechanical + biological filtration unit (Superbead, Air-aqua), 400 L trickling filter (Scubla srl), 40 W UV sterilizer (Air-aqua); aquaponic loop decoupled from hydroponic loop (Methods 4.2.2)) |
| Air supplement | Y (Air supplied at 0.05 v/v/min (aeration ratio, Methods 4.2.2); no DO concentration reported) |
| pH Buffers | Y (pH adjusted to target 6.2-6.3 using nitric acid (HNO3) and potassium hydroxide (KOH), both AP and HYD, monitored daily, solutions analyzed biweekly (Methods 4.2.3)) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (HYD: half-strength Hoagland nutrient solution, full salt recipe given (Methods 4.2.3): KNO3 0.75 g/L, CaCl2 0.28 g/L, MgSO4·7H2O 0.25 g/L, H3PO4 0.04 g/L, FeSO4·7H2O 0.02 g/L, Fe-EDTA 0.04 g/L, H3BO3 0.0014 g/L, MnCl2·4H2O 0.0011 g/L, ZnSO4·7H2O 0.0001 g/L, CuSO4·5H2O 0.00004 g/L, H2MoO4·H2O 0.0001 g/L. AP: decoupled RAS (fish-tank) water; paper does not explicitly state whether any fertilizer was added to the AP loop or whether it is unamended fish water only — measured resulting nutrient concentrations given in Table 10 (Methods 4.2.3-4.2.4). Both systems’ EC held to the same ~1600 µS/cm target and pH to the same 6.2-6.3 target, but the mechanism by which AP EC was ‘maintained’ (if not fertilized) is not explained.) |
| Equipment | MPM-100 Multi Pigment Meter (ADC BioScientific Ltd.) for anthocyanin/flavonoid/chlorophyll indices; Infrared Gas Analyser LCi T (ADC Bioscientific Ltd.) for leaf gas exchange; Plant Stress Kit with Fv/Fm meter and ΦPSII meter (Opti-Sciences Inc.) for chlorophyll a fluorescence; ImageJ v1.50i (NIH) for plant height/leaf number/leaf area/root length image analysis; ion chromatography system ICS-3000 (Dionex) with IonPac CS12A (cations) and IonPac AS11-HC (anions) columns for mineral analysis; Thermo Scientific Expert Testers for daily pH/EC monitoring; Superbead mechanical+biological filter (Air-aqua), Scubla srl trickling filter, Air-aqua 40W UV sterilizer; SPSS v27 (IBM); ClustVis online heatmap tool |
| Control Parameters | Water temperature 23°C (constant, both AP and HYD, Methods 4.2.3); EC ≈ 1600 µS/cm target (both systems); pH target 6.2–6.3, adjusted biweekly with HNO3/KOH (both systems); aeration 0.05 v/v/min (fish tanks); planting density 20 plants/m2; gas-exchange/fluorescence measured at noon under ambient CO2 (513±25 ppm), 28°C, 33% RH, PPFD 486 µmol m-2 s-1 (Methods 4.2.6) |
| Combination | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and lemon basil (Ocimum x citriodorum); decoupled aquaponic vs hydroponic comparison, 2x2 factorial with substrate; this row = A-RW vs H-RW (100% rock wool substrate) |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Europe |
| Country | Italy |
| Lat | 40.8161 |
| Long | 14.3504 |
| Average room Temperature | NR (only mid-day gas-exchange measurement conditions given — 28C, 33% RH — not a growing-season mean; see NOT DERIVED) |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | g/plant (leaf/root FW, DW); % (leaf DM); cm/plant (stem length, root length); cm2/plant (leaf area); mg/kg fw (tissue nitrate); g/plant DW (leaf/stem/root P, K, Ca, Mg, S); mg/L (water nutrient panel) |
| Statistic Details | Two-way ANOVA (Cultivation System x Substrate); Tukey’s HSD post hoc; SPSS v27; cluster heatmap via ClustVis (Euclidean distance, complete linkage, log(x+1) transform); Methods states significance level p<0.005 for Experiment 2 but all table footnotes use p<0.05/0.01/0.001 — WARN-MATERIAL, see remarks; p<0.05 used as the operative threshold throughout this note |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 9 (reported as ‘3 plants x 3 replicates’, Methods 4.2.8; table footnotes state n=9; true independent-system replicate count not distinguishable from plant-level sub-sampling, see remarks) |
| AP | 53.22 +/- 4.86 |
| HYD | 55.78 +/- 5.21 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 = decoupled aquaponic (A) treatment on 100% rock wool (RW) substrate vs paired decoupled hydroponic (H) control on the SAME substrate (100% rock wool (RW)), from Experiment 2’s 2x2 factorial (cultivation system x substrate). Unlike papers elsewhere in this vault that share one hydroponic control across multiple aquaponic rows, this paper’s two aquaponic arms (A-F, A-RW) each have their OWN substrate-matched hydroponic control (H-F, H-RW) — HYD values are NOT shared between signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 and -T2. F = 70% coconut fiber + 30% perlite (F70:P30), the best-performing substrate mix identified in this paper’s own Experiment 1 germination screen (Section 2.1, Table 1-2); RW = 100% rock wool (control substrate in both experiments). Both substrates were seeded and grown to 20-day-old seedlings under IDENTICAL conditions in Experiment 1 (controlled growth chamber, half-strength Hoagland solution) before being transplanted into the A/H floating raft units for Experiment 2 (Methods 4.1, 4.2.1). | EXPERIMENT 1 (seed germination/seedling growth, Section 2.1, Methods 4.1) IS NOT GIVEN ITS OWN trials.csv ROW: it compares four SUBSTRATES (F50:P50, F70:P30, F90:P10, 100% RW) against each other under a single shared half-strength Hoagland nutrient solution in a controlled growth chamber — there is no aquaponic arm and no hydroponic-vs-aquaponic comparison at all in Experiment 1, so it does not fit trials.csv’s ‘one row per aquaponic treatment’ schema (not even as an NA-block hydroponic-only study, since the nutrient solution is not itself a tested factor). Its results (F70:P30 significantly improved germination % over F50:P50/F90:P10 by 26.1/20.8 points and matched RW’s germination; F70:P30 seedlings had significantly higher leaf number, plant height and leaf area than RW, though RW had significantly higher shoot/root dry matter %) are summarized narratively in the note’s ‘Substrate selection’ section but not extracted to any CSV. Experiment 1 is the basis for choosing F70:P30 as the ‘F’ substrate carried into Experiment 2. | WARN-CHECK NO3 vs NO3-N basis, water nutrient panel, Table 10 (p.13), applies identically to both T1 and T2 (Table 10 is not substrate-specific, only system-specific H vs A). Table 10 header reads ‘Nutrient concentration (mg L-1) in hydroponic (H) and aquaponic (A) systems’ with a column literally labelled ‘NO3’ (H = 390.28 mg/L, A = 469.93 mg/L) — the paper never states whether this is nitrate ion (NO3-) mass or nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) mass, a ~4.43x difference (schema’s own listed CHECK example). No other passage in the paper restates or clarifies this figure. Recorded as printed in Table 10 (basis: literal column label ‘NO3’, the only textual anchor available) in the NO3-N cell for the AP side (469.93); the paired HYD-side value (390.28) has no dedicated column and is recorded here for reference. Both candidate readings (as-is NO3, or /4.43 for NO3-N) are left for the user to choose. Added to REVIEW.md by the batch merge step. | WARN-MATERIAL significance threshold, Experiment 2 statistics, Section 4.2.8 (p.14) vs every Experiment-2 table footnote (Tables 3-9, p.5-8). Methods 4.2.8 states for Experiment 2: ‘Means were compared by Tukey’s HSD post hoc test at a significance level of p < 0.005.’ Every one of Tables 3-9’s own footnotes instead states the standard ‘Significance levels: ns = not significant; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001’ — the same footnote used verbatim in Experiment 1’s tables (1-2), which are governed by the separately and correctly stated p < 0.05 in Methods 4.2.8’s Experiment-1 paragraph. Given seven consecutive tables consistently apply the p<0.05/0.01/0.001 asterisk scheme (e.g. Table 4 Leaf DM ‘CS 0.03 *’, Table 4 Root Length ‘CS 0.04 *’, Table 6 FlvM ‘CS 0.00 ***’, Table 8 Ca ‘CS 0.038 *’ and Mg ‘CS 0.009 **’), ‘0.005’ in the Experiment-2 Methods sentence is judged a drafting typo for ‘0.05’ (likely a stray digit/decimal-point error, possibly copied from Experiment 1’s correctly-stated 0.05 but with an extra zero). p<0.05 is used as the operative significance threshold throughout this note and trials.csv/plant.csv Significance fields. This materially affects interpretation: under the literal p<0.005 statement, several results reported as significant here (e.g. Leaf DM CS p=0.03, CS×S p=0.03; Root Length CS p=0.04; stem Ca p=0.038) would instead be non-significant. Affects: every CS/S/CS×S significance call for Experiment 2 in this note, trials.csv, and plant.csv. | WARN-MINOR tissue nitrate unit, Table 7 caption vs Table 7 column header (p.7). Caption text states nitrate is expressed ‘in g kg-1 fresh weight (f.w.)’; the table’s own column-header row instead prints ‘mg kg-1 f.w.’ for the same NO3 column. A value of ~2.5-5.5 g/kg fw (0.25-0.55% of fresh weight as nitrate ion) would be implausibly high for basil leaf tissue and inconsistent with comparable values elsewhere in this vault (e.g. pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012’s lettuce nitrate of 143-1591 mg/kg fw); mg/kg fw is used here as the correct basis (matching the table’s own header and the schema’s mg/kg fw convention). No cell value is affected, only the unit label. | WARN-MINOR plant-height terminology, Methods 4.2.4 vs Table 4 (p.6, p.7). Methods 4.2.4 states ‘plant height, leaf number, total leaf area, and root length were measured’ (collar base to vegetative apex, per the identical definition given for Experiment 1 in Methods 4.1.5), but no results table for Experiment 2 reports a parameter called ‘plant height’ — Table 4 instead reports ‘Stem Length’. No numeric conflict exists (only one height-like figure is given at all); this is judged to be the same measurement under an inconsistent label between Methods and Results, and Stem Length is recorded in the Plant height cell on that basis. Flagged for auditability since the paper itself never equates the two terms. | WARN-MINOR CCIa SD, Table 6 (p.7), H-RW cell: printed as ‘24.6 +/- 200’, where an SD of 200 against a mean of 24.6 is implausible (all seven other Table 6 SDs are 0.03-2.23, and the index itself is typically single-digit to low-double-digit). Almost certainly a typo for ‘24.6 +/- 2.00’ (missing decimal point). Recorded literally as printed (SD=200) in plant.csv with this note attached; not silently corrected. No trials.csv cell affected (CCIa has no dedicated trials.csv column). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: EC 1600 uS/cm -> 1.6 dS/m (Methods 4.2.3); coordinates 40 deg 48’ 57.9” N, 14 deg 21’ 01.6” E (p.11) -> both valid DMS (minutes/seconds < 60) -> decimal 40.8161 N, 14.3504 E, consistent with the stated site (Portici, Naples, Italy). | NOT DERIVED, left NR: FCR, SGR, feed N/P/K composition, feed protein %, % of body weight (daily ration), Fish size initial/final, Feed routine, Feed regime (product identity), Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (days) — the paper states only that ‘Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) was stocked at an average density of 8.7 +/- 5.4 kg m-3’ (Methods 4.2.2) and nothing else about the fish: no feed product, composition, ration, frequency, individual/tank weights, mortality, or duration of fish rearing is given anywhere in the paper — unusually sparse even for a decoupled-system paper in this vault, since the fish are treated purely as a water-nutrient source. Water recycle (L/min), Water type, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, Aq pH (only a target range is given, see pHOptimal), Dissolved Oxygen (aeration ratio given, 0.05 v/v/min, but no DO concentration), FUE AP/HYD (no fertilizer-use-efficiency metric computed or stated), WUE (only leaf-level intrinsic photosynthetic WUEi is reported, a different quantity from a system-level water-use metric — see NO COLUMN below), TAN/NH4-N and NO2-N (Table 10’s water panel covers only NO3/PO4/SO4/K/Ca/Mg/Na/Cl, no ammonia or nitrite), Plant Category (no categorising term used), SPAD (a different instrument/index — MPM-100 CCIa transmittance index, not a SPAD chlorophyll meter — is used; CCIa routed to plant.csv instead, not force-fit into the SPAD column), Plant fresh weight (only per-part Leaf FW and Root FW given in g/plant, Table 3; no single whole-plant fresh-weight total is stated anywhere, so recording one here would be derivation — both per-part figures are given below under NO COLUMN), Average room Temperature (only the ambient conditions logged during the midday gas-exchange measurement session are given — 28C, 33% RH — not a growing-season mean room temperature, Methods 4.2.6), Climate control / Artificial Lighting (Experiment 2 is stated to be a greenhouse trial but no heating/cooling/ventilation setpoints or supplemental crop lighting are mentioned for it; the full-spectrum fluorescent lamps described in Methods 4.1.4 supplied Experiment 1’s growth CHAMBER only, not the Experiment 2 greenhouse), Remineralization (term never used in this paper), Fish trial duration (days) (the RAS/fish population’s own establishment date and rearing duration are never stated — only the 38-day plant/system trial period, recorded under Days Plant after transplant). | NO COLUMN: Full Table 10 water-nutrient panel beyond NO3 (both systems, mg/L) — PO4 (H 45.70, A 50.04), SO4 (H 80.43, A 60.04), K (H 95.77, A 40.65), Ca (H 113.64, A 107.46), Mg (H 35.98, A 31.77), Na (H 10.35, A 41.23 — notably ~4x higher in AP, consistent with the paper’s own osmotic/salinity-stress hypothesis for the flavonoid increase), Cl (H 7.63, A 59.08 — ~8x higher in AP). Leaf/stem/root mineral panels (P, K, Ca, Mg, S/leaf only; Tables 7-9) beyond nitrate — extracted in full to plant.csv (mineral category) instead, not duplicated here. Leaf FW/DW and Root FW/DW per-part biomass, g/plant (Table 3): this trial’s AP value = Leaf FW 53.22 +/- 4.86, Leaf DW 5.02 +/- 0.49, Root FW 33.56 +/- 2.94; paired HYD value = Leaf FW 55.78 +/- 5.21, Leaf DW 4.85 +/- 0.48, Root FW 34.67 +/- 3.57 — Plant fresh weight column left NR since these are per-part, not a whole-plant total (see NOT DERIVED). Root DW, g/plant (Table 4): AP 2.31 +/- 0.18, HYD 2.32 +/- 0.19. Total Leaf Area, cm2/plant (Table 3): AP 1307.38 +/- 103.30, HYD 1147.14 +/- 92.41. Root Length, cm/plant (Table 4): AP 15.46 +/- 0.88, HYD 18.57 +/- 1.33 — root length was significantly shorter under aquaponics (CS p=0.04) across substrates, discussed by the authors as a likely salinity/sodium-stress response (Discussion p.10-11). Leaf/stem/root gas-exchange and fluorescence dataset (Table 5, no dedicated schema column): A (net photosynthesis, umol CO2 m-2 s-1), WUEi (intrinsic water-use-efficiency, umol CO2 m-2 s-1 / mol H2O m-2 s-1), PhiPSII (actual PSII yield), Fv/Fm (max PSII photochemical efficiency), NPQ (non-photochemical quenching) — all five parameters were non-significant (ns) for CS, S, and CS x S in every case (Table 5); this trial’s AP/HYD means: A 8.67 +/- 0.86/8.78 +/- 1.02, WUEi 127.53 +/- 14.44/97.56 +/- 12.05, PhiPSII 0.49 +/- 0.07/0.57 +/- 0.05, Fv/Fm 0.83 +/- 0.01/0.83 +/- 0.01, NPQ 1.48 +/- 0.21/1.36 +/- 0.12. Anthocyanin index (AnthM) is described as measured in Methods 4.2.5 (formula given: AnthM = log(f660/f525)) but NO value is ever reported for it in Results, Table 6, or anywhere else in the paper — genuinely measured-but-unreported, distinct from [not reported]-as-absent; noted here rather than invented. Funding: Rago Group (agricultural company, Battipaglia, Salerno) under project ‘Innovation in Cultivation Techniques for Leafy Vegetables to Reduce Environmental Impact through the Reduction of Chemical Fertilizers’; also National Biodiversity Future Center-NBFC (EU NextGenerationEU, NRRP Mission 4 Component 2 Investment 1.4, Code CN_00000033, CUP E63C22000990007); Italian MUR PRIN project ‘VFARM-Sustainable Vertical Farming’ (2020ELWM82, CUP J33C20002350001). Experiment 1 substrate-screening results (Tables 1-2, all four substrates F50:P50/F70:P30/F90:P10/RW): germination %, shoot/root DM, plant height, root length, shoot FW/DW, leaf number, total leaf area — see the note’s ‘Substrate selection’ section; not extracted here per the EXPERIMENT-1-NOT-A-ROW note above.
Plant Measurements
| Trial | System | Category | Analyte | Value | Unit | Sig. | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Flavonoid index (FlvM) | 0.92 ± 0.08 | index (log f660/f375) | CS p<0.001 ***; S ns; CSxS ns | Table 6, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | HYD | biochemistry | Flavonoid index (FlvM) | 0.66 ± 0.09 | index (log f660/f375) | CS p<0.001 ***; S ns; CSxS ns | Table 6, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Flavonoid index (FlvM) | 0.93 ± 0.03 | index (log f660/f375) | CS p<0.001 ***; S ns; CSxS ns | Table 6, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | HYD | biochemistry | Flavonoid index (FlvM) | 0.56 ± 0.03 | index (log f660/f375) | CS p<0.001 ***; S ns; CSxS ns | Table 6, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Chlorophyll content index (CCIa) | 21.54 ± 1.33 | index | CS ns (p=0.27); S ns; CSxS ns | Table 6, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | HYD | biochemistry | Chlorophyll content index (CCIa) | 22.89 ± 2.00 | index | CS ns (p=0.27); S ns; CSxS ns | Table 6, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Chlorophyll content index (CCIa) | 21.64 ± 2.23 | index | CS ns (p=0.27); S ns; CSxS ns | Table 6, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | HYD | biochemistry | Chlorophyll content index (CCIa) | 24.6 ± 200 | index | CS ns (p=0.27); S ns; CSxS ns | Table 6, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | AP | mineral | Nitrate (NO3-) | 2451.67 ± 631.40 | mg/kg fw | CS ns (p=0.154); S ns (p=0.512); CSxS ns (p=0.08) | Table 7, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | AP | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | 17.67 ± 1.67 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.646); S ns (p=0.765); CSxS ns (p=0.877) | Table 7, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | AP | mineral | Potassium (K) | 153.67 ± 13.22 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.115); S ns (p=0.484); CSxS ns (p=0.356) | Table 7, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | AP | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | 63.67 ± 3.84 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.228); S ns (p=0.128); CSxS ns (p=0.245) | Table 7, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | AP | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | 18.67 ± 1.45 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.206); S ns (p=0.135); CSxS ns (p=0.201) | Table 7, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | AP | mineral | Sulfur (S) | 7.33 ± 1.20 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.472); S ns (p=0.380); CSxS ns (p=0.648) | Table 7, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | HYD | mineral | Nitrate (NO3-) | 3402.00 ± 1480.88 | mg/kg fw | CS ns (p=0.154); S ns (p=0.512); CSxS ns (p=0.08) | Table 7, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | HYD | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | 18.33 ± 9.24 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.646); S ns (p=0.765); CSxS ns (p=0.877) | Table 7, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | HYD | mineral | Potassium (K) | 211.00 ± 48.40 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.115); S ns (p=0.484); CSxS ns (p=0.356) | Table 7, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | HYD | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | 59.00 ± 12.74 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.228); S ns (p=0.128); CSxS ns (p=0.245) | Table 7, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | HYD | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | 18.00 ± 4.04 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.206); S ns (p=0.135); CSxS ns (p=0.201) | Table 7, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | HYD | mineral | Sulfur (S) | 17.33 ± 5.04 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.472); S ns (p=0.380); CSxS ns (p=0.648) | Table 7, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | AP | mineral | Nitrate (NO3-) | 5457.67 ± 208.73 | mg/kg fw | CS ns (p=0.154); S ns (p=0.512); CSxS ns (p=0.08) | Table 7, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | AP | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | 23.00 ± 2.00 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.646); S ns (p=0.765); CSxS ns (p=0.877) | Table 7, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | AP | mineral | Potassium (K) | 181.67 ± 24.18 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.115); S ns (p=0.484); CSxS ns (p=0.356) | Table 7, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | AP | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | 82.00 ± 7.00 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.228); S ns (p=0.128); CSxS ns (p=0.245) | Table 7, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | AP | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | 25.00 ± 1.53 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.206); S ns (p=0.135); CSxS ns (p=0.201) | Table 7, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | AP | mineral | Sulfur (S) | 18.67 ± 1.76 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.472); S ns (p=0.380); CSxS ns (p=0.648) | Table 7, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | HYD | mineral | Nitrate (NO3-) | 1643.33 ± 815.76 | mg/kg fw | CS ns (p=0.154); S ns (p=0.512); CSxS ns (p=0.08) | Table 7, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | HYD | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | 16.67 ± 6.98 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.646); S ns (p=0.765); CSxS ns (p=0.877) | Table 7, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | HYD | mineral | Potassium (K) | 224.67 ± 10.81 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.115); S ns (p=0.484); CSxS ns (p=0.356) | Table 7, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | HYD | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | 66.67 ± 2.85 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.228); S ns (p=0.128); CSxS ns (p=0.245) | Table 7, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | HYD | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | 19.33 ± 0.67 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.206); S ns (p=0.135); CSxS ns (p=0.201) | Table 7, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | HYD | mineral | Sulfur (S) | 20.33 ± 14.44 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.472); S ns (p=0.380); CSxS ns (p=0.648) | Table 7, p.7 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | AP | mineral | Nitrate (NO3-) | 2485.00 ± 694.26 | mg/kg fw | CS ns (p=0.472); S ns (p=0.645); CSxS ns (p=0.44) | Table 8, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | AP | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | 2.00 ± 0.00 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.580); S ns (p=0.580); CSxS ns (p=0.802) | Table 8, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | AP | mineral | Potassium (K) | 94.00 ± 3.06 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.289); S ns (p=0.788); CSxS ns (p=0.609) | Table 8, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | AP | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | 7.00 ± 0.00 | g/plant DW | CS p=0.038 *; S ns (p=0.320); CSxS ns (p=0.109) | Table 8, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | AP | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | 4.00 ± 0.00 | g/plant DW | CS p=0.009 **; S ns (p=0.282); CSxS p=0.032 * (highest stem Mg in A-F, Table 8 letter grouping ‘a’) | Table 8, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | HYD | mineral | Nitrate (NO3-) | 3712.00 ± 452.27 | mg/kg fw | CS ns (p=0.472); S ns (p=0.645); CSxS ns (p=0.44) | Table 8, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | HYD | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | 1.67 ± 0.33 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.580); S ns (p=0.580); CSxS ns (p=0.802) | Table 8, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | HYD | mineral | Potassium (K) | 91.00 ± 12.12 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.289); S ns (p=0.788); CSxS ns (p=0.609) | Table 8, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | HYD | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | 5.33 ± 0.67 | g/plant DW | CS p=0.038 *; S ns (p=0.320); CSxS ns (p=0.109) | Table 8, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | HYD | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | 2.67 ± 0.33 | g/plant DW | CS p=0.009 **; S ns (p=0.282); CSxS p=0.032 * (highest stem Mg in A-F, Table 8 letter grouping ‘a’) | Table 8, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | AP | mineral | Nitrate (NO3-) | 5783.00 ± 3230.14 | mg/kg fw | CS ns (p=0.472); S ns (p=0.645); CSxS ns (p=0.44) | Table 8, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | AP | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | 1.67 ± 0.33 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.580); S ns (p=0.580); CSxS ns (p=0.802) | Table 8, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | AP | mineral | Potassium (K) | 102.00 ± 8.72 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.289); S ns (p=0.788); CSxS ns (p=0.609) | Table 8, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | AP | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | 6.00 ± 0.58 | g/plant DW | CS p=0.038 *; S ns (p=0.320); CSxS ns (p=0.109) | Table 8, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | AP | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | 3.33 ± 0.33 | g/plant DW | CS p=0.009 **; S ns (p=0.282); CSxS p=0.032 * (highest stem Mg in A-F, Table 8 letter grouping ‘a’) | Table 8, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | HYD | mineral | Nitrate (NO3-) | 2020.67 ± 397.76 | mg/kg fw | CS ns (p=0.472); S ns (p=0.645); CSxS ns (p=0.44) | Table 8, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | HYD | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | 1.67 ± 0.33 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.580); S ns (p=0.580); CSxS ns (p=0.802) | Table 8, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | HYD | mineral | Potassium (K) | 87.33 ± 3.18 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.289); S ns (p=0.788); CSxS ns (p=0.609) | Table 8, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | HYD | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | 5.33 ± 0.33 | g/plant DW | CS p=0.038 *; S ns (p=0.320); CSxS ns (p=0.109) | Table 8, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | HYD | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | 2.67 ± 0.33 | g/plant DW | CS p=0.009 **; S ns (p=0.282); CSxS p=0.032 * (highest stem Mg in A-F, Table 8 letter grouping ‘a’) | Table 8, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | AP | mineral | Nitrate (NO3-) | 2998.70 ± 63.19 | mg/kg fw | CS ns (p=0.053); S ns (p=0.199); CSxS ns (p=0.050) | Table 9, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | AP | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | 0.58 ± 0.12 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.915); S ns (p=0.920); CSxS ns (p=0.920) | Table 9, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | AP | mineral | Potassium (K) | 75.94 ± 6.77 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.793); S ns (p=0.497); CSxS ns (p=0.897) | Table 9, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | AP | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | 4.28 ± 0.22 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.620); S p=0.020 * (F > RW, 20.8% higher per Results 2.2.4); CSxS ns (p=0.066) | Table 9, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | AP | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | 10.25 ± 0.63 | g/plant DW | CS p=0.032 * (aquaponic 37.9% higher than hydroponic per Results 2.2.4); S ns (p=0.527); CSxS ns (p=0.141) | Table 9, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | HYD | mineral | Nitrate (NO3-) | 2356.53 ± 125.05 | mg/kg fw | CS ns (p=0.053); S ns (p=0.199); CSxS ns (p=0.050) | Table 9, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | HYD | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | 0.68 ± 0.10 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.915); S ns (p=0.920); CSxS ns (p=0.920) | Table 9, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | HYD | mineral | Potassium (K) | 77.77 ± 13.13 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.793); S ns (p=0.497); CSxS ns (p=0.897) | Table 9, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | HYD | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | 3.73 ± 0.07 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.620); S p=0.020 * (F > RW, 20.8% higher per Results 2.2.4); CSxS ns (p=0.066) | Table 9, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T1 | HYD | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | 7.70 ± 1.33 | g/plant DW | CS p=0.032 * (aquaponic 37.9% higher than hydroponic per Results 2.2.4); S ns (p=0.527); CSxS ns (p=0.141) | Table 9, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | AP | mineral | Nitrate (NO3-) | 2476.03 ± 158.60 | mg/kg fw | CS ns (p=0.053); S ns (p=0.199); CSxS ns (p=0.050) | Table 9, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | AP | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | 0.68 ± 0.25 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.915); S ns (p=0.920); CSxS ns (p=0.920) | Table 9, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | AP | mineral | Potassium (K) | 81.95 ± 10.90 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.793); S ns (p=0.497); CSxS ns (p=0.897) | Table 9, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | AP | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | 3.17 ± 0.24 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.620); S p=0.020 * (F > RW, 20.8% higher per Results 2.2.4); CSxS ns (p=0.066) | Table 9, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | AP | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | 11.43 ± 1.69 | g/plant DW | CS p=0.032 * (aquaponic 37.9% higher than hydroponic per Results 2.2.4); S ns (p=0.527); CSxS ns (p=0.141) | Table 9, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | HYD | mineral | Nitrate (NO3-) | 2491.60 ± 178.48 | mg/kg fw | CS ns (p=0.053); S ns (p=0.199); CSxS ns (p=0.050) | Table 9, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | HYD | mineral | Phosphorus (P) | 0.54 ± 0.18 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.915); S ns (p=0.920); CSxS ns (p=0.920) | Table 9, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | HYD | mineral | Potassium (K) | 85.25 ± 4.71 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.793); S ns (p=0.497); CSxS ns (p=0.897) | Table 9, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | HYD | mineral | Calcium (Ca) | 3.46 ± 0.37 | g/plant DW | CS ns (p=0.620); S p=0.020 * (F > RW, 20.8% higher per Results 2.2.4); CSxS ns (p=0.066) | Table 9, p.8 |
| signoriniEffectsSeedlingSubstrate2025-T2 | HYD | mineral | Magnesium (Mg) | 8.04 ± 0.49 | g/plant DW | CS p=0.032 * (aquaponic 37.9% higher than hydroponic per Results 2.2.4); S ns (p=0.527); CSxS ns (p=0.141) | Table 9, p.8 |