Quartz 5

Aquaponic Production of Ornamental Koi Carp (Cyprinus carpio Linn.) and Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) in Comparison with Traditional Fish Culture and Hydroponics System

Properties1
tagsmeta/type/experiment, meta/region/south-asia, meta/fish/koi-carp, meta/plant/lettuce

38 min read

Aquaponic Production of Ornamental Koi Carp (Cyprinus carpio Linn.) and Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) in Comparison with Traditional Fish Culture and Hydroponics System

Metadata

  • Cite key: singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024
  • Item type: Journal Article
  • Authors: Khushvir Singh, Vaneet Inder Kaur, Meera D. Ansal, Dilpreet Talwar, Abhishek Srivastava, Kulbir Singh
  • Affiliation: Department of Aquaculture, College of Fisheries, Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (GADVASU), Ludhiana-141004, India; Department of Vegetable Science, College of Horticulture and Forestry, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana-141004, India
  • Journal: Indian Journal of Ecology 51(5) (2024) 1099-1103
  • Date: 10/2024 (received 5 Jul 2024, accepted 11 Sep 2024)
  • Date added: 2026-07-29
  • DOI: 10.55362/IJE/2024/4360
  • Funding: [not reported]
  • URL: https://doi.org/10.55362/IJE/2024/4360
  • PDF: 2024 - Aquaponic Production of Ornamental Koi Carp (Cypri.pdf

Opinion

A useful three-density aquaponics comparison for an ornamental (non-food) fish species, a niche the review otherwise lacks — but a full re-read under the new severity rules turned up five internal contradictions, two of which are non-trivial: the paper’s own Table 5 marks the lettuce yield difference “NS” while the Results text calls the same number “significant,” and Table 2’s own superscripts say nitrite did NOT differ significantly between control and treatments while the text claims it did. Combined with an impossible p-value (1.12) for lettuce fat content and two minor restated-figure slips, this crosses the 5-contradiction threshold for quality: suspect. None of this undermines the core, well-supported finding (higher fish biomass yield and better lettuce yield/pigment content under aquaponics, at the cost of individual fish growth and survival) — but every number in the water-quality and lettuce-composition tables should be re-checked against the primary tables before citing, not taken from the abstract or discussion prose. Worth noting: the aquaculture side has essentially no tank-level replication (3 tanks for 3 stocking densities), a design limitation the paper never states outright.

Abstract

The study was conducted for comparative analysis of the production of ornamental fish, koi carp (Cyprinus carpio Linn.) and lettuce (Lactuca sativa) in aquaponics and traditional culture system. The experimental fish were stocked at three stocking densities, i.e., 20 m⁻³ (SD1), 30 m⁻³ (SD2) and 40 m⁻³ (SD3) in circular cemented tanks (10m⁻³) of the aquaculture unit and lettuce were planted (plant to plant spacing of 12 cm) in the hydroponics unit (HM) of automated aquaponics system. For comparison with the traditional system, koi carp were stocked in cemented tank of equal size (10m⁻³) at a standard stocking density of 2 m⁻³ and lettuce was planted as per standard protocol i.e. plant to plant space of 30 cm in outdoor conditions in soil bed traditional system (SM). The water quality parameters in both aquaponics and traditional tanks remained in optimum range for fish culture along with >95% of nutrient removal by lettuce. The survival (%) of fish was maximum in control (93.33%) followed by SD3, SD1 and SD2. The final total body length and body weight was significantly higher in control, but the average fish yield (kg m⁻³) was significantly higher in all aquaponic tanks, with the maximum yield of 3.73 kg m⁻³ (9.56 times) in SD3 (40 m⁻³). The lettuce yield (32.2 q acre⁻¹) was 1.15 times higher in the hydroponic unit, with significantly higher pigment content and insignificant differences for nutrient content except fibre.

Summary

Three koi carp (Cyprinus carpio) stocking densities (20, 30, 40 fish m⁻³ — SD1, SD2, SD3) were each run in a single circular cemented tank of a shared 175 m² automated aquaponics unit, all three tanks feeding one common hydroponic lettuce bed (HM) through a biological filter over a 3-month (~90-day) trial. A traditional, non-recirculating fish control (C, 2 fish m⁻³, triplicate tanks) and a traditional outdoor soil-bed lettuce comparator (SM) were run alongside for context, though neither is a true paired hydroponic-only control. Individual fish grew fastest and survived best in the traditional control, but aquaponic tanks produced far higher total fish biomass per m³, increasing monotonically with stocking density (FCR also rose with density, worst at SD2). Lettuce grown in the aquaponic hydroponic bed (HM) out-yielded the soil-bed comparator (SM) by about 15%, with higher chlorophyll/carotenoid pigment content, and nutrient removal from the recirculated water exceeded 95% by day 90. Nutrient composition (protein, fat, carbohydrate, ash, moisture) of the lettuce did not differ meaningfully between systems except fibre — though the reported statistical test for fat content is not usable (see Extraction notes). The aquaculture side of the design has essentially no tank-level replication (one tank per stocking density).

Experiment data

  • Location: Instructional cum Research Farm, College of Fisheries, GADVASU, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
  • Design: 3 stocking densities (SD1/SD2/SD3, 20/30/40 fish m⁻³) each in one unreplicated circular cemented tank, sharing one hydroponic lettuce unit (HM); traditional fish control (C, triplicate tanks) and traditional soil-bed lettuce (SM) run alongside as non-hydroponic comparators, not a true paired hydroponic control
  • Replicates / n: Not stated for SD1/SD2/SD3 (1 tank per density — only 3 tanks total in the aquaculture unit); Control (C) explicitly triplicate tanks
  • Duration: ~3 months / 90 days (Methods states “3 months”; Table 5 uses “90 DAT” as its final lettuce measurement point)
  • Organisms: Koi carp (Cyprinus carpio) / Lettuce (Lactuca sativa)
  • Statistics: ANOVA / Critical Difference (CD) at p≤0.05, CPCS-1 software (Cheema and Singh 1991); superscript letters (Tables 2, 4) and CD values / “NS” markers (Table 5) denote significance; explicit P-values given in Table 6
  • Fish biomass yield: SD1 1.727, SD2 2.538, SD3 3.729 kg m⁻³ vs control 0.396 kg m⁻³ (Table 4) — all four values differ significantly from each other
  • Feed Conversion Rate (FCR): SD1 4.10, SD2 4.24, SD3 3.87 vs control 2.85 (Table 4)
  • Lettuce yield: SM 27.90 vs HM 32.20 Qt acre⁻¹ (1.15× higher in HM) — ⚠️MATERIAL significance dispute, see Extraction notes
  • Fish survival: control 93.33% > SD3 83.25% > SD1 82.00% > SD2 78.33% (Table 4)

Fish growth and yield by stocking density

This paper: Individual fish grew largest and survived best in the low-density traditional control (final weight 21.20 g, length 11.35 cm, survival 93.33%, Table 4), but total biomass yield per m³ rose monotonically with stocking density (0.396 → 1.727 → 2.538 → 3.729 kg m⁻³ for C → SD1 → SD2 → SD3), all significantly different from each other. FCR worsened under aquaponics relative to the control (2.85 in C vs 3.87-4.24 in the aquaponic tanks), peaking at SD2.

Compared with:

  • todo Hairani et al. 2022 — cited in Discussion for comparable koi carp growth/leaf-number findings (p. 1101-1102)

Lettuce yield and pigment content

This paper: Lettuce grown in the aquaponic hydroponic bed (HM) yielded 32.20 Qt acre⁻¹ vs 27.90 in the traditional soil bed (SM), a 1.15× increase, alongside higher plant height, root length, and chlorophyll a/b/total/carotenoid content (1.10-1.22× higher in HM, Table 5). See ⚠️MATERIAL flag below: Table 5’s own CD column marks the yield difference “NS,” conflicting with the Results text’s claim of significance.

Compared with:

  • todo Rana et al. 2018 — cited in Discussion for comparable lettuce growth-parameter trends (p. 1101)

Water quality and nutrient removal

This paper: Aq pH, DO, water temperature, and most water-quality parameters stayed in the range reported as suitable for fish culture across all treatments (Table 2). Nutrient removal by the lettuce bed exceeded 95% for ammonia-N, nitrate-N, and ortho-phosphate by day 90 (Table 3). NO2-N carries an internal contradiction between Table 2’s own statistics and the Results text — see ⚠️MATERIAL flag below.

Linked claims

Citations to chase

  • todo Hairani et al. (2022) — koi carp growth comparison, cited for corroboration (p. 1101-1102)
  • todo Rana et al. (2018) — lettuce growth parameters in aquaponics, cited for comparison (p. 1101)

Extraction notes

Paper type: Confirmed experiment on full re-read — three defined stocking-density treatments, CD/ANOVA significance testing throughout, CRD design stated for both fish and lettuce sides. No prior-type contradiction found.

Trial structure: Confirmed 3 rows: T1 = SD1 (20 fish m⁻³), T2 = SD2 (30 fish m⁻³), T3 = SD3 (40 fish m⁻³), each sharing the single HM hydroponic lettuce unit. No true hydroponic-only (synthetic-nutrient) control exists in this paper — HYD-prefixed columns are NA throughout. The traditional fish control (C) and soil-bed lettuce comparator (SM) are non-hydroponic comparators recorded in remarks/plant_measurements.csv for context, not in the HYD columns.

Contradictions found on this pass (severity-tagged, re-derived from scratch under the new rules):

  • ⚠️BLOCK — Lettuce fat content P-value. Table 6 (p. 1102) gives P = 1.12 for the SM-vs-HM fat-content comparison, which is impossible (p must lie in [0,1]) — the textbook BLOCK case from SCHEMA.md. Reported means (SM 0.30±0.02%, HM 0.26±0.00%) are recorded in plant_measurements.csv, but Significance for that analyte is UNCLEAR, not “1.12,” and not silently assumed “ns” from the surrounding sentence (“insignificant except fibre”). Does not touch any trials.csv cell — fat content has no dedicated column.
  • ⚠️MATERIAL — Lettuce yield significance. Table 5 (p. 1102) lists “Yield (Qt acre⁻¹)” SM 27.90 vs HM 32.20 (1.15×) with its own CD column reading “NS” — but the Results text (p. 1101) states this same comparison was “significantly (P≤0.05) higher… in HM as compared to SM.” Table’s own CD/NS notation taken as the defensible statistical call (the text’s claim likely over-generalizes from the mostly-significant rows immediately above it in the same paragraph — plant height, root length, and pigment rows are genuinely significant). The AP column (32.20) records the plain value; its disputed significance is not resolved into any cell.
  • ⚠️MATERIAL — NO2-N significance. Table 2 (p. 1101) gives NO2-N as C 0.022ᵃ, SD1 0.044ᵃ, SD2 0.044ᵃ, SD3 0.044ᵃ — identical superscript “a” for every group, meaning not significantly different by the paper’s own statistical notation. But the Results text (p. 1101) claims “significant… lower values for NH3-N, NO2-N and PO4-P in control as compared to all the treatments.” NH3-N and PO4-P do carry distinct superscripts (b vs a) supporting the text; NO2-N’s own table notation contradicts it. Table’s superscripts (i.e., not significant) taken as defensible; the NO2-N value itself (0.044 mg/L for all three SD trials) is unaffected.
  • ⚠️MINOR — Fish-yield multiple. Abstract/Conclusion (p. 1099, 1102) state the SD3 yield advantage as “3.73 kg m⁻³ (9.56 times)” vs control, while the Results text (p. 1101) instead computes “(9.417 times)” for the identical comparison. Table 4’s own values (SD3 3.729 ÷ C 0.396 = 9.417) support the body-text figure; 9.56 is only reproduced by first rounding the control value to 0.39 (3.73/0.39 ≈ 9.56). Does not change any cell — Fish biomass created is NR regardless (see below).
  • ⚠️MINOR — Tank size / “equal size” claim. The Abstract (p. 1099) describes the aquaponic tank as a “circular cemented tank (10m⁻³)” and the control tank as “of equal size (10m⁻³),” but Table 1 (p. 1100) gives the aquaponic tank capacity as 11 m³ with an operating water volume of 10,000 L (= 10 m³), and the control tank capacity as 10 m³. Resolved as capacity (11 m³ shell) vs. filled/operating volume (10 m³) rather than a true numeric conflict — both sources agree the working water volume is 10 m³/10,000 L, so Water volume in the system (10000 L) is unaffected. Flagged only because the Abstract’s “equal size” phrasing glosses over the 1 m³ capacity difference between the two tank designs.

Contradiction count and severity tally: 1 BLOCK, 2 MATERIAL, 2 MINOR = 5 real contradictions → ≥5 threshold reached → quality: suspect set in frontmatter.

Figure-only values, now NR per the new rule: None found — this paper’s numeric claims are all backed by a table or in-text number; no value in this paper exists only as an unlabelled bar-chart height.

[not reported] / [unclear] fields grouped by field:

  • Initial Stock density: NR for all three trials — paper gives nominal “20/30/40 m⁻³,” almost certainly fish count per m³, not the kg/m³ biomass density the column requires.
  • Fish biomass created (kg): NR — Table 4 gives yield only as a density (kg m⁻³: SD1 1.727, SD2 2.538, SD3 3.729), never as an absolute per-tank total in kg; multiplying by tank volume would be derivation.
  • Total Feed (kg), Protein/N/P/K (feed composition): NR — ration is given as “5% of body weight/day” of a “commercial diet,” but no feed composition or total feed mass is stated anywhere.
  • Plants/m²: NR — only plant-to-plant spacing given (12 cm HM, 30 cm SM), not a stated per-area density; computing one from the other is derivation.
  • Plant fresh weight: NR — Table 5’s “Yield (cup⁻¹ or plant⁻¹)” row (HM 632.78, SM 485.27) has no unit stated anywhere in the source table; left NR rather than assumed to be grams.
  • Plant dry matter: NR — Table 6 reports Moisture % only (HM 94.00±0.12, SM 93.33±0.29), not Dry Matter %; the arithmetic complement is not computed here per the no-derivation rule (Moisture recorded instead in plant_measurements.csv).
  • SPAD (aquaponics), Leaf count: NR — paper measures pigment content via lab assay (mg/g), not a SPAD meter, and never reports a leaf count for its own plants.
  • EC, pHOptimal, FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE: NR/NA — none of these terms or values appear anywhere in the paper.
  • Replicates (n): NR — see design caveat below; the paper never states the sampling unit (n fish per tank) behind its significance tests.
  • Lat/Long: NR — not stated anywhere in the paper (only the institution’s city, Ludhiana, Punjab, India, is given); per CLAUDE.md’s prime directive this is not filled in from background/geocoding knowledge.
  • Plant Category, Water classification, Average room Temperature, Air/Iron/Remineralization/pH Buffer/Climate/Lighting/Nutrient supplement fields: NR throughout — the paper does not categorize the plant, classify the water, or mention any of these system features one way or the other.

Design caveat (not severity-tagged, but material to interpretation): The aquaculture unit held only 3 tanks total (Methods, p. 1100) to host the 3 stocking densities — i.e., one tank per SD level with no tank-level replication — while the traditional control (C) ran in triplicate tanks. CD/ANOVA significance is nonetheless reported for every group in Table 4; the paper never states what the sampling unit was (individual fish? repeated measurements?) for those tests. Replicates (n) is recorded NR rather than guessed.

NO COLUMN (trials.csv / plant_measurements.csv have no field for these): Total alkalinity and total hardness (Table 2, both non-significant across all groups); ortho-phosphate (PO4-P, Table 2, mg/L); day-15/45/75/90 nutrient removal efficiency percentages (Table 3); condition factor K and total length gain (TLG) by treatment (Table 4); traditional control (C) fish values kept for context only (survival 93.33%, FCR 2.85, NWG 17.93 g, final weight 21.20 g, final length 11.35 cm, biomass 0.396 kg m⁻³); soil-bed (SM) lettuce growth figures (plant height, root length) kept for context only in remarks — SM’s proximate/pigment composition values are recorded properly in plant_measurements.csv instead.

Unit conversions (not derivation): Fish trial duration “3 months” (Methods) recorded as 90 days, corroborated by the paper’s own “90 DAT” lettuce endpoint (Table 5) and its “three cuttings… during 3 month experimental period” footnote.

Scanned/OCR quality: PDF has a clean extractable text layer; Table 1’s description of the hydroponic stand layout (“9 pipes having 29 cups each (24 cups planted)”) reads as garbled or under-specified in the source, but this looks like the authors’ own compressed phrasing rather than an OCR artifact — recorded verbatim in Media Details rather than corrected. No NEEDS_OCR.md entry needed.

New tags introduced: Meta/Fish/Koi-Carp, Meta/Plant/Lettuce (checked against existing Meta/Fish/Tilapia, Meta/Plant/Rocket, Meta/Plant/Indian-Spinach facets already in the vault — no existing Koi Carp or Lettuce facet to reuse).

New wikilink targets introduced: Khushvir Singh, Vaneet Inder Kaur, Meera D. Ansal, Dilpreet Talwar, Abhishek Srivastava, Kulbir Singh (no existing author notes in vault to match against), Koi carp (Cyprinus carpio) (vault already has Koi (Cyprinus carpio) in abbeyBasilOcimumBasilicum2022 — candidate duplicate, flagging rather than silently merging), Lettuce (Lactuca sativa), Fish biomass yield, Aquaponic stocking density increases total fish biomass yield despite reducing individual fish growth, Aquaponic-grown lettuce outyields soil-bed lettuce with higher pigment content, Fish trial duration contradiction (reused — same claim-note title already used in akterComparisonIndianSpinach2025).

Source: 2024 - Aquaponic Production of Ornamental Koi Carp (Cypri.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

singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T1

Fish

FieldValue
FishKoi carp (Cyprinus carpio Linn.)
Fish CategoryOrnamental fish
FCR4.10
SGR1.28
% of body weight5
Fish size initial3.33
Fish size final10.53
Feed routineTwice daily (10:00 and 16:00 h)
Feed regimeCommercial diet at 5% of body weight/day; feed amount adjusted monthly following fish-weight sampling (Table 1). Fingerlings acclimatized indoors 10-15 d pre-stocking, fed ad libitum on commercial diet.
Fish survival rate82.00
Fish weight gain7.20
Fish trial duration (days)90

Water

FieldValue
Water volume in the system10000 L
Water typeTube well water
Aq pH7.75
Dissolved Oxigen9.26
Water temperature18.61
TAN / NH4-N0.194
NO2-N0.044
NO3-N2.035

Plant

FieldValue
PlantLettuce (Lactuca sativa)
DetailsGrown in vertical hydroponic pipe-and-cup system (HM) within the automated aquaponics unit, fed by recirculated aquaculture wastewater through a biological filter; 3 cuttings harvested over the 90-day / 3-month trial (Table 1; Table 5 footnote). Compared with lettuce grown in outdoor soil beds (SM), plant-to-plant spacing 30 cm, standard management (a non-hydroponic comparator, not a synthetic-nutrient hydroponic control, hence HYD columns = NA).
Days Plant after transplant90
Plant height24.17

System & Setup

FieldValue
System typeAutomated aquaponics system; vertical farming hydroponic pipe-and-cup unit (HM) (p.1100); comparator: traditional soil bed (SM), horizontal farming (p.1100)
Media DetailsVertical hydroponic unit: 8 stands, each stand described in Table 1 as 9 pipes having 29 cups each (24 cups planted) - phrasing partly unclear or possibly OCR-degraded in the source PDF; plant-to-plant spacing 12 cm; hydroponic unit total area 100 m2 shared among all 3 stocking-density tanks. Soil-bed comparator (SM): 100 m2 plot, 8 beds, 30 cm plant spacing, outdoor conditions, standard management.
Biological system already in useY (Biological filter between aquaculture unit and hydroponic unit; water from aquaculture tanks circulated through it at fixed intervals before reaching the lettuce hydroponic unit. No further specification of filter media or type given (Table 1, p.1100).)
EquipmentAutomated aquaponics unit (175 m2 total: 75 m2 aquaculture plus 100 m2 hydroponic); circular cemented aquaculture tanks (11 m3 capacity, approx 10,000 L operating volume); rectangular cemented control tanks (10 m3); biological filter; vertical hydroponic pipe-and-cup system (8 stands); CPCS-1 statistical software (Cheema and Singh 1991)
Control ParametersCompletely randomized design (CRD); stocking density as the treatment factor (20/30/40 fish per m3) vs standard-density (2 per m3) traditional control; lettuce in shared hydroponic unit vs traditional soil bed comparator; significance at p less-equal 0.05, CD/ANOVA via CPCS-1
CombinationKoi carp (ornamental) and lettuce; aquaponic stocking density 20 fish per m3 (shared hydroponic lettuce unit) vs traditional fish culture (C, 2 fish per m3) and soil-bed lettuce (SM)

Site

FieldValue
RegionSouth Asia
CountryIndia

Results & Statistics

FieldValue
Measured Unitkg/m3 (fish yield/biomass); g (fish weight); cm (fish length, plant height/root length); Qt acre-1 and g per cup/plant (lettuce yield, unit for the latter unstated); mg/g (pigments); pct (proximate composition); mg/L (water quality N/P species)
Statistic DetailsANOVA / Critical Difference (CD) at p less-equal 0.05; statistical package CPCS-1 (Cheema and Singh 1991); superscript letters denote significant grouping in Tables 2 and 4; P-values reported directly in Table 6
Statistically analysedY
AP32.20

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T1 = SD1, koi carp stocked at nominal density 20 fish per cubic metre (not stated as kg/m3, see NOT DERIVED) in one circular cemented tank of the 3-tank aquaculture unit, sharing the single HM hydroponic lettuce unit with the other two stocking-density tanks. No true hydroponic-only (synthetic-nutrient) control exists in this paper, so HYD-prefixed columns = NA throughout; the papers non-hydroponic comparators are recorded here for context only: traditional fish control (C, 2 fish per m3, triplicate cemented tanks, non-recirculating) and traditional soil-bed lettuce (SM, 30 cm spacing, outdoor, non-hydroponic). HM lettuce data (yield, height, pigments, proximate composition) is identical across T1/T2/T3 since all three tanks feed the same shared hydroponic unit (p.1100). || CONTRADICTIONS (severity re-graded from scratch on this pass): || BLOCK - Table 6 (p.1102): lettuce Fat content P-value given as 1.12, which is impossible (p must lie in 0-1). Reported means (SM 0.30+/-0.02 pct, HM 0.26+/-0.00 pct) are kept in plant_measurements.csv but Significance for that analyte is recorded as UNCLEAR there, not 1.12, and not silently assumed ns from the surrounding text (insignificant except fibre). Does not touch any trials.csv cell directly (Fat has no dedicated column). || MATERIAL - Table 5 (p.1102): Yield (Qt acre-1) row SM 27.90 vs HM 32.20 (1.15x) carries CD = NS (not significant), but the Results text (p.1101) states this same yield difference was significantly (P less-equal 0.05) higher. Table’s own CD/NS notation taken as the defensible statistical call; text’s significant wording likely over-generalised from the mostly-significant rows above it in the same paragraph. The AP column below (32.20) is the plain reported value; its significance is disputed as described here, not resolved in the cell. || MATERIAL - Table 2 (p.1101): NO2-N row (C 0.022, SD1-3 all 0.044) carries the same superscript letter a for every group, i.e. not significantly different by the papers own notation, but the Results text (p.1101) claims significant lower values for NH3-N, NO2-N and PO4-P in control as compared to all the treatments. NH3-N and PO4-P rows do show distinct superscripts supporting the text; NO2-N’s own table notation contradicts it. Table’s superscripts (ns) taken as defensible; NO2-N value recorded below unaffected. || MINOR - Abstract/Conclusion (p.1099, 1102) state the SD3 fish-yield multiple as 3.73 kg/m3 (9.56 times) vs control, while Results text (p.1101) instead gives (9.417 times) for the same comparison. Table 4’s own values (SD3 3.729 / C 0.396 kg/m3 = 9.417) support the body-text figure; 9.56 is only reproduced if the control value is first rounded to 0.39 (3.73/0.39=9.56). Does not change any trials.csv cell (Fish biomass created is NR regardless, see NOT DERIVED). || MINOR - Abstract (p.1099) calls the aquaponic tank circular cemented tanks (10m-3) and the control tank of equal size (10m-3), but Table 1 (p.1100) gives the aquaponic tank CAPACITY as 11 m3 with an operating water volume of 10,000 L (=10 m3), and the control tank capacity as 10 m3. Resolved as capacity (11 m3 shell) vs filled/operating volume (10 m3) - both sources agree the working water volume is 10 m3 / 10,000 L, so Water volume in the system below (10000 L) is unaffected; flagged only because the abstract’s equal size phrasing glosses over the 1 m3 capacity difference between the two tank types. || Contradiction tally this paper: 1 BLOCK + 2 MATERIAL + 2 MINOR = 5 real contradictions therefore quality: suspect set in note frontmatter. || NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (paper gives nominal 20/30/40 per m3 for SD1/SD2/SD3, almost certainly fish count per m3, not kg/m3 biomass density as the column requires); Fish biomass created in kg (Table 4 gives yield only as a density, kg/m3 - SD1 1.727, SD2 2.538, SD3 3.729 - not as an absolute per-tank total in kg, and tank volume times density would be a computed figure); Plants/m2 (only plant-to-plant spacing given - 12 cm HM, 30 cm SM - not a stated per-area count); Plant fresh weight (Table 5’s Yield (cup-1 or plant-1) row - HM 632.78, SM 485.27 - has no unit stated anywhere in the source table; left NR rather than assumed to be grams); Plant dry matter (Table 6 reports Moisture pct only - HM 94.00+/-0.12, SM 93.33+/-0.29 - not Dry Matter pct, and the complement is not computed here per no-derivation rule). || NO COLUMN: total alkalinity (TA, CaCO3 mg/L, Table 2): C 172.57a, SD1 173.43a, SD2 174.28a, SD3 174.48a (ns); total hardness (TH, CaCO3 mg/L, Table 2): C 187.71a, SD1 185.33a, SD2 184.62a, SD3 184.95a (ns); ortho-phosphate (PO4-P, mg/L, Table 2): C 0.047b, SD1 0.86a, SD2 0.861a, SD3 0.862a; nutrient removal efficiency (pct, Table 3) at 15/45/75/90 d - Ammonia-N 86.2/91.72/97.23/98.22, Nitrate-N 65.45/86.07/96.34/97.53, Ortho-phosphate 66.38/79.99/94.04/96.41; condition factor K (Table 4): C 1.46a, SD1 1.22b, SD2 1.16bc, SD3 0.98c; total length gain TLG cm (Table 4): C 7.99, SD1 6.12, SD2 6.32, SD3 7.11; traditional control (C) fish values for context (Table 4): survival 93.33 pct, FCR 2.85, NWG 17.93 g, final weight 21.20 g, final length 11.35 cm, biomass yield 0.396 kg/m3; soil-bed (SM) lettuce comparator growth (Table 5): PH at 90 DAT 17.4 cm, FRL 10.39 cm, IPH 7.51 cm, yield 27.90 Qt acre-1 / 485.27 (cup or plant-1, unit unstated); SM/HM proximate and pigment values recorded instead in plant_measurements.csv. || DESIGN CAVEAT: the aquaculture unit held only 3 tanks total (Methods, p.1100) for the 3 stocking densities, i.e. one tank per SD level with no tank-level replication, while the traditional control (C) ran in triplicate tanks. CD/ANOVA significance is nonetheless reported for every group in Table 4; the paper does not state the sampling unit (n fish measured per tank) underlying those tests, hence Replicates (n) = NR. || UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: fish trial duration stated as 3 months (Methods, p.1100) recorded as 90 days, corroborated by the papers own 90 DAT lettuce endpoint (Table 5) and the three cuttings of lettuce during 3 month experimental period footnote (Table 5). || Lat/Long: not stated anywhere in the paper (institution city Ludhiana, Punjab, India is given, but no coordinates in the text itself); per CLAUDE.md prime directive this is NOT filled from background or geocoding knowledge, recorded NR. || Fish Category (Ornamental fish) and Plant Category (NR) follow the papers own wording (or lack of a category label), per schema convention. || TAN/NH4-N column holds the papers own NH3-N measurement (Table 2, APHA 2012 method); the paper does not distinguish TAN vs free-NH3 vs NH4-N terminology.

singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T2

Fish

FieldValue
FishKoi carp (Cyprinus carpio Linn.)
Fish CategoryOrnamental fish
FCR4.24
SGR1.31
% of body weight5
Fish size initial3.33
Fish size final10.80
Feed routineTwice daily (10:00 and 16:00 h)
Feed regimeCommercial diet at 5% of body weight/day; feed amount adjusted monthly following fish-weight sampling (Table 1). Fingerlings acclimatized indoors 10-15 d pre-stocking, fed ad libitum on commercial diet.
Fish survival rate78.33
Fish weight gain7.47
Fish trial duration (days)90

Water

FieldValue
Water volume in the system10000 L
Water typeTube well water
Aq pH7.73
Dissolved Oxigen9.32
Water temperature18.59
TAN / NH4-N0.197
NO2-N0.044
NO3-N2.037

Plant

FieldValue
PlantLettuce (Lactuca sativa)
DetailsGrown in vertical hydroponic pipe-and-cup system (HM) within the automated aquaponics unit, fed by recirculated aquaculture wastewater through a biological filter; 3 cuttings harvested over the 90-day / 3-month trial (Table 1; Table 5 footnote). Compared with lettuce grown in outdoor soil beds (SM), plant-to-plant spacing 30 cm, standard management (a non-hydroponic comparator, not a synthetic-nutrient hydroponic control, hence HYD columns = NA).
Days Plant after transplant90
Plant height24.17

System & Setup

FieldValue
System typeAutomated aquaponics system; vertical farming hydroponic pipe-and-cup unit (HM) (p.1100); comparator: traditional soil bed (SM), horizontal farming (p.1100)
Media DetailsVertical hydroponic unit: 8 stands, each stand described in Table 1 as 9 pipes having 29 cups each (24 cups planted) - phrasing partly unclear or possibly OCR-degraded in the source PDF; plant-to-plant spacing 12 cm; hydroponic unit total area 100 m2 shared among all 3 stocking-density tanks. Soil-bed comparator (SM): 100 m2 plot, 8 beds, 30 cm plant spacing, outdoor conditions, standard management.
Biological system already in useY (Biological filter between aquaculture unit and hydroponic unit; water from aquaculture tanks circulated through it at fixed intervals before reaching the lettuce hydroponic unit. No further specification of filter media or type given (Table 1, p.1100).)
EquipmentAutomated aquaponics unit (175 m2 total: 75 m2 aquaculture plus 100 m2 hydroponic); circular cemented aquaculture tanks (11 m3 capacity, approx 10,000 L operating volume); rectangular cemented control tanks (10 m3); biological filter; vertical hydroponic pipe-and-cup system (8 stands); CPCS-1 statistical software (Cheema and Singh 1991)
Control ParametersCompletely randomized design (CRD); stocking density as the treatment factor (20/30/40 fish per m3) vs standard-density (2 per m3) traditional control; lettuce in shared hydroponic unit vs traditional soil bed comparator; significance at p less-equal 0.05, CD/ANOVA via CPCS-1
CombinationKoi carp (ornamental) and lettuce; aquaponic stocking density 30 fish per m3 (shared hydroponic lettuce unit) vs traditional fish culture (C, 2 fish per m3) and soil-bed lettuce (SM)

Site

FieldValue
RegionSouth Asia
CountryIndia

Results & Statistics

FieldValue
Measured Unitkg/m3 (fish yield/biomass); g (fish weight); cm (fish length, plant height/root length); Qt acre-1 and g per cup/plant (lettuce yield, unit for the latter unstated); mg/g (pigments); pct (proximate composition); mg/L (water quality N/P species)
Statistic DetailsANOVA / Critical Difference (CD) at p less-equal 0.05; statistical package CPCS-1 (Cheema and Singh 1991); superscript letters denote significant grouping in Tables 2 and 4; P-values reported directly in Table 6
Statistically analysedY
AP32.20

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T2 = SD2, koi carp stocked at nominal density 30 fish per cubic metre (not stated as kg/m3, see NOT DERIVED) in one circular cemented tank of the 3-tank aquaculture unit, sharing the single HM hydroponic lettuce unit with the other two stocking-density tanks. No true hydroponic-only (synthetic-nutrient) control exists in this paper, so HYD-prefixed columns = NA throughout; the papers non-hydroponic comparators are recorded here for context only: traditional fish control (C, 2 fish per m3, triplicate cemented tanks, non-recirculating) and traditional soil-bed lettuce (SM, 30 cm spacing, outdoor, non-hydroponic). HM lettuce data (yield, height, pigments, proximate composition) is identical across T1/T2/T3 since all three tanks feed the same shared hydroponic unit (p.1100). || CONTRADICTIONS (severity re-graded from scratch on this pass): || BLOCK - Table 6 (p.1102): lettuce Fat content P-value given as 1.12, which is impossible (p must lie in 0-1). Reported means (SM 0.30+/-0.02 pct, HM 0.26+/-0.00 pct) are kept in plant_measurements.csv but Significance for that analyte is recorded as UNCLEAR there, not 1.12, and not silently assumed ns from the surrounding text (insignificant except fibre). Does not touch any trials.csv cell directly (Fat has no dedicated column). || MATERIAL - Table 5 (p.1102): Yield (Qt acre-1) row SM 27.90 vs HM 32.20 (1.15x) carries CD = NS (not significant), but the Results text (p.1101) states this same yield difference was significantly (P less-equal 0.05) higher. Table’s own CD/NS notation taken as the defensible statistical call; text’s significant wording likely over-generalised from the mostly-significant rows above it in the same paragraph. The AP column below (32.20) is the plain reported value; its significance is disputed as described here, not resolved in the cell. || MATERIAL - Table 2 (p.1101): NO2-N row (C 0.022, SD1-3 all 0.044) carries the same superscript letter a for every group, i.e. not significantly different by the papers own notation, but the Results text (p.1101) claims significant lower values for NH3-N, NO2-N and PO4-P in control as compared to all the treatments. NH3-N and PO4-P rows do show distinct superscripts supporting the text; NO2-N’s own table notation contradicts it. Table’s superscripts (ns) taken as defensible; NO2-N value recorded below unaffected. || MINOR - Abstract/Conclusion (p.1099, 1102) state the SD3 fish-yield multiple as 3.73 kg/m3 (9.56 times) vs control, while Results text (p.1101) instead gives (9.417 times) for the same comparison. Table 4’s own values (SD3 3.729 / C 0.396 kg/m3 = 9.417) support the body-text figure; 9.56 is only reproduced if the control value is first rounded to 0.39 (3.73/0.39=9.56). Does not change any trials.csv cell (Fish biomass created is NR regardless, see NOT DERIVED). || MINOR - Abstract (p.1099) calls the aquaponic tank circular cemented tanks (10m-3) and the control tank of equal size (10m-3), but Table 1 (p.1100) gives the aquaponic tank CAPACITY as 11 m3 with an operating water volume of 10,000 L (=10 m3), and the control tank capacity as 10 m3. Resolved as capacity (11 m3 shell) vs filled/operating volume (10 m3) - both sources agree the working water volume is 10 m3 / 10,000 L, so Water volume in the system below (10000 L) is unaffected; flagged only because the abstract’s equal size phrasing glosses over the 1 m3 capacity difference between the two tank types. || Contradiction tally this paper: 1 BLOCK + 2 MATERIAL + 2 MINOR = 5 real contradictions therefore quality: suspect set in note frontmatter. || NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (paper gives nominal 20/30/40 per m3 for SD1/SD2/SD3, almost certainly fish count per m3, not kg/m3 biomass density as the column requires); Fish biomass created in kg (Table 4 gives yield only as a density, kg/m3 - SD1 1.727, SD2 2.538, SD3 3.729 - not as an absolute per-tank total in kg, and tank volume times density would be a computed figure); Plants/m2 (only plant-to-plant spacing given - 12 cm HM, 30 cm SM - not a stated per-area count); Plant fresh weight (Table 5’s Yield (cup-1 or plant-1) row - HM 632.78, SM 485.27 - has no unit stated anywhere in the source table; left NR rather than assumed to be grams); Plant dry matter (Table 6 reports Moisture pct only - HM 94.00+/-0.12, SM 93.33+/-0.29 - not Dry Matter pct, and the complement is not computed here per no-derivation rule). || NO COLUMN: total alkalinity (TA, CaCO3 mg/L, Table 2): C 172.57a, SD1 173.43a, SD2 174.28a, SD3 174.48a (ns); total hardness (TH, CaCO3 mg/L, Table 2): C 187.71a, SD1 185.33a, SD2 184.62a, SD3 184.95a (ns); ortho-phosphate (PO4-P, mg/L, Table 2): C 0.047b, SD1 0.86a, SD2 0.861a, SD3 0.862a; nutrient removal efficiency (pct, Table 3) at 15/45/75/90 d - Ammonia-N 86.2/91.72/97.23/98.22, Nitrate-N 65.45/86.07/96.34/97.53, Ortho-phosphate 66.38/79.99/94.04/96.41; condition factor K (Table 4): C 1.46a, SD1 1.22b, SD2 1.16bc, SD3 0.98c; total length gain TLG cm (Table 4): C 7.99, SD1 6.12, SD2 6.32, SD3 7.11; traditional control (C) fish values for context (Table 4): survival 93.33 pct, FCR 2.85, NWG 17.93 g, final weight 21.20 g, final length 11.35 cm, biomass yield 0.396 kg/m3; soil-bed (SM) lettuce comparator growth (Table 5): PH at 90 DAT 17.4 cm, FRL 10.39 cm, IPH 7.51 cm, yield 27.90 Qt acre-1 / 485.27 (cup or plant-1, unit unstated); SM/HM proximate and pigment values recorded instead in plant_measurements.csv. || DESIGN CAVEAT: the aquaculture unit held only 3 tanks total (Methods, p.1100) for the 3 stocking densities, i.e. one tank per SD level with no tank-level replication, while the traditional control (C) ran in triplicate tanks. CD/ANOVA significance is nonetheless reported for every group in Table 4; the paper does not state the sampling unit (n fish measured per tank) underlying those tests, hence Replicates (n) = NR. || UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: fish trial duration stated as 3 months (Methods, p.1100) recorded as 90 days, corroborated by the papers own 90 DAT lettuce endpoint (Table 5) and the three cuttings of lettuce during 3 month experimental period footnote (Table 5). || Lat/Long: not stated anywhere in the paper (institution city Ludhiana, Punjab, India is given, but no coordinates in the text itself); per CLAUDE.md prime directive this is NOT filled from background or geocoding knowledge, recorded NR. || Fish Category (Ornamental fish) and Plant Category (NR) follow the papers own wording (or lack of a category label), per schema convention. || TAN/NH4-N column holds the papers own NH3-N measurement (Table 2, APHA 2012 method); the paper does not distinguish TAN vs free-NH3 vs NH4-N terminology.

singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T3

Fish

FieldValue
FishKoi carp (Cyprinus carpio Linn.)
Fish CategoryOrnamental fish
FCR3.87
SGR1.35
% of body weight5
Fish size initial3.33
Fish size final11.20
Feed routineTwice daily (10:00 and 16:00 h)
Feed regimeCommercial diet at 5% of body weight/day; feed amount adjusted monthly following fish-weight sampling (Table 1). Fingerlings acclimatized indoors 10-15 d pre-stocking, fed ad libitum on commercial diet.
Fish survival rate83.25
Fish weight gain7.87
Fish trial duration (days)90

Water

FieldValue
Water volume in the system10000 L
Water typeTube well water
Aq pH7.75
Dissolved Oxigen9.38
Water temperature18.58
TAN / NH4-N0.184
NO2-N0.044
NO3-N2.030

Plant

FieldValue
PlantLettuce (Lactuca sativa)
DetailsGrown in vertical hydroponic pipe-and-cup system (HM) within the automated aquaponics unit, fed by recirculated aquaculture wastewater through a biological filter; 3 cuttings harvested over the 90-day / 3-month trial (Table 1; Table 5 footnote). Compared with lettuce grown in outdoor soil beds (SM), plant-to-plant spacing 30 cm, standard management (a non-hydroponic comparator, not a synthetic-nutrient hydroponic control, hence HYD columns = NA).
Days Plant after transplant90
Plant height24.17

System & Setup

FieldValue
System typeAutomated aquaponics system; vertical farming hydroponic pipe-and-cup unit (HM) (p.1100); comparator: traditional soil bed (SM), horizontal farming (p.1100)
Media DetailsVertical hydroponic unit: 8 stands, each stand described in Table 1 as 9 pipes having 29 cups each (24 cups planted) - phrasing partly unclear or possibly OCR-degraded in the source PDF; plant-to-plant spacing 12 cm; hydroponic unit total area 100 m2 shared among all 3 stocking-density tanks. Soil-bed comparator (SM): 100 m2 plot, 8 beds, 30 cm plant spacing, outdoor conditions, standard management.
Biological system already in useY (Biological filter between aquaculture unit and hydroponic unit; water from aquaculture tanks circulated through it at fixed intervals before reaching the lettuce hydroponic unit. No further specification of filter media or type given (Table 1, p.1100).)
EquipmentAutomated aquaponics unit (175 m2 total: 75 m2 aquaculture plus 100 m2 hydroponic); circular cemented aquaculture tanks (11 m3 capacity, approx 10,000 L operating volume); rectangular cemented control tanks (10 m3); biological filter; vertical hydroponic pipe-and-cup system (8 stands); CPCS-1 statistical software (Cheema and Singh 1991)
Control ParametersCompletely randomized design (CRD); stocking density as the treatment factor (20/30/40 fish per m3) vs standard-density (2 per m3) traditional control; lettuce in shared hydroponic unit vs traditional soil bed comparator; significance at p less-equal 0.05, CD/ANOVA via CPCS-1
CombinationKoi carp (ornamental) and lettuce; aquaponic stocking density 40 fish per m3 (shared hydroponic lettuce unit) vs traditional fish culture (C, 2 fish per m3) and soil-bed lettuce (SM)

Site

FieldValue
RegionSouth Asia
CountryIndia

Results & Statistics

FieldValue
Measured Unitkg/m3 (fish yield/biomass); g (fish weight); cm (fish length, plant height/root length); Qt acre-1 and g per cup/plant (lettuce yield, unit for the latter unstated); mg/g (pigments); pct (proximate composition); mg/L (water quality N/P species)
Statistic DetailsANOVA / Critical Difference (CD) at p less-equal 0.05; statistical package CPCS-1 (Cheema and Singh 1991); superscript letters denote significant grouping in Tables 2 and 4; P-values reported directly in Table 6
Statistically analysedY
AP32.20

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T3 = SD3, koi carp stocked at nominal density 40 fish per cubic metre (not stated as kg/m3, see NOT DERIVED) in one circular cemented tank of the 3-tank aquaculture unit, sharing the single HM hydroponic lettuce unit with the other two stocking-density tanks. No true hydroponic-only (synthetic-nutrient) control exists in this paper, so HYD-prefixed columns = NA throughout; the papers non-hydroponic comparators are recorded here for context only: traditional fish control (C, 2 fish per m3, triplicate cemented tanks, non-recirculating) and traditional soil-bed lettuce (SM, 30 cm spacing, outdoor, non-hydroponic). HM lettuce data (yield, height, pigments, proximate composition) is identical across T1/T2/T3 since all three tanks feed the same shared hydroponic unit (p.1100). || CONTRADICTIONS (severity re-graded from scratch on this pass): || BLOCK - Table 6 (p.1102): lettuce Fat content P-value given as 1.12, which is impossible (p must lie in 0-1). Reported means (SM 0.30+/-0.02 pct, HM 0.26+/-0.00 pct) are kept in plant_measurements.csv but Significance for that analyte is recorded as UNCLEAR there, not 1.12, and not silently assumed ns from the surrounding text (insignificant except fibre). Does not touch any trials.csv cell directly (Fat has no dedicated column). || MATERIAL - Table 5 (p.1102): Yield (Qt acre-1) row SM 27.90 vs HM 32.20 (1.15x) carries CD = NS (not significant), but the Results text (p.1101) states this same yield difference was significantly (P less-equal 0.05) higher. Table’s own CD/NS notation taken as the defensible statistical call; text’s significant wording likely over-generalised from the mostly-significant rows above it in the same paragraph. The AP column below (32.20) is the plain reported value; its significance is disputed as described here, not resolved in the cell. || MATERIAL - Table 2 (p.1101): NO2-N row (C 0.022, SD1-3 all 0.044) carries the same superscript letter a for every group, i.e. not significantly different by the papers own notation, but the Results text (p.1101) claims significant lower values for NH3-N, NO2-N and PO4-P in control as compared to all the treatments. NH3-N and PO4-P rows do show distinct superscripts supporting the text; NO2-N’s own table notation contradicts it. Table’s superscripts (ns) taken as defensible; NO2-N value recorded below unaffected. || MINOR - Abstract/Conclusion (p.1099, 1102) state the SD3 fish-yield multiple as 3.73 kg/m3 (9.56 times) vs control, while Results text (p.1101) instead gives (9.417 times) for the same comparison. Table 4’s own values (SD3 3.729 / C 0.396 kg/m3 = 9.417) support the body-text figure; 9.56 is only reproduced if the control value is first rounded to 0.39 (3.73/0.39=9.56). Does not change any trials.csv cell (Fish biomass created is NR regardless, see NOT DERIVED). || MINOR - Abstract (p.1099) calls the aquaponic tank circular cemented tanks (10m-3) and the control tank of equal size (10m-3), but Table 1 (p.1100) gives the aquaponic tank CAPACITY as 11 m3 with an operating water volume of 10,000 L (=10 m3), and the control tank capacity as 10 m3. Resolved as capacity (11 m3 shell) vs filled/operating volume (10 m3) - both sources agree the working water volume is 10 m3 / 10,000 L, so Water volume in the system below (10000 L) is unaffected; flagged only because the abstract’s equal size phrasing glosses over the 1 m3 capacity difference between the two tank types. || Contradiction tally this paper: 1 BLOCK + 2 MATERIAL + 2 MINOR = 5 real contradictions therefore quality: suspect set in note frontmatter. || NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (paper gives nominal 20/30/40 per m3 for SD1/SD2/SD3, almost certainly fish count per m3, not kg/m3 biomass density as the column requires); Fish biomass created in kg (Table 4 gives yield only as a density, kg/m3 - SD1 1.727, SD2 2.538, SD3 3.729 - not as an absolute per-tank total in kg, and tank volume times density would be a computed figure); Plants/m2 (only plant-to-plant spacing given - 12 cm HM, 30 cm SM - not a stated per-area count); Plant fresh weight (Table 5’s Yield (cup-1 or plant-1) row - HM 632.78, SM 485.27 - has no unit stated anywhere in the source table; left NR rather than assumed to be grams); Plant dry matter (Table 6 reports Moisture pct only - HM 94.00+/-0.12, SM 93.33+/-0.29 - not Dry Matter pct, and the complement is not computed here per no-derivation rule). || NO COLUMN: total alkalinity (TA, CaCO3 mg/L, Table 2): C 172.57a, SD1 173.43a, SD2 174.28a, SD3 174.48a (ns); total hardness (TH, CaCO3 mg/L, Table 2): C 187.71a, SD1 185.33a, SD2 184.62a, SD3 184.95a (ns); ortho-phosphate (PO4-P, mg/L, Table 2): C 0.047b, SD1 0.86a, SD2 0.861a, SD3 0.862a; nutrient removal efficiency (pct, Table 3) at 15/45/75/90 d - Ammonia-N 86.2/91.72/97.23/98.22, Nitrate-N 65.45/86.07/96.34/97.53, Ortho-phosphate 66.38/79.99/94.04/96.41; condition factor K (Table 4): C 1.46a, SD1 1.22b, SD2 1.16bc, SD3 0.98c; total length gain TLG cm (Table 4): C 7.99, SD1 6.12, SD2 6.32, SD3 7.11; traditional control (C) fish values for context (Table 4): survival 93.33 pct, FCR 2.85, NWG 17.93 g, final weight 21.20 g, final length 11.35 cm, biomass yield 0.396 kg/m3; soil-bed (SM) lettuce comparator growth (Table 5): PH at 90 DAT 17.4 cm, FRL 10.39 cm, IPH 7.51 cm, yield 27.90 Qt acre-1 / 485.27 (cup or plant-1, unit unstated); SM/HM proximate and pigment values recorded instead in plant_measurements.csv. || DESIGN CAVEAT: the aquaculture unit held only 3 tanks total (Methods, p.1100) for the 3 stocking densities, i.e. one tank per SD level with no tank-level replication, while the traditional control (C) ran in triplicate tanks. CD/ANOVA significance is nonetheless reported for every group in Table 4; the paper does not state the sampling unit (n fish measured per tank) underlying those tests, hence Replicates (n) = NR. || UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: fish trial duration stated as 3 months (Methods, p.1100) recorded as 90 days, corroborated by the papers own 90 DAT lettuce endpoint (Table 5) and the three cuttings of lettuce during 3 month experimental period footnote (Table 5). || Lat/Long: not stated anywhere in the paper (institution city Ludhiana, Punjab, India is given, but no coordinates in the text itself); per CLAUDE.md prime directive this is NOT filled from background or geocoding knowledge, recorded NR. || Fish Category (Ornamental fish) and Plant Category (NR) follow the papers own wording (or lack of a category label), per schema convention. || TAN/NH4-N column holds the papers own NH3-N measurement (Table 2, APHA 2012 method); the paper does not distinguish TAN vs free-NH3 vs NH4-N terminology.

Plant Measurements

TrialSystemCategoryAnalyteValueUnitSig.Location
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T1APproximateProtein1.41 ± 0.17%p=0.94 (ns)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T1SMproximateProtein1.39 ± 0.23%p=0.94 (ns)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T1APproximateFat0.26 ± 0.00%UNCLEARTable 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T1SMproximateFat0.30 ± 0.02%UNCLEARTable 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T1APproximateCarbohydrate1.08 ± 0.04%p=0.54 (ns)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T1SMproximateCarbohydrate1.35 ± 0.41%p=0.54 (ns)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T1APproximateAsh1.51 ± 0.20%p=0.59 (ns)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T1SMproximateAsh1.63 ± 0.03%p=0.59 (ns)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T1APproximateMoisture94.00 ± 0.12%p=0.10 (ns)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T1SMproximateMoisture93.33 ± 0.29%p=0.10 (ns)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T1APproximateFiber1.72 ± 0.03%p=0.00 (p<=0.05, significant)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T1SMproximateFiber1.98 ± 0.03%p=0.00 (p<=0.05, significant)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T1APbiochemistryChlorophyll a5.34mg/gp<=0.05 (CD=0.39)Table 5
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T1SMbiochemistryChlorophyll a4.64mg/gp<=0.05 (CD=0.39)Table 5
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T1APbiochemistryChlorophyll b3.62mg/gp<=0.05 (CD=0.30)Table 5
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T1SMbiochemistryChlorophyll b2.97mg/gp<=0.05 (CD=0.30)Table 5
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T1APbiochemistryTotal chlorophyll3.14mg/gp<=0.05 (CD=0.11)Table 5
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T1SMbiochemistryTotal chlorophyll2.60mg/gp<=0.05 (CD=0.11)Table 5
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T1APbiochemistryCarotenoids3.89mg/gp<=0.05 (CD=0.29)Table 5
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T1SMbiochemistryCarotenoids3.53mg/gp<=0.05 (CD=0.29)Table 5
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T2APproximateProtein1.41 ± 0.17%p=0.94 (ns)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T2SMproximateProtein1.39 ± 0.23%p=0.94 (ns)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T2APproximateFat0.26 ± 0.00%UNCLEARTable 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T2SMproximateFat0.30 ± 0.02%UNCLEARTable 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T2APproximateCarbohydrate1.08 ± 0.04%p=0.54 (ns)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T2SMproximateCarbohydrate1.35 ± 0.41%p=0.54 (ns)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T2APproximateAsh1.51 ± 0.20%p=0.59 (ns)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T2SMproximateAsh1.63 ± 0.03%p=0.59 (ns)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T2APproximateMoisture94.00 ± 0.12%p=0.10 (ns)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T2SMproximateMoisture93.33 ± 0.29%p=0.10 (ns)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T2APproximateFiber1.72 ± 0.03%p=0.00 (p<=0.05, significant)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T2SMproximateFiber1.98 ± 0.03%p=0.00 (p<=0.05, significant)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T2APbiochemistryChlorophyll a5.34mg/gp<=0.05 (CD=0.39)Table 5
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T2SMbiochemistryChlorophyll a4.64mg/gp<=0.05 (CD=0.39)Table 5
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T2APbiochemistryChlorophyll b3.62mg/gp<=0.05 (CD=0.30)Table 5
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T2SMbiochemistryChlorophyll b2.97mg/gp<=0.05 (CD=0.30)Table 5
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T2APbiochemistryTotal chlorophyll3.14mg/gp<=0.05 (CD=0.11)Table 5
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T2SMbiochemistryTotal chlorophyll2.60mg/gp<=0.05 (CD=0.11)Table 5
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T2APbiochemistryCarotenoids3.89mg/gp<=0.05 (CD=0.29)Table 5
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T2SMbiochemistryCarotenoids3.53mg/gp<=0.05 (CD=0.29)Table 5
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T3APproximateProtein1.41 ± 0.17%p=0.94 (ns)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T3SMproximateProtein1.39 ± 0.23%p=0.94 (ns)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T3APproximateFat0.26 ± 0.00%UNCLEARTable 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T3SMproximateFat0.30 ± 0.02%UNCLEARTable 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T3APproximateCarbohydrate1.08 ± 0.04%p=0.54 (ns)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T3SMproximateCarbohydrate1.35 ± 0.41%p=0.54 (ns)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T3APproximateAsh1.51 ± 0.20%p=0.59 (ns)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T3SMproximateAsh1.63 ± 0.03%p=0.59 (ns)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T3APproximateMoisture94.00 ± 0.12%p=0.10 (ns)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T3SMproximateMoisture93.33 ± 0.29%p=0.10 (ns)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T3APproximateFiber1.72 ± 0.03%p=0.00 (p<=0.05, significant)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T3SMproximateFiber1.98 ± 0.03%p=0.00 (p<=0.05, significant)Table 6
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T3APbiochemistryChlorophyll a5.34mg/gp<=0.05 (CD=0.39)Table 5
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T3SMbiochemistryChlorophyll a4.64mg/gp<=0.05 (CD=0.39)Table 5
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T3APbiochemistryChlorophyll b3.62mg/gp<=0.05 (CD=0.30)Table 5
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T3SMbiochemistryChlorophyll b2.97mg/gp<=0.05 (CD=0.30)Table 5
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T3APbiochemistryTotal chlorophyll3.14mg/gp<=0.05 (CD=0.11)Table 5
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T3SMbiochemistryTotal chlorophyll2.60mg/gp<=0.05 (CD=0.11)Table 5
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T3APbiochemistryCarotenoids3.89mg/gp<=0.05 (CD=0.29)Table 5
singhAquaponicProductionOrnamental2024-T3SMbiochemistryCarotenoids3.53mg/gp<=0.05 (CD=0.29)Table 5

Graph View

Backlinks