Watercress (Nasturtium officinale) Production Utilizing Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) Flow-through Aquaculture Effluent

Metadata

Cite key: smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007
Item type: Thesis (Master of Science, WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports / ETD)
Authors: Erika Nichole Smith
Affiliation: Davis College of Agriculture, Forestry, and Consumer Sciences, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV (as printed on the 2007 title page; the WVU Research Repository’s current listing gives the department as “Applied and Environmental Biology” within the renamed “Davis College of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Design” — a post-hoc reorganization, not a discrepancy in the original work)
Committee: Todd P. West, Ph.D. (Chair/Advisor), Sven Verlinden, Ph.D., Ken Semmens, Ph.D.
Journal: N/A — Master’s thesis, Department of Agriculture, West Virginia University
Date: 2007
Date added: 2026-08-11
DOI: 10.33915/etd.4336
Funding: USDA grant (acknowledged, no grant number given)
URL: https://doi.org/10.33915/etd.4336 (also directly browsable at https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/4336)
PDF: Smith - 2007 - Watercress (Nasturtium officinale) production utilizing brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) flow-thr.pdf

Opinion

A genuinely old-school, unglamorous piece of applied horticulture: no RAS, no biofilter, no controlled nutrient dosing — just watercress grown directly in the effluent of a working, continuously-operating flow-through trout raceway, with a companion water-quality thesis (Dyer 2006) covering the chemistry side that this document deliberately doesn’t touch. Methodologically it’s solid within its own terms (true RCB designs, 3 reps, SAS GLM + Tukey HSD, honest reporting of non-significant results), but structurally it does not fit the vault’s usual aquaponic-vs-hydroponic-control mold at all: the hydroponic experiment and the three aquaponic experiments are separate, unpaired studies with different manipulated factors, different durations, and (crucially) the one place the author tries to compare them directly, the hydroponic absolute values only exist in bar charts, not in text or a table — so the comparison the reader most wants (does effluent-grown watercress match nutrient-solution watercress?) is narratively described as a ratio but can’t be pulled into a clean number. The most useful finding is arguably the negative one: watercress growth in effluent did not differ significantly from watercress grown in plain, unfertilized spring water at this system’s scale, meaning the paper’s own headline framing (nutrient recovery / phytoremediation) quietly gives way to its Conclusions’ more honest one (water reuse and a secondary marketable crop, not meaningful nutrient stripping). Worth citing for water-velocity and growing-medium effects on floating-raft crops in dilute, flow-through (not recirculating) aquaponics — a system type this vault otherwise mostly sees as recirculating RAS — but not for a clean AP-vs-HYD number.

Abstract

Dissolved nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) present in flow-through aquaculture effluent can pose the risk of eutrophication to receiving streams when discharged from flow-through systems. One potential solution to prevent nutrient loading is the establishment of an integrated system that cultures green plants in the effluent. The objectives of this research were to determine watercress’ (Nasturtium officinale) growth and nutrient contents in both a hydroponic controlled environment and a flow-through aquaponic production system utilizing brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) aquaculture effluent; and to evaluate various treatments to determine the best cultural conditions for watercress in the aquaponic system for optimization as a nutrient recovery option for and value-added by-product to fish production. A 6-week long hydroponic and three 12-week long aquaponic experiments were conducted to meet these objectives. The hydroponic experiment studied the effects of light intensity and nutrient solution concentration and the aquaponic experiments studied the effects of water velocity, plant density, growing media, location, and season on watercress growth and nutrient contents. Whole plants were sampled for growth data (fresh weights, lengths, and dry weights) and dried tissue was analyzed for total N and P content. All experiments were randomized complete block (RCB) designs with three replications per treatment. Growth and nutrient data were analyzed separately and all significance was determined using SAS software. Data from the hydroponic experiment indicated that watercress growth and nutrient contents were greatest in the intermediate light intensity. The half-strength Hoagland’s nutrient solution treatment resulted in significantly longer plants but had no significance on fresh weight or nutrient content versus the full-strength nutrient solution treatment. Overall, results from the aquaponic experiments provided that watercress growth was significantly greater when grown in the high water velocity, high plant density, paper growing medium, Aquaponic Production Greenhouse (APG), and spring season treatments. These treatments also resulted in greater nutrient contents in dry tissue, with the exception of greater nutrient contents in plants grown during the winter season. Nutrient sufficiency ranges may or may not have been met in the various experiments which suggest that the effluent may be nutrient limiting at times. In conclusion, watercress production is possible utilizing brook trout flow-through aquaculture effluent. The risk of nutrient loading from the system studied is insignificant because watercress growth and nutrient contents were not significant among treatments exposed and not exposed to effluent. Therefore, the focus of this integrated watercress and trout production system becomes a sustainable agriculture versus a phytoremediation approach that takes advantage of resources already available. Watercress could also serve as a secondary marketable crop for farmers to potentially increase farm income.

Summary

Smith grew watercress (Nasturtium officinale) on floating PVC/poultry-netting rafts in channels fed either by nutrient solution (a stand-alone 6-week hydroponic experiment, WVU greenhouse growth chambers, testing light intensity x Hoagland’s solution strength) or by the effluent of an existing, continuously-operating flow-through brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) raceway at the WVU Reymann Memorial Farm (three separate 12-week aquaponic experiments: Summer 2005 in the Aquaculture Research Facility testing water velocity x plant density x growing medium; Winter and Spring 2006 in a newly built, unheated Aquaponic Production Greenhouse testing water velocity x plant density only). All experiments used a randomized complete block design with three replications, analyzed by SAS GLM with Tukey’s HSD. Across the aquaponic experiments, growth and dry-tissue N/P content were consistently greatest in high water velocity, high plant density, and paper-medium (versus rockwool or oasis) treatments, and greatest overall in the APG (higher light) versus the ARF (lower light) and in spring versus winter for growth (though winter had higher tissue nutrients, tracking higher effluent nutrient concentrations that season). A dedicated comparison of effluent-exposed channels against a spring-water-only control (no fish contact at all) found no significant difference in growth or nutrient content, leading the author to conclude the effluent’s nutrient contribution was too small, at this system’s modest scale, to pose a real nutrient-loading risk — reframing the project’s purpose from phytoremediation toward water reuse and a secondary marketable crop. Tissue N and P sufficiency, judged against literature ranges for watercress, was inconsistently met and never clearly attributable to the effluent alone given the whole-plant (not new-leaf) sampling basis used. A theoretical yield/profit projection is offered for a proposed commercial-scale system but is explicitly labelled speculative, not measured.

Experiment data

Location: WVU Reymann Memorial Farm (RMF), Wardensville, Hardy County, WV (aquaponic experiments: Aquaculture Research Facility (ARF), Summer 2005; Aquaponic Production Greenhouse (APG), Winter and Spring 2006); WVU Davis College of Agriculture, Forestry and Consumer Sciences, Morgantown, WV (hydroponic experiment, growth chambers). No GPS coordinates given anywhere in the thesis.

Design: Hydroponic experiment (excluded from trials.csv, see Extraction notes): 2(light: low 50 PAR / intermediate 450 PAR) x 3(nutrient solution: full-strength / half-strength Hoagland’s / de-ionized-water control) RCB, 3 reps, 6 weeks. Aquaponic experiments (all RCB, 3 reps, 12 weeks, effluent-fed floating rafts): Summer 2005 (ARF) = 3(velocity) x 3(density) x 3(media) factorial, 27 channels, plus a separate 3-channel spring-water (no-effluent) control comparison at reduced (medium-density-only) scope; Winter 2006 and Spring 2006 (APG, each a fresh 12-week cycle) = 2(velocity) x 2(density) factorial, paper medium only, 12 channels each; both APG experiments also ran a location sub-comparison (APG vs. a parallel low-velocity/high-density bed in the ARF) and were jointly analyzed for a season effect (winter vs. spring, APG only).

Replicates / n: 3 replications per treatment in every experiment (RCB blocking factor); growth sub-samples of 3 plants/raft per sampling; nutrient (tissue N/P) samples are a composite of 3 plants per sampling.

Duration: Hydroponic: 6 weeks. Each aquaponic experiment: 12 weeks (Summer 2005 late June-mid Sept; Winter 2006 mid Dec-early March; Spring 2006 mid March-early June). Growth data analyzed only for the last 9 of 12 weeks in each aquaponic experiment (plants did not meet sampling-size criteria earlier); nutrient data analyzed only for the last 6 weeks of each aquaponic experiment and only the final (Week 6) sampling of the hydroponic experiment (insufficient dry tissue mass earlier).

Organisms: Watercress (Nasturtium officinale) R.Br. / Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) (pre-existing WVU RMF raceway population, ~5000 fish, not stocked or manipulated for this study)

Statistics: SAS General Linear Model (Type III SS), Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD) test, contrast statements for linear/quadratic trend; RCB design throughout; p<0.05()/p<0.01()/p<0.001()/ns

Water velocity (all 3 aquaponic experiments): growth and tissue N/P consistently greatest at high velocity (0.61 cm/s) vs. low (0.06 cm/s); e.g. Summer 2005 length 44.72 vs 34.31 cm (***)

Growing medium (Summer 2005 only): paper > rockwool > oasis for length; paper = rockwool > oasis for dry weight and %N/%P (***)

Effluent vs. spring water (Summer 2005, Control Comparison): no significant difference in length, dry weight, %N, or %P between effluent-exposed and non-exposed (spring-water-only) channels

Location (Winter/Spring 2006): watercress did not grow at all in the low-PAR ARF in winter (0.00 cm/mg/%N/%P); grew but performed significantly worse than APG in spring

Aquaponic vs. hydroponic performance

This paper: This thesis’s most-cited framing question — how does effluent-grown (“aquaponic”) watercress compare with nutrient-solution-grown (“hydroponic”) watercress — is only ever answered narratively, not with a joint statistical test, because the two are separate experiments with different manipulated factors and durations. The one place the author attempts a direct comparison (p.66-67) uses Week-6 data from the Spring 2006 “Location Comparison” subset (APG only, low velocity/high density, the only aquaponic dataset spanning both low- and intermediate-PAR conditions matching the hydroponic experiment’s two light levels) against Week-6 hydroponic data. At Week 6, APG effluent-grown watercress measured 10.07 cm long and 84.55 mg dry weight (stated directly in text); under matching intermediate PAR, hydroponic (Hoagland’s) watercress was “about 4 times longer and weighed about 35 to 75 times more” in the half- and full-strength solutions respectively. The absolute hydroponic Week-6 values behind that ratio are shown only in bar charts (Figures 4-5) with no accompanying table or text figures, so per this vault’s never-read-a-figure and no-derivation rules, no HYD cell value could be extracted — see Extraction notes. The Conclusions (p.75) restate this as: hydroponic nutrient solution outperformed aquaculture effluent for growth under matching light, implying the effluent was nutrient-limiting relative to a full mineral solution, and that supplemental nutrient addition might be needed if faster/larger growth were the goal — while also noting (p.67) that the smaller, “market-ready” appearance of the effluent-grown plants may actually be commercially preferable to the oversized Hoagland’s-grown plants.

Compared with: (no external literature comparison given for the AP-vs-HYD contrast specifically; the paper’s own two experiments are the only data compared here)

Water velocity, growing medium, and plant density effects

This paper: Across all three aquaponic experiments, high water velocity (0.61 cm/s) consistently produced significantly longer, heavier plants with higher tissue N (and usually P) than low velocity (0.06 cm/s), attributed to greater root-effluent contact and (unmeasured but inferred) higher dissolved oxygen per unit time (e.g. Summer 2005: length 44.72 vs 34.31 cm, dry weight 171.73 vs 90.74 mg, both ***; Spring 2006: length 26.97 vs 16.45 cm, dry weight 619.20 vs 126.50 mg, both ***). In Summer 2005, the only experiment testing growing medium, paper substrate outperformed rockwool for length and both outperformed oasis for length and dry weight (thin paper barrier let roots reach effluent faster than dense oasis cubes); a significant velocity x medium interaction for tissue %P found the paper/rockwool media combined with medium-to-high velocity produced the highest P content, and any oasis combination the lowest regardless of velocity (Table 5). Plant density was significant only in Spring 2006 (length only, high 0.08 vs low 0.02 plants/cm2, ***; not dry weight); it was not significant for any growth or nutrient measure in Summer 2005 or Winter 2006. The author’s own overall Conclusion (p.75) recommends high velocity + high density + paper medium as the best-performing combination “regardless of season or location,” and the one true joint-combination (not marginal-mean) growth value stated anywhere in the thesis — 0.48 g fresh weight per plant, high velocity + high density, Spring 2006 APG — comes from this recommended combination, used for the paper’s theoretical yield projection (see below).

Compared with:

todo Seelig 1974 — watercress grows best in flowing water and requires larger flow with lower-N water sources to meet nutrient demand; cited as the mechanistic basis for the velocity effect (p.5-6, 41)
todo Rakocy et al. 2004 — highest okra production found at high plant density in an aquaponic system, cited as a parallel finding to this paper’s Spring 2006 density effect (p.59)
todo Lennard and Leonard 2004/2006 — NFT sub-systems reported less efficient at nutrient removal and plant biomass/yield than gravel-bed or floating hydroponic sub-systems, cited in the Aquaponics/Hydroponics literature review as part of the rationale for using a floating raft rather than NFT design (p.9-10). Note: this vault already has pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012 citing a “Lennard and Leonard 2004” for a different finding (4.96 kg/m2 lettuce yield); Smith’s reference list gives a 2006 web-published version of what appears to be the same underlying comparison — flagged for the user to check whether these are the same source before merging citation entries.

Effluent vs. spring water (nutrient-loading risk)

This paper: The Summer 2005 “Control Comparison” is the paper’s most consequential finding for its stated phytoremediation framing: watercress grown in raceway effluent (main channels) was not significantly different, in length, dry weight, %N, or %P, from watercress grown in plain spring water with no fish contact at all (control channels, at the raceway headbox). The author attributes this to the small scale of this particular flow-through operation — spring water N/P was already under 1 mg/L before reaching the fish, and post-raceway tailbox concentrations showed only small, sometimes inconsistent increases (citing companion water-quality data in Dyer 2006). The paper concludes the threat of nutrient loading from this specific system is minimal, and reframes the integrated system’s value proposition from nutrient recovery/phytoremediation toward water reuse and production of a secondary marketable crop — a notably more modest claim than the Introduction’s opening framing around EPA effluent limits and eutrophication risk.

Compared with:

todo C.W. Johnson, unpublished data (1995), cited in Smith 2007 — watercress grown as a bio-filter on trout-farm effluent in floating-frame ponds removed 93% of solids, 74% of ammonia, 50% of P, and 58% of BOD (secondary figures, not independently verified by Smith) [secondary, cites C.W. Johnson unpublished] (p.11)
todo Adler 1998 — aquaponic lettuce system removed >95% of P from rainbow trout recirculating-system effluent while producing a marketable crop, cited as a successful phytoremediation precedent that contrasts with this paper’s own more modest finding (p.12-13)
todo Rundquist et al. 1976 — watercress-crayfish polyculture using trout hatchery effluent; watercress removed nutrients supporting crayfish production and served as a crayfish food source (p.12)

Location and season effects

This paper: Watercress performed significantly better in the APG (intermediate PAR, ~higher ambient temperature) than in the ARF (low PAR, opaque roof) in both winter and spring sub-comparisons: in winter, watercress did not grow at all in the ARF (0.00 cm/mg/%N/%P at every sampling, attributed to insufficient light and cold preventing germination) versus a clear positive growth curve in the APG; in spring, ARF plants grew (unlike winter) but remained significantly lower in dry weight and both nutrients than APG plants, though length was not significantly different between locations. Comparing the two APG cycles directly, a season analysis found watercress significantly longer in spring than winter (more daylight, higher temperatures) but not significantly different in dry weight, while tissue N and P were significantly higher in winter than spring — attributed to higher effluent nutrient concentrations during the winter months (companion water-quality values in Dyer 2006, not given numerically in this thesis). The unheated, uncooled APG (ventilation only, via roll-up side walls and a vent fan) still allowed out-of-season production relative to watercress’s natural spring-only growth cycle, which the author notes commands higher market prices.

Compared with: (no external literature comparison given for the location/season effects specifically)

Tissue nutrient sufficiency

This paper: Judged against Mills et al.’s (1996) watercress sufficiency ranges (N 4.2-6.0%, P 0.7-1.3%, based on new-leaf, mid-season sampling), this thesis’s whole-plant (root+shoot), throughout-season tissue samples fell short of the N range in nearly every treatment and experiment, with the single exception of Winter 2006’s Week-12 mean (4.33% N, within range). P sufficiency was more ambiguous: several high-velocity/paper- or rockwool-medium combinations in Summer 2005 exceeded Janick’s (1986) more general 0.2-0.3% “typical plant” P range even where they fell short of Mills’s watercress-specific range, so whether the effluent was P-limiting depends on which reference range is used. The author repeatedly cautions that neither range may be a fair comparison given the whole-plant (not new-leaf) sampling basis and the fact the literature ranges likely derive from heavily-fertilized commercial watercress — a methodological caveat rather than a data contradiction, but one that should be kept in mind before citing any of this thesis’s sufficiency conclusions.

Compared with:

todo Mills and Jones 1996 — Plant Analysis Handbook II; source of the watercress N (4.2-6.0%) and P (0.7-1.3%) sufficiency ranges used as the primary benchmark throughout (new-leaf, mid-season basis) (p.6, 33, 43-44)
todo Janick 1986 — Horticultural Science; general “typical plant” N (2.5-4.5%) and P (0.2-0.3%) ranges used as a secondary, non-species-specific benchmark (p.33, 43)

Yield and profit potential (theoretical)

This paper: Using the Spring 2006 high-velocity/high-density fresh-weight figure (0.48 g/plant, the paper’s only stated joint-combination growth value), the author projects a proposed 14-bed (39.06 m2), paper-medium APG system could theoretically yield 4.59 kg/m2/year under a staggered double-harvest schedule (2.37 kg/m2/year single-harvest), and estimates annual profit at $19, 110 -$ 57,330 (double-harvest) or $9, 660 -$ 28,980 (single-harvest) at $1-3/bunch market pricing. The author is explicit that “No harvest treatments were conducted during the aquaponic experiments in this research and the following yield estimate and profit potential given for watercress are theoretical” (p.71) — these are back-of-envelope projections from a single growth data point, not measured outcomes, and are not entered into this paper’s trials.csv AP yield cells for that reason (see Extraction notes).

Compared with:

todo Shear 1968 — commercial watercress yields of ~2550 bunches per 93 m2 per cutting; the author’s theoretical per-cutting yield (3000 bunches/93 m2 equivalent) is higher on a bunch-count basis (p.73-74)
todo The Growing Edge 2002 — hydroponic watercress yields of 1.5-2.0 kg/m2/month reported in summer from protected systems; the author’s theoretical mass-based yield (0.20-0.38 kg/m2/month) is lower, a conflicting picture the author attributes to bunch-count vs. mass-per-area being different yield metrics (p.74)

Linked claims

Citations to chase

Extraction notes

MAJOR STRUCTURAL JUDGMENT CALL — trial row definition. This thesis does not have the conventional “aquaponic treatment vs. paired hydroponic control” structure most papers in this vault use. It is a single Master’s thesis containing FOUR internally-distinct studies: (1) a stand-alone 6-week Hydroponic Experiment (nutrient solution x light intensity, no fish, no effluent, WVU campus growth chambers) used only as a narrative baseline; and (2)-(4) three separate 12-week Aquaponic Experiments (Summer 2005 ARF; Winter 2006 APG; Spring 2006 APG) manipulating water velocity, plant density, and (Summer 2005 only) growing medium, none of which include a concurrent hydroponic nutrient-solution arm. Decisions made, in order:

The Hydroponic Experiment does not get its own trials.csv row. It has no fish/aquaponic component at all to anchor an “AP” side, and this vault’s row unit is “one aquaponic treatment.” Its data (Tables 1-2, Figures 4-5) is fully described in the Experiment data callout and this note’s prose only.
The three Aquaponic Experiments each get exactly one trials.csv row (T1 = Summer 2005 ARF main experiment; T2 = Summer 2005 ARF Control Comparison [effluent vs. spring water]; T3 = Winter 2006 APG; T4 = Spring 2006 APG), rather than splitting further by individual factor level (e.g. one row per velocity level). SCHEMA.md’s own worked example (“three stocking densities against one hydroponic control produces three rows”) implies splitting by tested level for a single-factor design, but Smith’s aquaponic experiments cross 2-3 factors at once (velocity x density x media), and the paper itself reports only marginal (main-effect) means per factor for growth traits because the full factorial interaction was not significant (VELDENMED p=0.5845, Appendix 5). Splitting into one row per factor level would require either fabricating combination-level numbers the paper never states (derivation, prohibited) or misrepresenting an unreplicated slice of a multi-factor trial as if it were the whole trial. Kept as 4 rows per SCHEMA.md’s own caution: “If unsure, keep one row and describe the ambiguity in remarks… merging is reversible from the note, un-multiplying is not.”
HYD columns are NA (not NR) in all four trials.csv rows. None of the three aquaponic experiments has a concurrent hydroponic nutrient-solution arm to serve as a paired control — this is a design fact of the paper, not a reporting gap.
Two further sub-comparisons the paper itself runs — the Winter 2006 and Spring 2006 “Location Comparisons” (APG vs. a parallel ARF bed, low-velocity/high-density subset only) and the “Winter v. Spring Season Comparison” — do NOT get their own trials.csv rows or plant.csv rows. These are secondary analyses of data already captured in T3/T4 (or, for the Spring Location Comparison, the paper’s one attempt at a narrative AP-vs-hydroponic contrast, discussed above), not new physical experiments with their own treatment factor. Their numbers are preserved narratively in this note’s Location and season effects section and in T3/T4’s Experimental Remarks, not force-fit into a TrialID that would misrepresent them as a distinct treatment arm.
Growth-trait cells (Plant height, Plant fresh weight, Plant dry matter) are NR in nearly every row because the paper reports only per-factor marginal means, not single trial-wide or single-combination values, for length and dry weight in every aquaponic experiment. The ONE exception is Plant fresh weight in T4 (0.48 g/plant), a genuine stated joint-combination (high velocity + high density) value used by the author for the yield projection — used because it is not a marginal mean I chose among several, but the one number the paper itself singles out as representing a specific combination. All per-factor-level means (velocity, media, density, replication, sample date) for length, dry weight, %N and %P are preserved in full in each row’s Experimental Remarks and, for %N/%P, in plant.csv as separate long-format rows.

No numeric internal contradictions (⚠️BLOCK/MATERIAL/CHECK) were found in this paper during extraction — cross-checked the plant-density nominal values (0.02/0.04/0.08 plants/cm2) against the stated raft area and plants-per-raft counts (50/100/200 plants per 2619.35 cm2 raft = 0.0191/0.0382/0.0764 plants/cm2, matching the rounded nominal figures to within normal rounding, not flagged as it affects no cell); checked Table 3 vs. Table 6 vs. Table 8/12 for velocity-level growth means across experiments (each internally consistent, no restated figure found that disagreed with its own table); and checked the Week-6 Spring Location Comparison text values (10.07 cm/84.55 mg) against Table 14’s overall three-sample-date mean (22.09 cm/179.26 mg) — confirmed these are different quantities (a single-week subset vs. a whole-trial average), not a contradiction, and labelled as such in T4’s remarks. quality: ok reflects this — zero BLOCK, zero MATERIAL flags.

[not reported] fields, grouped, all four trials:

Fish performance (all trials): Fish Category, Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, feed N/P/K composition, % of body weight, Fish size initial/final, Feed routine, Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (days) — the WVU RMF raceway is a pre-existing, continuously-operating population (~5000 fish) not stocked, harvested, or growth-tracked for this study; only aggregate tank weight ranges (318-454 kg/tank) and the feed product name (Zeigler Gold Floating 3.0MM) are given, with feed composition, ration %, and any individual/population growth metric never stated.
Water quality (all trials): Water recycle, Water volume in the system, Water classification, Aq pH, pHOptimal, Dissolved Oxygen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N — NONE of these are measured or reported anywhere in this thesis. The author explicitly defers all water-chemistry data to a companion thesis (Dyer, D.J. 2006, cited throughout, see Citations to chase) covering the environmental-engineering side of the same combined research project. This is a full water panel absent from the source, not one this extraction chose to discard — flagging per SCHEMA.md’s instruction, though there is nothing here to route elsewhere since no water-chemistry values of any kind appear in the PDF.
Plant (all trials): SPAD, Leaf count, Plant Category, Days Plant after transplant (NA where direct-seeding is explicitly stated for Winter/Spring 2006; genuinely UNCLEAR for Summer 2005/T1-T2, where the seeding-vs-transplant method is never explicitly confirmed), Plant height and Plant dry matter (all rows, see structural note above), Plant fresh weight (T1-T3, see structural note above), Lat/Long (no coordinates anywhere in the thesis), Average room Temperature (only hydroponic-experiment growth-chamber setpoints given; no aquaponic greenhouse/ARF ambient temperature values stated in this document, deferred to Dyer 2006), Plants/m2 (T1-T3, multiple untested-as-single levels, see structural note above).
FUE AP/HYD, WUE — no fertilizer-use-efficiency or water-use-efficiency metric of any kind is calculated or stated anywhere in this thesis.

New tags introduced: Meta/Fish/Brook-Trout (new — no existing Salvelinus/Brook Trout tag found anywhere in the vault at time of writing; checked against Meta/Fish/Trout and Meta/Fish/RainbowTrout, both of which refer to different, unspecified-or-rainbow trout species in other notes, so this is a genuinely new species-level leaf, not a duplicate). Meta/Type/Experiment, Meta/Region/North-America, Meta/Plant/Watercress all reused exactly as spelled in existing vault notes (alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025, barbosaPerformanceNileTilapia2020 for Watercress; andersonGrowthTissueElemental2017/camargocastellanosSystemManagementLemna2022/others for North-America, the more common of two spelling variants found in the vault, the other being NorthAmerica).

Tags judgment call: No Meta/Fish/ tag beyond Brook-Trout was considered necessary. The raceway’s fish are the sole aquaculture organism and their effluent is the entire nutrient input studied, even though the fish themselves are never manipulated or measured as part of this thesis’s own experiments (that is Meta/Fish/Brook-Trout marking “the fish species whose effluent this system uses,” which is defensible per CLAUDE.md’s “only tag an organism if the paper studied it” — the effluent generated by this specific species/population is very much what is studied, even if the fish’s own growth is not).

New wikilink targets introduced: [[Erika Nichole Smith]] (single author, no existing note found), [[Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)]] (new species-specific fish wikilink, following the vault’s [[Common name (Genus species)]] convention seen in [[Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)]] etc.), [[Watercress (Nasturtium officinale)]] (reused exactly from alizaehComparingYieldNutrient2025, confirmed this is the correct canonical form and NOT the same as the vault’s separate [[Nasturtium (Tropaeolum majus)]] tag used in buzbyScalingAquaponicSystems2014 for a different, ornamental “nasturtium” species — checked explicitly to avoid conflating two unrelated plants that share a common name).

Metadata resolution: No DOI is printed anywhere in the PDF itself (as is typical for pre-2010s institutional-repository ETDs). A DOI (10.33915/etd.4336) was located via the WVU Research Repository landing page (https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/4336) and confirmed against https://api.crossref.org/works/10.33915/etd.4336, which returns matching title/author/year and classifies the work as a Master’s dissertation, publisher West Virginia University Libraries. Per CLAUDE.md, this is not a case of “no DOI found” (a DOI does exist and resolves), but it required a repository lookup rather than being visible on PDF page 1 — documented here so the discovery method is auditable.

PDF quality: Clean, fully machine-readable text layer throughout this 125-page ETD PDF (standard WVU thesis LaTeX/Word typesetting, single-spaced body, ANOVA tables in the Appendix). One minor, cosmetic-only OCR/encoding artifact: the apostrophe in “watercress’” renders as a stray ”�” character in several places (e.g. the Abstract). No pages required OCR; no NEEDS_OCR.md entry warranted.

Source: Smith - 2007 - Watercress (Nasturtium officinale) production utilizing brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) flow-thr.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

smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T1

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)
Feed regime	Zeigler Gold Floating 3.0MM pelleted diet (Zeigler Bros., Inc.), fed at “a rate that supports full growth potential” to maintain 318-454 kg (700-1000 lb) fish per tank; fish periodically removed to keep weight within/below this range (Semmens, pers. comm., p.16). Feed frequency and % body weight ration not stated. Feed proximate composition (N/P/K/protein %) not stated anywhere in this thesis.

Field

Value

Fish

Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)

Feed regime

Zeigler Gold Floating 3.0MM pelleted diet (Zeigler Bros., Inc.), fed at “a rate that supports full growth potential” to maintain 318-454 kg (700-1000 lb) fish per tank; fish periodically removed to keep weight within/below this range (Semmens, pers. comm., p.16). Feed frequency and % body weight ration not stated. Feed proximate composition (N/P/K/protein %) not stated anywhere in this thesis.

Water

Field	Value
Water type	Flow-through brook trout raceway effluent (spring-fed, non-recirculating)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Watercress (Nasturtium officinale R.Br.)
Details	3x3x3 factorial (velocity x density x media), RCB, 3 reps; 27 effluent-fed channels; whole-plant (root+shoot) samples, 3 plants/sample for growth, composite of 3 plants for nutrient analysis; sample criteria: >=2 sets true leaves, >=600mg collective fresh weight

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Floating raft (PVC frame + plastic poultry netting rafts) in flow-through channels, no substrate other than the raft growing-media treatment itself
Media Details	Single-ply white paper (Scott Paper); Isolatek mineral wool bulk insulation (horticultural rockwool); 4cm Oasis rootcubes (Hummert Intl) — 3 media tested in this trial
Biological system already in use	Y (Pre-existing WVU Reymann Memorial Farm (RMF) dual-sided, four-step, flow-through brook trout raceway (~5000 fish, continuously operating, spring-fed, ~25.23 L/s (400 gpm) total inflow); not stocked specifically for this study and not subject to any fish-side manipulation/treatment in this thesis (p.16).)
Iron supplemented	N (No iron or other micronutrient supplementation to aquaponic channels; effluent-only nutrient source.)
Remineralization	N (No remineralization/buffering of aquaponic effluent described.)
Nutrient supplemented	N (No fertilizer/nutrient supplementation applied to any aquaponic channel; supplemental nutrient addition is discussed only as a suggestion for FUTURE research to improve N/P sufficiency (Results & Discussion, p.44-45), not something done in this study.)
Equipment	HOBO Microstation Datalogger w/ 2 temperature sensors + 2 PAR sensors (air temp/light only); AccuPAR LP-80 PAR/LAI Ceptometer; LECO TruSpec CHN-S analyzer (total N, most samples) / gas chromatography (13 samples, when TruSpec under maintenance, WVU Chem. Eng. Lab); Varian ICP-OES (total P, NRCCE Analytical Lab); drying oven (75C); SAS software (GLM, Type III SS, Tukey HSD, contrast statements).
Control Parameters	Water velocity set per treatment (0.06 / 0.30 / 0.61 cm/s, i.e. low/medium/high); no temperature, DO, pH, or EC setpoints/control described for the aquaponic channels themselves (ambient/effluent-determined; logged but values reported only in companion Dyer 2006 thesis).

Site

Field	Value
Region	North America
Country	USA

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	cm (whole-plant length, root tip to shoot tip); mg or g (fresh/dry weight); % (total N, total P of dry tissue)
Statistic Details	SAS General Linear Model (GLM), Type III SS; Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD) test for significant means; contrast statements for linear/quadratic trend; RCB design, 3 replications/treatment; significance p<0.05(), p<0.01(), p<0.001(), ns=not significant. Growth data analysed only for the last 9 of 12 weeks (plants did not meet the >=2 true-leaf-sets / >=600mg fresh-weight sampling criterion in weeks 1-3); nutrient (tissue N/P) data analysed only for the last 6 weeks (insufficient dry tissue mass earlier) (p.26).
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	3

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T1 = Summer 2005 (ARF) main experiment. 12-week trial (late June-mid Sept 2005), Aquaculture Research Facility (ARF), WVU Reymann Memorial Farm, Wardensville (Hardy County), WV. 3(water velocity: low 0.06/medium 0.30/high 0.61 cm/s) x 3(plant density: low 0.02/medium 0.04/high 0.08 plants/cm2, i.e. 50/100/200 plants per 2619.35cm2 raft) x 3(growing media: paper/rockwool/oasis) factorial, RCB design, 3 reps/combination = 27 effluent-fed experimental channels (of 33 total constructed; 3 left permanently empty as an environmental-engineering control, and one further bed of 3 channels held aside at the raceway headbox as a spring-water-only control, reported separately as -T2, not part of this row’s 27 main channels). No concurrent hydroponic (nutrient-solution) control — HYD = NA. Paired control = none (see STRUCTURE NOTE). STRUCTURAL JUDGMENT CALL (applies to all 4 trials.csv rows from this paper, full reasoning given once here on T1, abbreviated on T2-T4): this thesis does NOT have the conventional ‘aquaponic treatment vs paired hydroponic control’ structure most vault papers use. It reports a completely separate stand-alone Hydroponic Experiment (nutrient solution x light intensity, 6 weeks, WVU Davis College growth chambers, no fish, no effluent) used only as a narrative baseline/reference, and THREE separate 12-week aquaponic experiments (Summer 2005 ARF; Winter 2006 APG; Spring 2006 APG) that manipulate water velocity, plant density, and growing medium — none of which include a concurrent hydroponic nutrient-solution arm. The only place the author draws a direct AP-vs-HYD comparison is a narrative, ratio-based one (p.66-67): Week-6 data from the ‘Spring 2006 - Location Comparison’ subset (APG only, low velocity/high density) versus Week-6 data from the hydroponic experiment under matching PAR. The hydroponic Week-6 absolute values are given ONLY in bar charts (Figures 4-5, no accompanying table/text numbers — only text-stated ratios ‘about 4 times longer…35 to 75 times more’), so per SCHEMA.md’s never-read-a-figure and no-derivation rules, no HYD cell value can be extracted from this comparison (back-computing an absolute figure from the stated ratio would be derivation). Given no concurrent/paired hydroponic arm exists for any of the 3 aquaponic experiments, HYD-side columns are recorded NA (not NR) throughout, and AP vs HYD narrative comparison is described qualitatively in the note’s ‘Aquaponic vs hydroponic performance’ section instead of forced into a cell. The Hydroponic Experiment itself does not get its own trials.csv row (it has no aquaponic/fish component at all to anchor an ‘AP’ side) — its data is fully described in the note’s Experiment data callout and prose only, per the judgment that trials.csv rows in this vault represent aquaponic treatment arms. | SECOND STRUCTURAL JUDGMENT CALL: each of the 3 aquaponic experiments is itself a multi-factor factorial (Summer 2005: 3 velocity x 3 density x 3 media, RCB, n=3; Winter/Spring 2006: 2 velocity x 2 density, RCB, n=3), and for growth (length, dry weight) the paper reports ONLY main-effect (marginal) means per factor level in its results tables, not per-combination cell means, because the full factorial interaction (VELDENMED) was not significant for growth in Summer 2005 (p=0.5845, Appendix 5) and no combination table is given for the 2-factor Winter/Spring experiments either. Recording a single ‘AP’ growth number for a whole experiment would require either (a) averaging marginal means across an unstated combination — derivation, prohibited — or (b) arbitrarily picking one factor’s ‘winning’ level while ignoring the others tested in the same trial, which would misrepresent a multi-level factorial trial as a single-arm one. Plant height / Plant fresh weight / Plant dry matter are therefore recorded NR at the whole-row level UNLESS the paper itself states a specific single-combination value (this happens once: Spring 2006 APG high-velocity+high-density fresh weight = 0.48 g/plant, stated in the Watercress Yield Estimate section p.72 for a yield projection, used in T4 only). The complete set of stated per-factor-level means (velocity, media, density, replication, sample date) for length and dry weight is preserved below and in plant.csv (%N/%P) rather than discarded. | GROWTH DATA (Table 3, p.38; Length cm / Dry weight mg, whole plant root+shoot, single-plant basis, n=81 per level): Velocity — Low(0.06) 34.31/90.74a, Medium(0.30) 41.04/143.09b, High(0.61) 44.72/171.73b (sig /; medium=high, both>low). Media — Paper 62.63/212.72a, Rockwool 53.19/182.84a(=Paper for dry wt only), Oasis 4.25/10.00c (sig /; paper>rockwool>oasis for length, paper=rockwool>oasis for dry wt). Density: NOT significant for length (p=0.5975) or dry weight (p=0.0709), Appendix 5-6 — no per-level means given in Table 3. Replication: ns for length, sig for dry weight (Rep1 110.12a < Rep3 161.23b, Rep2 134.20ab ns vs both) — attributed to aphid (wk9) and cabbage worm (wk12) infestation, worst in Rep1 (p.36-38). Sample date: Wk6(8/5) 19.27/21.73a, Wk9(8/26) 42.69/134.69b, Wk12(9/16) 58.12/249.14c (sig / both linear). NUTRIENT DATA %N (Table 4, p.40, composite 3-plant sample, n=54/level): Velocity — Low 1.36a, Medium 1.85b, High 1.78b (). Media — Paper 2.43a, Rockwool 2.41a, Oasis 0.15b (). Sample date — Wk9 1.27a, Wk12 2.05b (*). %P (Table 5, p.42, VELOCITY x MEDIA combination, the one place a true per-combination — not marginal — mean is given, n=18/combo, sig **): Low-Paper 0.58ab, Low-Rockwool 0.35b, Low-Oasis 0.00c, Medium-Paper 0.62ab, Medium-Rockwool 0.58ab, Medium-Oasis 0.03c, High-Paper 0.63a, High-Rockwool 0.62ab, High-Oasis 0.03c. Sufficiency check: Mills et al. (1996) watercress N sufficiency range 4.2-6.0%, P range 0.7-1.3% (new-leaf, mid-season basis) — NOT met by any treatment mean here (whole-plant, root+shoot basis, sampled throughout the season) (p.33, p.43-44); paper explicitly cautions this may not be a fair comparison given the different tissue/timing basis, not necessarily true N/P deficiency. NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (fish count ~5000 total, aggregate tank weight range 318-454 kg (700-1000 lb)/tank given, but no tank volume stated, so kg/m3 not computable without derivation); Fish size initial/final, FCR, SGR, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created (kg) (no discrete stocking/harvest event — raceway is a continuously-operating standing population, not a bounded trial, and no per-fish or population growth/survival data given anywhere in this thesis); Water recycle L/min (only raceway-level total inflow given, 25.23 L/s (400 gpm) creating 0.91 cm/s in the raceway itself — distinct from the channel velocity treatments — and per-channel flow rate is stated only as a velocity (cm/s), not L/min; converting would require channel cross-sectional area, and channel water depth is never stated, so this is not a unit conversion, it would be derivation); Water volume in the system (channel dimensions given as 2.44m x 0.36m but depth not stated, so volume not computable); Plants/m2 (3 density levels tested — 200/400/800 plants/m2 nominal via 0.02/0.04/0.08 plants/cm2 — density was NOT significant for growth in this trial, Appendix 5-6, so no single representative value is recorded; see full breakdown above — recording one level would misrepresent a null main effect as a chosen treatment); Plant height/fresh weight/dry matter (see FACTORIAL NOTE — only marginal means by velocity/media exist, no single combination value stated for this experiment; fresh weight is not reported at all for Summer 2005, only length and dry weight); Days Plant after transplant (seedling establishment method for the Summer 2005 ARF channels specifically is not stated in Materials & Methods — the text explicitly says watercress was ‘direct-seeded on paper medium’ for Winter/Spring 2006 (p.25) as a change from ‘the Summer 2005 experiment above’, implying but never confirming Summer 2005 also began from seed rather than transplanted seedlings; recorded NA on the working assumption the crop was not transplanted in any aquaponic experiment, but this specific point is UNCLEAR for Summer 2005 — flagged here rather than assumed). NO COLUMN: Appendix 7’s ‘estimated channel concentrations of available N and P, mg/L per 3wks’ (p.88) — Summer 2005 LV/HV: N wk3 333.40/2778.30, wk6 256.36/2211.30, wk9 319.79/2664.90, wk12 1544.50/12870.90; P wk3 401.44/3345.30, wk6 340.20/2835.00, wk9 312.98/2608.20, wk12 394.63/3288.60 — these are the paper’s own cumulative 3-week nutrient-exposure estimates (derived from tailbox concentration x velocity x time by the authors, not an instantaneous concentration), not equivalent to the TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N trial-mean columns (which remain NR — no water chemistry of any kind, instantaneous or otherwise, is measured in this thesis; deferred entirely to companion thesis Dyer, D.J. 2006, cited throughout). Aphid infestation (wk9, treated w/ 20:1 horticultural soap:water) and cabbage worm Pieris rapae infestation (wk12, defoliation concentrated in Rep1) (p.35). PDF QUALITY: clean, fully machine-readable text layer throughout (125-page WVU ETD, standard thesis typesetting); one recurring OCR/encoding artifact — the apostrophe in “watercress’” renders as a stray ’�’ character in several places (e.g. Abstract, p.ii) — cosmetic only, does not affect any extracted value.

smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T2

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)
Feed regime	Zeigler Gold Floating 3.0MM pelleted diet (Zeigler Bros., Inc.), fed at “a rate that supports full growth potential” to maintain 318-454 kg (700-1000 lb) fish per tank; fish periodically removed to keep weight within/below this range (Semmens, pers. comm., p.16). Feed frequency and % body weight ration not stated. Feed proximate composition (N/P/K/protein %) not stated anywhere in this thesis.

Field

Value

Fish

Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)

Feed regime

Water

Field	Value
Water type	Flow-through brook trout raceway effluent (spring-fed, non-recirculating)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Watercress (Nasturtium officinale R.Br.)
Details	Medium-density subset (0.04 plants/cm2) of the 3x3 (velocity x media) Summer 2005 ARF design, comparing effluent-exposed ‘main channel’ Reps against a dedicated spring-water-only ‘control channel’ Rep at the raceway headbox; Rep (channel origin) tested as a factor and found not significant

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Floating raft (PVC frame + plastic poultry netting) in flow-through channels; control channels received raw spring water (pre-raceway, no fish contact) instead of raceway effluent
Media Details	Single-ply white paper (Scott Paper); Isolatek mineral wool bulk insulation (horticultural rockwool); 4cm Oasis rootcubes (Hummert Intl) — 3 media tested, medium plant density only
Biological system already in use	Y (Pre-existing WVU Reymann Memorial Farm (RMF) dual-sided, four-step, flow-through brook trout raceway (~5000 fish, continuously operating, spring-fed, ~25.23 L/s (400 gpm) total inflow); not stocked specifically for this study and not subject to any fish-side manipulation/treatment in this thesis (p.16).)
Iron supplemented	N (No iron or other micronutrient supplementation to aquaponic channels; effluent-only nutrient source.)
Remineralization	N (No remineralization/buffering of aquaponic effluent described.)
Nutrient supplemented	N (No fertilizer/nutrient supplementation applied to any aquaponic channel; supplemental nutrient addition is discussed only as a suggestion for FUTURE research to improve N/P sufficiency (Results & Discussion, p.44-45), not something done in this study.)
Equipment	HOBO Microstation Datalogger w/ 2 temperature sensors + 2 PAR sensors (air temp/light only); AccuPAR LP-80 PAR/LAI Ceptometer; LECO TruSpec CHN-S analyzer (total N, most samples) / gas chromatography (13 samples, when TruSpec under maintenance, WVU Chem. Eng. Lab); Varian ICP-OES (total P, NRCCE Analytical Lab); drying oven (75C); SAS software (GLM, Type III SS, Tukey HSD, contrast statements).
Control Parameters	Water velocity set per treatment (0.06 / 0.30 / 0.61 cm/s, i.e. low/medium/high); no temperature, DO, pH, or EC setpoints/control described for the aquaponic channels themselves (ambient/effluent-determined; logged but values reported only in companion Dyer 2006 thesis).

Site

Field	Value
Region	North America
Country	USA

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	cm (whole-plant length, root tip to shoot tip); mg or g (fresh/dry weight); % (total N, total P of dry tissue)
Statistic Details	SAS General Linear Model (GLM), Type III SS; Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD) test for significant means; contrast statements for linear/quadratic trend; RCB design, 3 replications/treatment; significance p<0.05(), p<0.01(), p<0.001(), ns=not significant. Growth data analysed only for the last 9 of 12 weeks (plants did not meet the >=2 true-leaf-sets / >=600mg fresh-weight sampling criterion in weeks 1-3); nutrient (tissue N/P) data analysed only for the last 6 weeks (insufficient dry tissue mass earlier) (p.26).
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	3

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T2 = Summer 2005 (ARF) - Control Comparison. Same 12-week Summer 2005 ARF trial as T1, but this is the paper’s own separate analysis (its own Tables 6-7, its own ANOVA, Appendices 10-13) comparing the MEDIUM-plant-density subset of the effluent-fed main channels (‘Rep’=main, all 3 velocities x all 3 media, medium density only, due to replication limits) against a dedicated control bed of 3 channels placed at the raceway HEADBOX (spring water only, before it reaches the fish, so it carries NO fish-derived nutrients at all) (p.19-20, 45). This spring-water control is NOT a hydroponic nutrient-solution treatment — it is unfertilized water — so it is recorded here in Experimental Remarks, not in the HYD columns, which remain NA per the vault’s HYD = hydroponic-nutrient-solution convention (see STRUCTURE NOTE, T1). STRUCTURAL JUDGMENT CALL (applies to all 4 trials.csv rows from this paper, full reasoning given once here on T1, abbreviated on T2-T4): this thesis does NOT have the conventional ‘aquaponic treatment vs paired hydroponic control’ structure most vault papers use. It reports a completely separate stand-alone Hydroponic Experiment (nutrient solution x light intensity, 6 weeks, WVU Davis College growth chambers, no fish, no effluent) used only as a narrative baseline/reference, and THREE separate 12-week aquaponic experiments (Summer 2005 ARF; Winter 2006 APG; Spring 2006 APG) that manipulate water velocity, plant density, and growing medium — none of which include a concurrent hydroponic nutrient-solution arm. The only place the author draws a direct AP-vs-HYD comparison is a narrative, ratio-based one (p.66-67): Week-6 data from the ‘Spring 2006 - Location Comparison’ subset (APG only, low velocity/high density) versus Week-6 data from the hydroponic experiment under matching PAR. The hydroponic Week-6 absolute values are given ONLY in bar charts (Figures 4-5, no accompanying table/text numbers — only text-stated ratios ‘about 4 times longer…35 to 75 times more’), so per SCHEMA.md’s never-read-a-figure and no-derivation rules, no HYD cell value can be extracted from this comparison (back-computing an absolute figure from the stated ratio would be derivation). Given no concurrent/paired hydroponic arm exists for any of the 3 aquaponic experiments, HYD-side columns are recorded NA (not NR) throughout, and AP vs HYD narrative comparison is described qualitatively in the note’s ‘Aquaponic vs hydroponic performance’ section instead of forced into a cell. The Hydroponic Experiment itself does not get its own trials.csv row (it has no aquaponic/fish component at all to anchor an ‘AP’ side) — its data is fully described in the note’s Experiment data callout and prose only, per the judgment that trials.csv rows in this vault represent aquaponic treatment arms. | KEY FINDING: ‘Rep’ (i.e. main/effluent-exposed vs control/spring-water-only channel identity) was NOT significant for length, dry weight, %N, or %P (Appendices 10-13) — the paper’s own conclusion is that ‘the nutrient contribution of the effluent is insignificant’ at this system’s scale, and mean N/P concentrations in the spring water itself were already <1 mg/L (measured by project environmental engineers, Dyer 2006) with only small/inconsistent increases after fish production (p.49). GROWTH DATA (Table 6, p.47; pooled across control+main channels since Rep was ns, Length cm/Dry weight mg, n=36/level unless noted): Velocity — Low(0.06) 28.93/72.50a, Medium(0.30) 37.53/148.89ab, High(0.61) 43.25/195.28b (/). Media — Paper 56.46/234.72a, Rockwool 47.95/170.56a, Oasis 5.29/11.39b (/). Sample date — Wk6 17.23/23.33a, Wk9 39.93/138.33b, Wk12 52.55/255.00c (/). NUTRIENT DATA (Table 7, p.50, pooled, %N/%P, n=24-36/level): Velocity — Low 1.18/0.29a, Medium 1.81/0.36ab, High 1.63/0.43b (ns for N, * for P). Media — Paper 1.96/0.56a, Rockwool 2.43/0.50a, Oasis 0.22/0.02b (/). Sample date — Wk9 1.26/0.35a, Wk12 1.82/0.37a (* for N, ns for P). IMPORTANT CAVEAT ON ‘AP’ LABELLING: because Rep (control vs main channel origin) was not a significant factor, Tables 6-7’s velocity/media/sample-date means are POOLED across BOTH the spring-water control channels and the effluent-exposed main channels — they are not a pure effluent-only (‘AP-only’) mean. This is the paper’s own analytical choice (testing whether Rep itself mattered, then reporting the other factors’ effects on the combined dataset once it was shown not to), not an extraction error; flagged here so the pooled nature of every number in this remarks block is clear. NOT DERIVED, left NR: same fish-side items as T1 (Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, Fish size, survival, weight gain, Total Feed, Fish biomass created); Plants/m2 (medium density only used in this specific sub-comparison = 0.04 plants/cm2 = 400 plants/m2 nominal — see note below, NOT recorded in the Plants/m2 cell because it is a fixed constant of this sub-experiment’s design rather than a tested treatment level, and recording it risks implying density was manipulated here when it was held constant; stated here in remarks instead); Plant height/fresh weight/dry matter (same reasoning as T1 — only pooled marginal means by velocity/media exist, no single value). NO COLUMN: spring water (pre-fish) N and P concentrations <1 mg/L per Dyer (2006), cited narratively by the author (p.49) but not this paper’s own measurement — not entered in any water-quality cell since it is secondary/cited data, not measured by Smith. Density held constant at medium (0.04 plants/cm2 = 400 plants/m2 nominal) for both control and main channels in this specific sub-comparison ‘due to replication limitations’ (p.22).

smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T3

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)
Feed regime	Zeigler Gold Floating 3.0MM pelleted diet (Zeigler Bros., Inc.), fed at “a rate that supports full growth potential” to maintain 318-454 kg (700-1000 lb) fish per tank; fish periodically removed to keep weight within/below this range (Semmens, pers. comm., p.16). Feed frequency and % body weight ration not stated. Feed proximate composition (N/P/K/protein %) not stated anywhere in this thesis.

Field

Value

Fish

Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)

Feed regime

Water

Field	Value
Water type	Flow-through brook trout raceway effluent (spring-fed, non-recirculating)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Watercress (Nasturtium officinale R.Br.)
Details	2x2 factorial (velocity x density), RCB, 3 reps; 12 effluent-fed channels, direct-seeded on paper medium only (rockwool/oasis and medium-level velocity/density dropped vs Summer 2005 for space reasons); no hydroponic or spring-water control possible in this greenhouse design

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Floating raft (PVC frame + plastic poultry netting) in flow-through channels, Aquaponic Production Greenhouse (unheated, uncooled, roll-up-side-wall ventilation only)
Media Details	Single-ply white paper (Scott Paper) only — rockwool and oasis media dropped for Winter/Spring 2006 due to greenhouse space constraints
Biological system already in use	Y (Pre-existing WVU Reymann Memorial Farm (RMF) dual-sided, four-step, flow-through brook trout raceway (~5000 fish, continuously operating, spring-fed, ~25.23 L/s (400 gpm) total inflow); not stocked specifically for this study and not subject to any fish-side manipulation/treatment in this thesis (p.16).)
Iron supplemented	N (No iron or other micronutrient supplementation to aquaponic channels; effluent-only nutrient source.)
Remineralization	N (No remineralization/buffering of aquaponic effluent described.)
Climate control	Y (Ventilation only (roll-up side walls, vent fan, vent, Lumite insect screening); no formal heating or cooling system in the APG (p.23))
Nutrient supplemented	N (No fertilizer/nutrient supplementation applied to any aquaponic channel; supplemental nutrient addition is discussed only as a suggestion for FUTURE research to improve N/P sufficiency (Results & Discussion, p.44-45), not something done in this study.)
Equipment	HOBO Microstation Datalogger w/ 2 temperature sensors + 2 PAR sensors (air temp/light only); AccuPAR LP-80 PAR/LAI Ceptometer; LECO TruSpec CHN-S analyzer (total N, most samples) / gas chromatography (13 samples, when TruSpec under maintenance, WVU Chem. Eng. Lab); Varian ICP-OES (total P, NRCCE Analytical Lab); drying oven (75C); SAS software (GLM, Type III SS, Tukey HSD, contrast statements).
Control Parameters	Water velocity set per treatment (0.06 / 0.30 / 0.61 cm/s, i.e. low/medium/high); no temperature, DO, pH, or EC setpoints/control described for the aquaponic channels themselves (ambient/effluent-determined; logged but values reported only in companion Dyer 2006 thesis).

Site

Field	Value
Region	North America
Country	USA

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	cm (whole-plant length, root tip to shoot tip); mg or g (fresh/dry weight); % (total N, total P of dry tissue)
Statistic Details	SAS General Linear Model (GLM), Type III SS; Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD) test for significant means; contrast statements for linear/quadratic trend; RCB design, 3 replications/treatment; significance p<0.05(), p<0.01(), p<0.001(), ns=not significant. Growth data analysed only for the last 9 of 12 weeks (plants did not meet the >=2 true-leaf-sets / >=600mg fresh-weight sampling criterion in weeks 1-3); nutrient (tissue N/P) data analysed only for the last 6 weeks (insufficient dry tissue mass earlier) (p.26).
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	3

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T3 = Winter 2006 (APG) main experiment. 12-week trial (mid Dec 2005/2006 - early March 2006), Aquaponic Production Greenhouse (APG, newly built, double-layer polyethylene, roll-up side walls, no formal heating/cooling), WVU RMF. 2(water velocity: low 0.06/high 0.61 cm/s) x 2(plant density: low 0.02/high 0.08 plants/cm2) factorial, RCB, 3 reps/combination = 12 effluent-fed experimental channels, direct-seeded on paper medium only (medium velocity, medium density, rockwool and oasis media all eliminated versus Summer 2005 ‘based on observations from the Summer 2005 experiment and limited space in the APG’, p.23). No hydroponic control possible in this design — ‘there was no way to allow for an experimental channel in the greenhouse that contained spring water only, since all water entering the greenhouse originated from the raceway’ (p.25) — HYD = NA. STRUCTURAL JUDGMENT CALL (applies to all 4 trials.csv rows from this paper, full reasoning given once here on T1, abbreviated on T2-T4): this thesis does NOT have the conventional ‘aquaponic treatment vs paired hydroponic control’ structure most vault papers use. It reports a completely separate stand-alone Hydroponic Experiment (nutrient solution x light intensity, 6 weeks, WVU Davis College growth chambers, no fish, no effluent) used only as a narrative baseline/reference, and THREE separate 12-week aquaponic experiments (Summer 2005 ARF; Winter 2006 APG; Spring 2006 APG) that manipulate water velocity, plant density, and growing medium — none of which include a concurrent hydroponic nutrient-solution arm. The only place the author draws a direct AP-vs-HYD comparison is a narrative, ratio-based one (p.66-67): Week-6 data from the ‘Spring 2006 - Location Comparison’ subset (APG only, low velocity/high density) versus Week-6 data from the hydroponic experiment under matching PAR. The hydroponic Week-6 absolute values are given ONLY in bar charts (Figures 4-5, no accompanying table/text numbers — only text-stated ratios ‘about 4 times longer…35 to 75 times more’), so per SCHEMA.md’s never-read-a-figure and no-derivation rules, no HYD cell value can be extracted from this comparison (back-computing an absolute figure from the stated ratio would be derivation). Given no concurrent/paired hydroponic arm exists for any of the 3 aquaponic experiments, HYD-side columns are recorded NA (not NR) throughout, and AP vs HYD narrative comparison is described qualitatively in the note’s ‘Aquaponic vs hydroponic performance’ section instead of forced into a cell. The Hydroponic Experiment itself does not get its own trials.csv row (it has no aquaponic/fish component at all to anchor an ‘AP’ side) — its data is fully described in the note’s Experiment data callout and prose only, per the judgment that trials.csv rows in this vault represent aquaponic treatment arms. | SECOND STRUCTURAL JUDGMENT CALL: each of the 3 aquaponic experiments is itself a multi-factor factorial (Summer 2005: 3 velocity x 3 density x 3 media, RCB, n=3; Winter/Spring 2006: 2 velocity x 2 density, RCB, n=3), and for growth (length, dry weight) the paper reports ONLY main-effect (marginal) means per factor level in its results tables, not per-combination cell means, because the full factorial interaction (VELDENMED) was not significant for growth in Summer 2005 (p=0.5845, Appendix 5) and no combination table is given for the 2-factor Winter/Spring experiments either. Recording a single ‘AP’ growth number for a whole experiment would require either (a) averaging marginal means across an unstated combination — derivation, prohibited — or (b) arbitrarily picking one factor’s ‘winning’ level while ignoring the others tested in the same trial, which would misrepresent a multi-level factorial trial as a single-arm one. Plant height / Plant fresh weight / Plant dry matter are therefore recorded NR at the whole-row level UNLESS the paper itself states a specific single-combination value (this happens once: Spring 2006 APG high-velocity+high-density fresh weight = 0.48 g/plant, stated in the Watercress Yield Estimate section p.72 for a yield projection, used in T4 only). The complete set of stated per-factor-level means (velocity, media, density, replication, sample date) for length and dry weight is preserved below and in plant.csv (%N/%P) rather than discarded. | GROWTH DATA (Table 8, p.52, Length cm/Dry weight mg, n=54/level unless noted): Velocity — Low(0.06) 14.55/209.20a, High(0.61) 16.32/302.35b (ns for length, * for dry weight). Density: NOT significant for either trait (Appendix 14-15, p=0.3176 length, p=0.9734 dry weight) — no per-level means given in Table 8. Sample date (n=36) — Wk6(1/22) 0.51/1.57a, Wk9(2/19) 18.48/187.04b, Wk12(3/4) 27.21/578.70c (/). NUTRIENT DATA %N (Table 9, p.54, n=36/level, by sample date ONLY — velocity and density were not significant for %N, Appendix 16): Wk9 2.50a, Wk12 4.33b (). Week-12 mean (4.33%) is the only point in the whole thesis that falls within Mills et al.’s reported watercress N sufficiency range (4.2-6.0%) (p.53), suggesting effluent N was adequate late in this particular trial. %P: ‘no significant difference in total P content among any treatments in the Winter 2006 experiment’ (Appendix 17) — the paper gives NO numeric %P values anywhere for this trial (no table, no in-text figure), so %P is NR here, not merely ‘ns’ (a stated ns result with no accompanying mean is still an absent value per the never-read-a-figure/no-value-stated convention). WINTER 2006 - LOCATION COMPARISON (Tables 10-11, p.56-58): the paper runs a SEPARATE sub-analysis comparing this APG dataset against a parallel single bed set up in the ARF (low PAR) under the SAME low-velocity/high-density combination only, to isolate the effect of light intensity/location. Watercress did not grow at all in the ARF in winter (0.00 cm, 0.00 mg, 0.00% N, 0.00% P at every sample date — attributed to insufficient light/cold preventing germination, p.55-57) versus APG 14.79cm/207.41mg overall mean (/*** vs ARF) and 3.44%N/0.72%P (/ vs ARF). NOT entered into this row’s cells or into plant.csv (TrialID would not cleanly match either T3 as-defined, which is the full 2x2 APG factorial, or a new row, since this is a velocity/density-held-constant subset comparing two locations rather than a new treatment; see Extraction notes for the vault-wide judgment call not to create separate Location-Comparison and Season-Comparison trial rows for this paper) — described narratively in the note’s Location & season effects section instead. NOT DERIVED, left NR: same fish-side items as T1; Plants/m2 (2 density levels tested, neither significant for any growth/nutrient outcome in this trial — Appendix 14-17 — so no single representative value recorded, same reasoning as T1); Plant height/fresh weight/dry matter (no single-combination value stated for Winter 2006, same FACTORIAL NOTE reasoning). Days Plant after transplant = NA (direct-seeded on paper medium, explicitly stated, p.25 — no transplant step). NO COLUMN: Appendix 7 estimated 3-week N/P exposure figures for Winter 2006 LV/HV (p.88): N wk3 374.22/3118.50, wk6 251.75/2097.90, wk9 347.00/2891.70, wk12 299.38/2494.80; P wk3 374.22/3118.50, wk6 374.22/3118.50, wk9 374.22/3118.50, wk12 360.61/3005.10 — same caveat as T1 (cumulative estimate, not an instantaneous water-chemistry concentration, not entered in TAN/NO2/NO3 cells). Season Comparison (Winter vs Spring 2006, APG only, p.70-71): season had a significant effect on length, %N, and %P; Spring plants were significantly longer (no dry-weight difference); Winter plants had significantly more N and P in dry tissue than Spring, attributed to higher effluent nutrient concentrations in winter (Appendix 33, cited but underlying values deferred to Dyer 2006) — narrated in the note, not a separate trial row (same reasoning as the Location Comparison above).

smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T4

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)
Feed regime	Zeigler Gold Floating 3.0MM pelleted diet (Zeigler Bros., Inc.), fed at “a rate that supports full growth potential” to maintain 318-454 kg (700-1000 lb) fish per tank; fish periodically removed to keep weight within/below this range (Semmens, pers. comm., p.16). Feed frequency and % body weight ration not stated. Feed proximate composition (N/P/K/protein %) not stated anywhere in this thesis.

Field

Value

Fish

Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)

Feed regime

Water

Field	Value
Water type	Flow-through brook trout raceway effluent (spring-fed, non-recirculating)

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Watercress (Nasturtium officinale R.Br.)
Details	2x2 factorial (velocity x density), RCB, 3 reps; 12 effluent-fed channels, direct-seeded on paper medium; second independent 12-week cycle in the same APG greenhouse as T3, following season
Plants/m2	800
Plant fresh weight	0.48 g/plant

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Floating raft (PVC frame + plastic poultry netting) in flow-through channels, Aquaponic Production Greenhouse (unheated, uncooled, roll-up-side-wall ventilation only)
Media Details	Single-ply white paper (Scott Paper) only
Biological system already in use	Y (Pre-existing WVU Reymann Memorial Farm (RMF) dual-sided, four-step, flow-through brook trout raceway (~5000 fish, continuously operating, spring-fed, ~25.23 L/s (400 gpm) total inflow); not stocked specifically for this study and not subject to any fish-side manipulation/treatment in this thesis (p.16).)
Iron supplemented	N (No iron or other micronutrient supplementation to aquaponic channels; effluent-only nutrient source.)
Remineralization	N (No remineralization/buffering of aquaponic effluent described.)
Climate control	Y (Ventilation only (roll-up side walls, vent fan, vent, Lumite insect screening); no formal heating or cooling system in the APG (p.23))
Nutrient supplemented	N (No fertilizer/nutrient supplementation applied to any aquaponic channel; supplemental nutrient addition is discussed only as a suggestion for FUTURE research to improve N/P sufficiency (Results & Discussion, p.44-45), not something done in this study.)
Equipment	HOBO Microstation Datalogger w/ 2 temperature sensors + 2 PAR sensors (air temp/light only); AccuPAR LP-80 PAR/LAI Ceptometer; LECO TruSpec CHN-S analyzer (total N, most samples) / gas chromatography (13 samples, when TruSpec under maintenance, WVU Chem. Eng. Lab); Varian ICP-OES (total P, NRCCE Analytical Lab); drying oven (75C); SAS software (GLM, Type III SS, Tukey HSD, contrast statements).
Control Parameters	Water velocity set per treatment (0.06 / 0.30 / 0.61 cm/s, i.e. low/medium/high); no temperature, DO, pH, or EC setpoints/control described for the aquaponic channels themselves (ambient/effluent-determined; logged but values reported only in companion Dyer 2006 thesis).

Site

Field	Value
Region	North America
Country	USA

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	cm (whole-plant length, root tip to shoot tip); mg or g (fresh/dry weight); % (total N, total P of dry tissue)
Statistic Details	SAS General Linear Model (GLM), Type III SS; Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD) test for significant means; contrast statements for linear/quadratic trend; RCB design, 3 replications/treatment; significance p<0.05(), p<0.01(), p<0.001(), ns=not significant. Growth data analysed only for the last 9 of 12 weeks (plants did not meet the >=2 true-leaf-sets / >=600mg fresh-weight sampling criterion in weeks 1-3); nutrient (tissue N/P) data analysed only for the last 6 weeks (insufficient dry tissue mass earlier) (p.26).
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	3

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T4 = Spring 2006 (APG) main experiment. 12-week trial (mid March - early June 2006), same APG greenhouse and same 2(velocity: low 0.06/high 0.61 cm/s) x 2(density: low 0.02/high 0.08 plants/cm2) factorial, RCB, 3 reps, direct-seeded on paper medium as T3, run as a second, independent 12-week cycle the following season. No hydroponic control in this design (same reasoning as T3) — HYD = NA. STRUCTURAL JUDGMENT CALL (applies to all 4 trials.csv rows from this paper, full reasoning given once here on T1, abbreviated on T2-T4): this thesis does NOT have the conventional ‘aquaponic treatment vs paired hydroponic control’ structure most vault papers use. It reports a completely separate stand-alone Hydroponic Experiment (nutrient solution x light intensity, 6 weeks, WVU Davis College growth chambers, no fish, no effluent) used only as a narrative baseline/reference, and THREE separate 12-week aquaponic experiments (Summer 2005 ARF; Winter 2006 APG; Spring 2006 APG) that manipulate water velocity, plant density, and growing medium — none of which include a concurrent hydroponic nutrient-solution arm. The only place the author draws a direct AP-vs-HYD comparison is a narrative, ratio-based one (p.66-67): Week-6 data from the ‘Spring 2006 - Location Comparison’ subset (APG only, low velocity/high density) versus Week-6 data from the hydroponic experiment under matching PAR. The hydroponic Week-6 absolute values are given ONLY in bar charts (Figures 4-5, no accompanying table/text numbers — only text-stated ratios ‘about 4 times longer…35 to 75 times more’), so per SCHEMA.md’s never-read-a-figure and no-derivation rules, no HYD cell value can be extracted from this comparison (back-computing an absolute figure from the stated ratio would be derivation). Given no concurrent/paired hydroponic arm exists for any of the 3 aquaponic experiments, HYD-side columns are recorded NA (not NR) throughout, and AP vs HYD narrative comparison is described qualitatively in the note’s ‘Aquaponic vs hydroponic performance’ section instead of forced into a cell. The Hydroponic Experiment itself does not get its own trials.csv row (it has no aquaponic/fish component at all to anchor an ‘AP’ side) — its data is fully described in the note’s Experiment data callout and prose only, per the judgment that trials.csv rows in this vault represent aquaponic treatment arms. | SECOND STRUCTURAL JUDGMENT CALL: each of the 3 aquaponic experiments is itself a multi-factor factorial (Summer 2005: 3 velocity x 3 density x 3 media, RCB, n=3; Winter/Spring 2006: 2 velocity x 2 density, RCB, n=3), and for growth (length, dry weight) the paper reports ONLY main-effect (marginal) means per factor level in its results tables, not per-combination cell means, because the full factorial interaction (VELDENMED) was not significant for growth in Summer 2005 (p=0.5845, Appendix 5) and no combination table is given for the 2-factor Winter/Spring experiments either. Recording a single ‘AP’ growth number for a whole experiment would require either (a) averaging marginal means across an unstated combination — derivation, prohibited — or (b) arbitrarily picking one factor’s ‘winning’ level while ignoring the others tested in the same trial, which would misrepresent a multi-level factorial trial as a single-arm one. Plant height / Plant fresh weight / Plant dry matter are therefore recorded NR at the whole-row level UNLESS the paper itself states a specific single-combination value (this happens once: Spring 2006 APG high-velocity+high-density fresh weight = 0.48 g/plant, stated in the Watercress Yield Estimate section p.72 for a yield projection, used in T4 only). The complete set of stated per-factor-level means (velocity, media, density, replication, sample date) for length and dry weight is preserved below and in plant.csv (%N/%P) rather than discarded. | GROWTH DATA (Table 12, p.60, Length cm/Dry weight mg, n=54/level): Velocity — Low(0.06) 16.45/126.50a, High(0.61) 26.97/619.20b (/). Density — Low(0.02) 17.69/276.30a, High(0.08) 25.74/469.40a (*** for length, ns for dry weight — length only). Sample date — Wk6(4/22) 8.36/21.60a, Wk9(5/11) 16.44/118.00a, Wk12(6/2) 40.33/979.10b (/, dry weight sig only wk12 vs wk6&9). NUTRIENT DATA %N/%P (Table 13, p.62, n=36/level): Velocity — Low 1.20/0.26a, High 2.31/0.37b (/). Density — Low 1.59/0.26a, High 1.91/0.37b (ns for N, * for P). Replication — Rep1 2.26a, Rep2 1.60ab, Rep3 1.40b for %N only (, attributed to a PAR gradient across the greenhouse, Rep1 closer to the higher-PAR east end wall, p.63-64); %P ns by Rep, not reported by level. SPECIFIC-COMBINATION VALUE USED (the one exception to the FACTORIAL NOTE’s NR default): the paper’s own ‘Watercress Yield Estimate (Theoretical)’ section (p.72) states, for a proposed commercial system ‘based on the Spring 2006, APG, factorial combination of high velocity and high density treatment means: Avg. Fresh weight per plant = 0.48 g’. This is the ONLY place in the entire thesis a true joint (not marginal) per-combination growth value is given, so it is recorded in the Plant fresh weight cell, sourced explicitly to the high-velocity + high-density combination (matching Plants/m2 = 800, the high-density level, recorded here for consistency with this specific value — unlike T1/T3, where no density level is singled out). No equivalent combination-level Length or Dry weight figure is given anywhere, so those remain NR even in this row. IMPORTANT: the downstream annual yield projections built from this figure (4.59 kg/m2/yr double-harvest, 2.37 kg/m2/yr single-harvest, p.72-73, and the profit estimates on p.73-74) are explicitly labelled ‘theoretical’ by the author — ‘No harvest treatments were conducted during the aquaponic experiments in this research and the following yield estimate and profit potential…are theoretical’ (p.71) — so these are NOT recorded in the AP yield cell (AP = NR), which is reserved for measured yield; the theoretical projection is narrated in the note’s Yield & profit potential section instead. NOT DERIVED, left NR: same fish-side items as T1; Plant height, Plant dry matter (no single-combination value stated for these, only fresh weight). Days Plant after transplant = NA (direct-seeded, same as T3). NO COLUMN: Appendix 7 estimated 3-week N/P exposure figures for Spring 2006 LV/HV (p.88): N wk3 278.96/2324.70, wk6 285.77/2381.40, wk9 278.96/2324.70, wk12 238.14/1984.50; P wk3 333.40/2778.30, wk6 340.20/2835.00, wk9 340.20/2835.00, wk12 326.59/2721.60 — same caveat as T1/T3. SPRING 2006 - LOCATION COMPARISON (Tables 14-15, p.65-69, low-velocity/high-density subset only, APG vs ARF): this is the ONE place in the thesis the author explicitly draws a narrative AP-vs-hydroponic comparison (see STRUCTURE NOTE) — at Week 6, APG length/dry weight = 10.07 cm / 84.55 mg (stated directly in text, p.66-67, NOT the same as Table 14’s 22.09cm/179.26mg, which is the whole-trial 3-sample-date mean, not Week-6-only — these are different quantities, not a contradiction); ARF = 0.00/0.00 (did not meet sampling criteria at Wk6, though plants were growing). The author states hydroponic (Hoagland’s) watercress under matching intermediate PAR was ‘about 4 times longer and weighed about 35 to 75 times more’ than the APG effluent plants at Week 6 (p.67) — a ratio only, no absolute HYD figure restated in text; the underlying absolute values exist only in Figures 4-5 (bar charts, no data table/text numbers), so per SCHEMA.md they cannot be extracted (never read a value off a figure) and back-computing them from the stated ratio would be derivation. Not entered as a trials.csv row or plant.csv row for the same TrialID-matching reasons given under T3’s Location Comparison; narrated in the note’s Aquaponic vs hydroponic performance section instead, including the ratio as reported. Location effect on %N/%P (Table 15, p.69): ARF 0.00%N/0.14%P vs APG 1.48%N/0.35%P (/**) — not enough dry tissue for N analysis in the ARF at any point in this trial (p.68), so ARF N values reflect a zero-yield/no-sample outcome, not a true zero nutrient content.

Plant Measurements

Trial	System	Category	Analyte	Value	Unit	Sig.	Location
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T1	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (dry tissue)	1.36	%	a (ns letter grouping); factor sig *	Table 4 p.40, Velocity: Low (0.06 cm/s)
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T1	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (dry tissue)	1.85	%	b; factor sig *	Table 4 p.40, Velocity: Medium (0.30 cm/s)
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T1	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (dry tissue)	1.78	%	b; factor sig *	Table 4 p.40, Velocity: High (0.61 cm/s)
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T1	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (dry tissue)	2.43	%	a; factor sig ***	Table 4 p.40, Media: Paper
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T1	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (dry tissue)	2.41	%	a; factor sig ***	Table 4 p.40, Media: Rockwool
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T1	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (dry tissue)	0.15	%	b; factor sig ***	Table 4 p.40, Media: Oasis
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T1	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (dry tissue)	1.27	%	a; factor sig ***	Table 4 p.40, Sample date: Week 9 (8/26/2005)
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T1	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (dry tissue)	2.05	%	b; factor sig ***	Table 4 p.40, Sample date: Week 12 (9/16/2005)
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T1	AP	mineral	Total phosphorus (dry tissue)	0.58	%	ab; interaction sig **	Table 5 p.42, Velocity x Media combination: Low (0.06 cm/s) x Paper
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T1	AP	mineral	Total phosphorus (dry tissue)	0.35	%	b; interaction sig **	Table 5 p.42, Velocity x Media combination: Low (0.06 cm/s) x Rockwool
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T1	AP	mineral	Total phosphorus (dry tissue)	0.0	%	c; interaction sig **	Table 5 p.42, Velocity x Media combination: Low (0.06 cm/s) x Oasis
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T1	AP	mineral	Total phosphorus (dry tissue)	0.62	%	ab; interaction sig **	Table 5 p.42, Velocity x Media combination: Medium (0.30 cm/s) x Paper
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T1	AP	mineral	Total phosphorus (dry tissue)	0.58	%	ab; interaction sig **	Table 5 p.42, Velocity x Media combination: Medium (0.30 cm/s) x Rockwool
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T1	AP	mineral	Total phosphorus (dry tissue)	0.03	%	c; interaction sig **	Table 5 p.42, Velocity x Media combination: Medium (0.30 cm/s) x Oasis
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T1	AP	mineral	Total phosphorus (dry tissue)	0.63	%	a; interaction sig **	Table 5 p.42, Velocity x Media combination: High (0.61 cm/s) x Paper
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T1	AP	mineral	Total phosphorus (dry tissue)	0.62	%	ab; interaction sig **	Table 5 p.42, Velocity x Media combination: High (0.61 cm/s) x Rockwool
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T1	AP	mineral	Total phosphorus (dry tissue)	0.03	%	c; interaction sig **	Table 5 p.42, Velocity x Media combination: High (0.61 cm/s) x Oasis
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T2	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (dry tissue)	1.18	%	a; factor ns	Table 7 p.50, Velocity: Low (0.06 cm/s)
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T2	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (dry tissue)	1.81	%	a; factor ns	Table 7 p.50, Velocity: Medium (0.30 cm/s)
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T2	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (dry tissue)	1.63	%	a; factor ns	Table 7 p.50, Velocity: High (0.61 cm/s)
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T2	AP	mineral	Total phosphorus (dry tissue)	0.29	%	a; factor sig *	Table 7 p.50, Velocity: Low (0.06 cm/s)
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T2	AP	mineral	Total phosphorus (dry tissue)	0.36	%	ab; factor sig *	Table 7 p.50, Velocity: Medium (0.30 cm/s)
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T2	AP	mineral	Total phosphorus (dry tissue)	0.43	%	b; factor sig *	Table 7 p.50, Velocity: High (0.61 cm/s)
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T2	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (dry tissue)	1.96	%	a; factor sig ***	Table 7 p.50, Media: Paper
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T2	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (dry tissue)	2.43	%	a; factor sig ***	Table 7 p.50, Media: Rockwool
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T2	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (dry tissue)	0.22	%	b; factor sig ***	Table 7 p.50, Media: Oasis
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T2	AP	mineral	Total phosphorus (dry tissue)	0.56	%	a; factor sig ***	Table 7 p.50, Media: Paper
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T2	AP	mineral	Total phosphorus (dry tissue)	0.5	%	a; factor sig ***	Table 7 p.50, Media: Rockwool
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T2	AP	mineral	Total phosphorus (dry tissue)	0.02	%	b; factor sig ***	Table 7 p.50, Media: Oasis
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T2	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (dry tissue)	1.26	%	a; factor sig *	Table 7 p.50, Sample date: Week 9 (8/26/2005)
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T2	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (dry tissue)	1.82	%	b; factor sig *	Table 7 p.50, Sample date: Week 12 (9/16/2005)
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T2	AP	mineral	Total phosphorus (dry tissue)	0.35	%	a; factor ns	Table 7 p.50, Sample date: Week 9 (8/26/2005)
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T2	AP	mineral	Total phosphorus (dry tissue)	0.37	%	a; factor ns	Table 7 p.50, Sample date: Week 12 (9/16/2005)
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T3	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (dry tissue)	2.5	%	a; factor sig ***	Table 9 p.54, Sample date: Week 9 (2/19/2006)
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T3	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (dry tissue)	4.33	%	b; factor sig ***	Table 9 p.54, Sample date: Week 12 (3/4/2006)
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T4	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (dry tissue)	1.2	%	a; factor sig ***	Table 13 p.62, Velocity: Low (0.06 cm/s)
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T4	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (dry tissue)	2.31	%	b; factor sig ***	Table 13 p.62, Velocity: High (0.61 cm/s)
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T4	AP	mineral	Total phosphorus (dry tissue)	0.26	%	a; factor sig *	Table 13 p.62, Velocity: Low (0.06 cm/s)
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T4	AP	mineral	Total phosphorus (dry tissue)	0.37	%	b; factor sig *	Table 13 p.62, Velocity: High (0.61 cm/s)
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T4	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (dry tissue)	1.59	%	a; factor ns	Table 13 p.62, Density: Low (0.02 plants/cm2)
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T4	AP	mineral	Total nitrogen (dry tissue)	1.91	%	a; factor ns	Table 13 p.62, Density: High (0.08 plants/cm2)
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T4	AP	mineral	Total phosphorus (dry tissue)	0.26	%	a; factor sig *	Table 13 p.62, Density: Low (0.02 plants/cm2)
smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T4	AP	mineral	Total phosphorus (dry tissue)	0.37	%	b; factor sig *	Table 13 p.62, Density: High (0.08 plants/cm2)

Quartz 5

Explorer

Watercress (Nasturtium officinale) Production Utilizing Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) Flow-through Aquaculture Effluent

Watercress (Nasturtium officinale) Production Utilizing Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) Flow-through Aquaculture Effluent

Metadata

Abstract

Summary

Aquaponic vs. hydroponic performance

Water velocity, growing medium, and plant density effects

Effluent vs. spring water (nutrient-loading risk)

Location and season effects

Tissue nutrient sufficiency

Yield and profit potential (theoretical)

Linked claims

Citations to chase

Extraction notes

Data Tables

Trial Parameters

smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T1

smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T2

smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T3

smithWatercressNasturtiumOfficinale2007-T4

Plant Measurements

Graph View

Table of Contents

Backlinks