Comparison of Aquaponics and Hydroponics on Basil (Ocimum basilicum) Morphometrics and Essential Oil Composition
Metadata
- Cite key: wilsonComparisonAquaponicsHydroponics2017
- Item type: Journal Article
- Authors: Lauren E. Wilson, Nathan C. Duncan, D. Andrew Crain
- Affiliation: Maryville College (Biology and Chemistry departments), Maryville, Tennessee
- Journal: RURALS: Review of Undergraduate Research in Agricultural and Life Sciences 11(1), Article 3 (2017) 1-16
- Date: 08/2017
- Date added: 2019-11-19
- DOI: no DOI found
- Funding: Maryville College Biology department; Maryville College Coyote Fund for Sustainability (p.3, Cover Page Footnote)
- URL: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/rurals/vol11/iss1/3
- PDF:
ComparisonofAquaponicandHydroponicSystems.pdf
Opinion
A tidy, honest undergraduate study: randomized 2x2 design (system x plant age), n=12/cell, t-tests, and a refreshingly candid discussion of a confound (aphid damage differing by grow-media type) that could easily have been swept under the rug. Its main limitation is instrumentation, not design — ion chemistry (Figures 3-4) and the GC-MS chromatogram (Figure 6) are reported only as charts with no accompanying numeric tables, so most water-quality and essential-oil values are unrecoverable as trial means. The morphometric result is genuinely a wash (2 of 4 significant differences favor each system), which the authors report plainly rather than spinning toward their stated hypothesis. Useful as one of the few basil AP-vs-HYD comparisons with an essential-oil angle, but cite the morphometric numbers, not the water-chemistry ones.
Abstract
[not reported] — this paper has no distinct Abstract section; it begins directly with “I. Introduction” (p.4 / PDF p.4).
Summary
Undergraduate researchers at Maryville College (Tennessee) built a koi-based aquaponic system alongside an existing hydroponic system in the same greenhouse and compared basil (Ocimum basilicum var. Eleonora) grown in each. Basil plants were split into four treatments (n=12 each) crossing system type (aquaponic vs. hydroponic) with plant age at introduction (4-week “young” vs. 6-week “old”), and grown for 4 weeks with leaf number and stem height measured at 2 and 4 weeks. Water ion chemistry (sodium, ammonium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, chloride, nitrite, nitrate, phosphate, sulfate) was tracked by ion chromatography over five sampling days, and leaf essential oils were profiled by GC-MS on old-plant leaves at the 4-week harvest. Of twelve morphometric comparisons, four were statistically significant, but they split evenly: aquaponics produced bushier old plants at 2 weeks (more leaves, higher leaf density) while hydroponics produced taller young plants with more leaves at 4 weeks, so the data neither clearly support nor refute higher aquaponic yield. Ion concentrations were lower and more stable over time in the aquaponic system than the hydroponic system (which needed repeated manual fertilizer dosing), and hydroponic-grown basil leaves showed higher apparent concentrations of eucalyptol, linalool, eugenol, and cadinols by GC-MS, though only as a qualitative chromatogram comparison with no reported numeric values. Aquaponic plants suffered more aphid damage, plausibly because the rock grow-media let aphids hide and climb back onto plants after being knocked off, whereas hydroponic aphids fell onto a flat surface and could be fully removed.
Experiment data
- Location: Special Growers greenhouse, Maryville, Tennessee, USA (p.4)
- Design: 2x2 factorial: system type (aquaponic vs. hydroponic, “determined by random selection”) x plant age at introduction (4-wk “young” vs. 6-wk “old”); explicitly described by the authors as “four treatments” (p.5)
- Replicates / n: n=12 plants per treatment (48 basil plants total)
- Duration: 4-week growth trial; measurements at 2 and 4 weeks (p.6)
- Organisms: Basil (Ocimum basilicum) var. Eleonora; Koi (Cyprinus carpio) x6, 20-50 cm, water-source/nutrient-provider only, no fish growth data collected
- Statistics: Two-sample t-test assuming equal variance, alpha=0.05, per measurement (p.7)
- Basil yield: 4 of 12 morphometric comparisons significant (Table 3, p.10); 2 favored aquaponics (old plants, 2 weeks: leaf number and leaf density), 2 favored hydroponics (young plants, 4 weeks: leaf number and stem height)
- Water quality (aquaponics): ion concentrations (Na, K, Ca, Mg, Cl, NO2, NO3, PO4, SO4) lower and more temporally stable in aquaponics vs. hydroponics; reported only as charts (Figures 3-4), no numeric trial means in text
Trial design
| Trial | Plant age cohort | AP arm (n) | HYD arm (n) |
|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | ”Young” (4 wk old at introduction) | 12 | 12 |
| T2 | ”Old” (6 wk old at introduction) | 12 | 12 |
Both trials share the same physical aquaponic system (6 koi, established per Malcolm & Arcaro 2011) and the same physical hydroponic system (General Hydroponics Flora series, 1000+/-100 ppm), run side by side in the same greenhouse for the same 4-week period — only the plant-age cohort differs between T1 and T2.
Morphometrics (Table 3, p.10)
This paper:
- Leaf number (mean +/- SE): Young 2wk AP 16.17+/-1.04 vs HYD 17.00+/-0.69 (p=0.5093, ns); Young 4wk AP 28.67+/-1.79 vs HYD 40.67+/-2.72 (p=0.0013, HYD higher); Old 2wk AP 32.75+/-2.44 vs HYD 20.75+/-1.03 (p=0.0002, AP higher); Old 4wk AP 52.58+/-3.47 vs HYD 54.42+/-2.35 (p=0.6661, ns).
- Stem height (cm, mean +/- SE): Young 2wk AP 31.88+/-2.16 vs HYD 34.68+/-3.46 (p=0.4987, ns); Young 4wk AP 59.8+/-4.09 vs HYD 85.97+/-7.08 (p=0.0041, HYD higher); Old 2wk AP 58.96+/-4.88 vs HYD 54.1+/-3.77 (p=0.4396, ns); Old 4wk AP 103.7833+/-8.62 vs HYD 120.82+/-11.90 (p=0.2588, ns).
- Leaf density (leaves/cm, mean +/- SE, no dedicated trials.csv column — see Extraction notes): Young 2wk AP 0.53+/-0.04 vs HYD 0.54+/-0.05 (p=0.9103, ns); Young 4wk AP 0.49+/-0.02 vs HYD 0.49+/-0.04 (p=0.8896, ns); Old 2wk AP 0.58+/-0.05 vs HYD 0.40+/-0.03 (p=0.0036, AP higher); Old 4wk AP 0.52+/-0.03 vs HYD 0.49+/-0.04 (p=0.5186, ns).
Compared with:
- todo Wilson 2005 — anecdotal trade-press claim that aquaponics is superior to inorganic hydroponics for greenhouse production, cited (p.12, p.13) as the unsubstantiated prior claim this study tested
- todo Roosta 2014 — chronic chlorosis reported in aquaponic basil under varying hydroponic:aquaponic solution ratios; cited (p.14) as a contrast since no chlorosis was seen here (attributed to the short 4-week duration)
Water chemistry
This paper: Figure 3 (bar chart, ion means +/- SD pooled over the study) shows aquaponic concentrations lower than hydroponic for every ion measured (sodium, ammonium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, chloride, nitrite, nitrate, phosphate, sulfate), but no numeric values are given in text or a table — chart-only. Figure 4 (line chart, 5 sampling days: 11-Mar to 25-Apr) shows aquaponic ammonium falling to near zero and nitrate/potassium/calcium rising steadily, versus hydroponic nitrate/phosphate/sulfate rising sharply then partially falling back — again chart-only, no stated numeric values. Per schema, all of these are recorded NR in trials.csv with the figure-only reason noted; see NO COLUMN below.
Essential oil composition
This paper: GC-MS of old-plant leaf extracts (4-week harvest) tentatively identified eucalyptol, linalool, eugenol, trans-alpha-bergamotene, and cadinols in both systems (plus butylated hydroxytoluene, a stabilizer from the extraction solvent, not a plant analyte). Hydroponic leaves showed qualitatively higher apparent concentrations of eucalyptol, linalool, eugenol, and cadinols than aquaponic leaves (Figure 6), with the largest differences in eugenol and the cadinols. No numeric peak areas or concentrations are given in text or a table — chromatogram signal intensity (pA) only. Recorded in plant.csv as NR with reason, per compound and system.
Linked claims
- Aquaponic and hydroponic basil yield differences depend on plant age at transplant
- Aquaponic systems maintain more stable water nutrient concentrations than hydroponic systems
- Hydroponic basil may have higher essential oil concentrations than aquaponic basil
- Rock/media grow beds can worsen aphid damage relative to flat hydroponic surfaces
Citations to chase
- todo Wilson 2005 — trade-press claim (Aquaponics Journal) that greenhouse aquaponics is superior to inorganic hydroponics; also the source of the claim that aquaponic systems are not more productive than hydroponics until established (~6 months)
- todo Roosta 2014 — vegetative growth, eco-physiology, and mineral content of basil under varying hydroponic:aquaponic solution ratios; chronic chlorosis noted
- todo Roosta and Afsharipoor 2012 — cultivation media effects on strawberry under hydroponic and aquaponic systems
Extraction notes
[not reported] fields, grouped:
- Fish: Fish Category, Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, Protein/N/P/K (feed composition), % of body weight (ration), Fish size initial/final, Feed routine, Feed regime, Total Feed, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (days — only the plant trial’s 4-week/28-day duration is explicit; the fish were cycled and present continuously but no separate fish-cycle day-count is stated), FUE AP/HYD, WUE — this paper never describes a fish-feeding regime at all, which is unusual for an aquaponic study.
- Water/system: Water recycle (L/min), Water volume in the system, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, Dissolved Oxygen, EC, Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N (all water-chemistry columns — see “Water chemistry” section above: chart-only data, no numeric trial means), System type (mechanics described on p.4-5 but never given a categorical name), Plants/m2 (spacing given in cm, not stated as a density), SPAD, Average room Temperature, Water recycle.
- Plant: Plant fresh weight, Plant dry matter, Tissue nitrate AP/HYD — paper’s own Discussion (p.13) explicitly flags fresh/dry weight as a variable future studies should add, confirming it was not measured here.
- General: Region/Country recorded from the paper’s stated location (Maryville, Tennessee) but Lat/Long are not stated anywhere in the paper and are left
NRrather than looked up externally, per the prime directive.
[unclear] fields: none.
WARN-MINOR Date of publication. Zotero export (zotero-export.csv, item YH3QMI3J) gives Date 2017-09-01. The paper’s own printed date (p.2, “8-1-2017”) and cover page (“Article - August 2017”, p.1) both state August 2017. Not reconcilable to the exact day from the PDF alone, but both paper-internal statements agree on August, so 08/2017 was recorded in Metadata; no cell in trials.csv is affected.
WARN-MINOR Old-4-week stem height precision. Table 3 (p.10) reports Old/4-week aquaponic stem height as “103.7833 +/- 8.62” — five decimal places against two elsewhere in the same table. Recorded verbatim (103.7833); almost certainly an unrounded spreadsheet artifact but there is no second value anywhere in the paper to compare against, so it is not a genuine two-source contradiction (no BLOCK/MATERIAL tier applies) — noted for the record only.
NO COLUMN items (Experimental Remarks, both trial rows):
- Leaf density (leaves/cm, = leaf number / stem height) for all four age x week combinations, with p-values — see “Morphometrics” section above. No dedicated trials.csv column for this derived-by-the-paper ratio.
- 2-week interim leaf number and stem height values (both age cohorts) — trials.csv
Plant height/Leaf countare harvest values; the 4-week (harvest) figures were used, and the 2-week interim measurements (including two of the four significant results, both favoring aquaponics in old plants) are recorded only here. - Qualitative aphid damage: aquaponic basil had visibly more aphid damage and aphid presence than hydroponic basil by 2 weeks (Figure 5, p.11), attributed by the authors to aphids hiding in the porous rock grow media vs. landing on a flat surface in the hydroponic beds where they could be fully removed by hand. No numeric aphid count given.
- Chlorosis: explicitly checked for and NOT observed in either system (contrast with Roosta 2014, cited as reporting it as a chronic aquaponic-basil problem); authors attribute the absence to the short 4-week duration.
- HYD-side pH target: 5.8-6.2 during the growing trial (vs. AP 6.8-7.2); trials.csv
Aq pHis aquaponic-only, so the HYD figure has no column. AP pH is recorded as the stated maintenance range6.8-7.2(not a measured trial mean, so flagged “range only, target maintenance value” rather than a measured summary) — distinct from the pre-planting cycling-phase target of 7.0+/-0.2 (up to 7.8 with no plants present), which is a different phase of the same system, not a contradiction. - Media/substrate difference between systems (Discussion, p.14): hydroponic grow beds were “plastic square pipes with a soil plug in which the roots were anchored,” while aquaponic plants were “directly rooted in a porous rock grow media” (Sunleaves Rocks). This substrate difference (not just system type) is offered by the authors as the likely mechanism for the aphid-damage difference.
- Essential oil qualitative comparison (see “Essential oil composition” section) — routed to
plant.csvasNRrows with reasons, per schema; no numeric values exist anywhere in the paper to record as trial-level cells.
Water panel excluded from plant.csv: none — all water-chemistry data in this paper (Figures 3-4) is inorganic ion/water chemistry, correctly excluded from plant.csv per schema and described above; none of it reduces to a trial mean, so none of it appears in trials.csv either (all NR, chart-only).
New tags introduced: none beyond pre-existing facets (Meta/Type/Experiment, Meta/Region/North-America, Meta/Fish/Koi, Meta/Plant/Basil all already present elsewhere in the vault, e.g. bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022.md, abbeyBasilOcimumBasilicum2022.md).
New wikilink targets: Lauren E. Wilson, Nathan C. Duncan, D. Andrew Crain (authors, no existing notes found under any spelling); Basil yield and Water quality (aquaponics) reused from abbeyBasilOcimumBasilicum2022.md; Basil (Ocimum basilicum) and Koi (Cyprinus carpio) reused from existing vault notes. Aquaponic and hydroponic basil yield differences depend on plant age at transplant, Aquaponic systems maintain more stable water nutrient concentrations than hydroponic systems, Hydroponic basil may have higher essential oil concentrations than aquaponic basil, Rock/media grow beds can worsen aphid damage relative to flat hydroponic surfaces are new claim notes, none pre-existing.
Source: ComparisonofAquaponicandHydroponicSystems.pdf
Data Tables
Structured data extracted from this paper into the vault's
trials.csv/plant_measurements.csvdatasets. Fields the paper didn't report are omitted. Download the full datasets (measurements).
Trial Parameters
wilsonComparisonAquaponicsHydroponics2017-T1
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Koi (Cyprinus carpio) |
| Fish size initial | 20-50 cm (length range, not weight; p.5) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water type | Dechlorinated water (p.5) |
| Aq pH | 6.8-7.2 (stated maintenance range during trial, not a measured trial mean; p.7) |
| pHOptimal | 5.5-6.5 (basil optimum per paper’s own Table 1, p.1, citing Diver 2006; Elia et al. 2014; Moya et al. 2014; Somerville et al. 2014) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Basil (Ocimum basilicum var. Eleonora) |
| Details | Young plant cohort: 4-week-old basil at introduction into system, n=12 AP / n=12 HYD; measured at 2 and 4 weeks post-introduction, 4-week (harvest) values used for Plant height/Leaf count below |
| Plant Category | Herb (p.1, Table 1: ‘Common herbs grown in hydroponic and aquaponic systems’) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 28 |
| Plant height | AP 59.8 +/- 4.09 vs HYD 85.97 +/- 7.08 cm, 4 wk (p=0.0041, HYD higher, Table 3 p.10) |
| Leaf count | AP 28.67 +/- 1.79 vs HYD 40.67 +/- 2.72, 4 wk (p=0.0013, HYD higher, Table 3 p.10) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Media Details | Aquaponic grow bed media: Sunleaves Rocks (porous rock), plants directly rooted (p.5, p.14). Hydroponic grow beds: lateral plastic square-pipe beds with a soil plug anchoring roots (p.14); nutrient solution pumped from a basin through the bed and drained back (p.4-5). |
| Biological system already in use | N (System newly constructed and cycled for this study (ammonia + Nite-Out II bacteria added Day 1, 3, 16; koi added once nitrates measurable and ammonia/nitrite ~0), not a pre-established biofilter (p.4-5)) |
| pH Buffers | Y (General Hydroponics pH Up/pH Down used to maintain both systems: hydroponic 6.0+/-0.2 (cycling)/5.8-6.2 (trial); aquaponic 7.0+/-0.2, up to 7.8 with no plants (cycling)/6.8-7.2 (trial) (p.5-6, p.7)) |
| Climate control | Y (Special Growers greenhouse, Maryville, TN (p.4); no specific climate-control setpoints stated) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Hydroponic: FloraMicro/FloraGro/FloraBloom equal parts, 1000+/-100 ppm (p.4-5), redosed multiple times/week per Discussion (p.13). Aquaponic: no direct nutrient solution; ammonia (6.25 g) added once during cycling only, ongoing nutrients from koi waste thereafter (p.5, p.13)) |
| Equipment | General Hydroponics FloraMicro/FloraGro/FloraBloom; General Hydroponics pH Up/pH Down; Sunleaves Rocks grow media; Microbe-Lift Nite-Out II bacteria (Nitrosomonas, Nitrospira, Nitrobacter); API Freshwater Master Test Kit; Metrohm Dual Channel 850 IC ion chromatograph; Agilent 6890 GC with 5972 MS |
| Control Parameters | Randomized assignment of plants to system type (p.5); 2x2 factorial (system x plant-age cohort), n=12/cell; two-sample t-test alpha=0.05 per measurement (p.7) |
| Combination | Koi and basil; aquaponic vs. hydroponic media/grow-bed flow-through systems compared side by side; plant-age cohort (young vs. old) as a second factor |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | United States |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | Leaf number (count); stem height (cm); leaf density (leaves/cm, no dedicated column, see remarks) — no fresh/dry weight yield metric reported in this paper |
| Statistic Details | Two-sample t-test assuming equal variance, alpha=0.05, performed separately for leaf number, stem height, and leaf density (p.7) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 12 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T1 = ‘young’ plant cohort (4-wk-old basil at introduction), n=12 aquaponic vs n=12 hydroponic, part of the paper’s stated 2x2 ‘four treatments’ design (system type x plant age, p.5). Paired control = the hydroponic ‘young’ cohort grown side by side in the same greenhouse. T1 and T2 (old cohort) share the same physical aquaponic system (6 koi) and the same physical hydroponic system. | Plant height/Leaf count above are the 4-week (harvest) values; 2-week interim values (young 2wk: leaf number AP 16.17+/-1.04 vs HYD 17.00+/-0.69, p=0.5093 ns; stem height AP 31.88+/-2.16 vs HYD 34.68+/-3.46, p=0.4987 ns) are NO COLUMN: recorded only in the note’s Morphometrics section, not a harvest measurement. | NO COLUMN: Leaf density (leaf number / stem height, the paper’s own derived ratio, no dedicated trials.csv column): young 2wk AP 0.53+/-0.04 vs HYD 0.54+/-0.05 (p=0.9103, ns); young 4wk AP 0.49+/-0.02 vs HYD 0.49+/-0.04 (p=0.8896, ns). | NO COLUMN: aphid damage was visibly worse in aquaponic basil by 2 weeks (Figure 5, p.11), attributed by authors to the porous rock media letting knocked-off aphids hide/climb back rather than fall onto a flat, cleanable hydroponic surface (p.14); no numeric aphid count given, applies to both T1 and T2 since aphids affected the shared aquaponic system generally. | NO COLUMN: chlorosis explicitly checked for and not observed in either system (contrast with Roosta 2014, cited p.14), attributed to the short 4-week duration. | Water chemistry (Figures 3-4): all ion concentrations (Na, NH4, K, Ca, Mg, Cl, NO2, NO3, PO4, SO4) reported only as bar/line charts with error bars, no numeric values stated in text or a table anywhere in the paper — recorded NR throughout per the ‘never read a value off a figure’ rule; aquaponics qualitatively lower and more stable over time than hydroponics for all ions (p.8-9, Discussion p.12-13). | HYD pH during trial stated as 5.8-6.2 (p.7); NO COLUMN since Aq pH is an aquaponic-only column — this HYD-side target has no home in the schema. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Plants/m2 (spacing given as 20.32 cm in x/y planes for aquaponics and between beds for hydroponics, p.5-6, but no stated density; computing one would be derivation); fish stocking density (6 koi, 20-50 cm, no tank volume given); fish trial duration in days (system cycled from an unspecified Day 1 start through at least Day 16, koi present continuously through the 4-week plant trial, but no single fish-cycle day-count is stated separate from the plant trial’s 28 days). | Essential oil composition (eucalyptol, linalool, eugenol, cadinols; qualitatively higher in HYD, largest gaps in eugenol and cadinols, Figure 6 p.12) has no numeric values and no trials.csv column — routed to plant.csv as NR rows with reasons, applies to both T1 and T2 (oil analysis used ‘old’ plant leaves specifically — see T2 remarks for the trial-specific note).
wilsonComparisonAquaponicsHydroponics2017-T2
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Koi (Cyprinus carpio) |
| Fish size initial | 20-50 cm (length range, not weight; p.5) |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water type | Dechlorinated water (p.5) |
| Aq pH | 6.8-7.2 (stated maintenance range during trial, not a measured trial mean; p.7) |
| pHOptimal | 5.5-6.5 (basil optimum per paper’s own Table 1, p.1, citing Diver 2006; Elia et al. 2014; Moya et al. 2014; Somerville et al. 2014) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Basil (Ocimum basilicum var. Eleonora) |
| Details | Old plant cohort: 6-week-old basil at introduction into system, n=12 AP / n=12 HYD; measured at 2 and 4 weeks post-introduction, 4-week (harvest) values used for Plant height/Leaf count below; 2 leaves taken from each old plant at the 4-week harvest for essential oil GC-MS analysis (p.7) |
| Plant Category | Herb (p.1, Table 1: ‘Common herbs grown in hydroponic and aquaponic systems’) |
| Days Plant after transplant | 28 |
| Plant height | AP 103.7833 +/- 8.62 vs HYD 120.82 +/- 11.90 cm, 4 wk (p=0.2588, ns, Table 3 p.10) |
| Leaf count | AP 52.58 +/- 3.47 vs HYD 54.42 +/- 2.35, 4 wk (p=0.6661, ns, Table 3 p.10) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Media Details | Aquaponic grow bed media: Sunleaves Rocks (porous rock), plants directly rooted (p.5, p.14). Hydroponic grow beds: lateral plastic square-pipe beds with a soil plug anchoring roots (p.14); nutrient solution pumped from a basin through the bed and drained back (p.4-5). |
| Biological system already in use | N (System newly constructed and cycled for this study (ammonia + Nite-Out II bacteria added Day 1, 3, 16; koi added once nitrates measurable and ammonia/nitrite ~0), not a pre-established biofilter (p.4-5)) |
| pH Buffers | Y (General Hydroponics pH Up/pH Down used to maintain both systems: hydroponic 6.0+/-0.2 (cycling)/5.8-6.2 (trial); aquaponic 7.0+/-0.2, up to 7.8 with no plants (cycling)/6.8-7.2 (trial) (p.5-6, p.7)) |
| Climate control | Y (Special Growers greenhouse, Maryville, TN (p.4); no specific climate-control setpoints stated) |
| Nutrient supplemented | Y (Hydroponic: FloraMicro/FloraGro/FloraBloom equal parts, 1000+/-100 ppm (p.4-5), redosed multiple times/week per Discussion (p.13). Aquaponic: no direct nutrient solution; ammonia (6.25 g) added once during cycling only, ongoing nutrients from koi waste thereafter (p.5, p.13)) |
| Equipment | General Hydroponics FloraMicro/FloraGro/FloraBloom; General Hydroponics pH Up/pH Down; Sunleaves Rocks grow media; Microbe-Lift Nite-Out II bacteria (Nitrosomonas, Nitrospira, Nitrobacter); API Freshwater Master Test Kit; Metrohm Dual Channel 850 IC ion chromatograph; Agilent 6890 GC with 5972 MS |
| Control Parameters | Randomized assignment of plants to system type (p.5); 2x2 factorial (system x plant-age cohort), n=12/cell; two-sample t-test alpha=0.05 per measurement (p.7) |
| Combination | Koi and basil; aquaponic vs. hydroponic media/grow-bed flow-through systems compared side by side; plant-age cohort (young vs. old) as a second factor |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | North America |
| Country | United States |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | Leaf number (count); stem height (cm); leaf density (leaves/cm, no dedicated column, see remarks) — no fresh/dry weight yield metric reported in this paper |
| Statistic Details | Two-sample t-test assuming equal variance, alpha=0.05, performed separately for leaf number, stem height, and leaf density (p.7) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 12 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T2 = ‘old’ plant cohort (6-wk-old basil at introduction), n=12 aquaponic vs n=12 hydroponic, part of the paper’s stated 2x2 ‘four treatments’ design (system type x plant age, p.5). Paired control = the hydroponic ‘old’ cohort grown side by side in the same greenhouse. T1 and T2 share the same physical aquaponic system (6 koi) and the same physical hydroponic system — only the plant-age cohort differs. | Only the ‘old’ cohort was sampled for essential oil GC-MS (2 leaves/plant at the 4-week harvest, p.7); see Essential oil composition section of the note and plant.csv (rows tagged to this Trial ID). | Plant height/Leaf count above are the 4-week (harvest) values; 2-week interim values (old 2wk: leaf number AP 32.75+/-2.44 vs HYD 20.75+/-1.03, p=0.0002 SIGNIFICANT AP higher; stem height AP 58.96+/-4.88 vs HYD 54.1+/-3.77, p=0.4396 ns) are NO COLUMN: recorded only in the note’s Morphometrics section, not a harvest measurement. Note: two of this paper’s four significant findings occur here (old, 2 weeks) and are NOT reflected in the Plant height/Leaf count cells above, which hold only the non-significant 4-week harvest values — see the note body for the full picture. | NO COLUMN: Leaf density (leaf number / stem height, the paper’s own derived ratio, no dedicated trials.csv column): old 2wk AP 0.58+/-0.05 vs HYD 0.40+/-0.03 (p=0.0036, SIGNIFICANT, AP higher); old 4wk AP 0.52+/-0.03 vs HYD 0.49+/-0.04 (p=0.5186, ns). | WARN-MINOR: Table 3 (p.10) prints the old/4wk aquaponic stem height as ‘103.7833 +/- 8.62’ — five decimal places against two elsewhere in the same table. Recorded verbatim; no second value exists anywhere in the paper to compare against, so this is not a two-source contradiction, just an unrounded artifact worth flagging. | NO COLUMN: aphid damage and chlorosis notes as per T1 (system-wide observations, not age-specific). | Water chemistry (Figures 3-4): as per T1 — all ion concentrations chart-only, no numeric trial means anywhere, recorded NR. | HYD pH during trial stated as 5.8-6.2 (p.7); NO COLUMN as per T1. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Plants/m2, fish stocking density, fish trial duration in days — as per T1. | Essential oil composition (eucalyptol, linalool, eugenol, cadinols; qualitatively higher in HYD, largest gaps in eugenol and cadinols, Figure 6 p.12) analyzed specifically on this (old) cohort’s leaves; no numeric values given — routed to plant.csv as NR rows with reasons.
Plant Measurements
| Trial | System | Category | Analyte | Value | Unit | Sig. | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| wilsonComparisonAquaponicsHydroponics2017-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Eucalyptol | NR | NR (chromatogram signal intensity, pA; no numeric value stated) | NR | Figure 6, p.12 |
| wilsonComparisonAquaponicsHydroponics2017-T1 | HYD | biochemistry | Eucalyptol | NR | NR (chromatogram signal intensity, pA; no numeric value stated) | NR | Figure 6, p.12 |
| wilsonComparisonAquaponicsHydroponics2017-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Linalool | NR | NR (chromatogram signal intensity, pA; no numeric value stated) | NR | Figure 6, p.12 |
| wilsonComparisonAquaponicsHydroponics2017-T1 | HYD | biochemistry | Linalool | NR | NR (chromatogram signal intensity, pA; no numeric value stated) | NR | Figure 6, p.12 |
| wilsonComparisonAquaponicsHydroponics2017-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Eugenol | NR | NR (chromatogram signal intensity, pA; no numeric value stated) | NR | Figure 6, p.12 |
| wilsonComparisonAquaponicsHydroponics2017-T1 | HYD | biochemistry | Eugenol | NR | NR (chromatogram signal intensity, pA; no numeric value stated) | NR | Figure 6, p.12 |
| wilsonComparisonAquaponicsHydroponics2017-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Cadinols | NR | NR (chromatogram signal intensity, pA; no numeric value stated) | NR | Figure 6, p.12 |
| wilsonComparisonAquaponicsHydroponics2017-T1 | HYD | biochemistry | Cadinols | NR | NR (chromatogram signal intensity, pA; no numeric value stated) | NR | Figure 6, p.12 |
| wilsonComparisonAquaponicsHydroponics2017-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Eucalyptol | NR | NR (chromatogram signal intensity, pA; no numeric value stated) | NR | Figure 6, p.12 |
| wilsonComparisonAquaponicsHydroponics2017-T2 | HYD | biochemistry | Eucalyptol | NR | NR (chromatogram signal intensity, pA; no numeric value stated) | NR | Figure 6, p.12 |
| wilsonComparisonAquaponicsHydroponics2017-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Linalool | NR | NR (chromatogram signal intensity, pA; no numeric value stated) | NR | Figure 6, p.12 |
| wilsonComparisonAquaponicsHydroponics2017-T2 | HYD | biochemistry | Linalool | NR | NR (chromatogram signal intensity, pA; no numeric value stated) | NR | Figure 6, p.12 |
| wilsonComparisonAquaponicsHydroponics2017-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Eugenol | NR | NR (chromatogram signal intensity, pA; no numeric value stated) | NR | Figure 6, p.12 |
| wilsonComparisonAquaponicsHydroponics2017-T2 | HYD | biochemistry | Eugenol | NR | NR (chromatogram signal intensity, pA; no numeric value stated) | NR | Figure 6, p.12 |
| wilsonComparisonAquaponicsHydroponics2017-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Cadinols | NR | NR (chromatogram signal intensity, pA; no numeric value stated) | NR | Figure 6, p.12 |
| wilsonComparisonAquaponicsHydroponics2017-T2 | HYD | biochemistry | Cadinols | NR | NR (chromatogram signal intensity, pA; no numeric value stated) | NR | Figure 6, p.12 |