Tomato and tilapia yield, quality and safety in an intensive aquaponic system

León-Ramírez, Jesús J. De; García-Trejo, Juan F.; Sosa-Ferreyra, Carlos F.; Félix-Cuencas, Leticia; López-Tejeida, Samuel

doi:10.1590/1807-1929/agriambi.v29n9e289348

ABSTRACT

In aquaponics, a limitation in productive performance is the concentration of nutrients for plant development. So, the intensity of fish in the culture could be an internal variant that favors the presence of nutrients, thus avoiding their external supply. Therefore, the aim was to determine the effect of intensive fish density during its three biological stages (fingerling, juvenile, and adult) on the yield, quality, and safety of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) and tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) in an aquaponic system. The study was conducted using a randomized block design, having as an experimental unit an intensive aquaponic system and as a control, an aquaculture module and a hydroponic module, each with three replications. The response variables for plant yield were dry weight, relative growth rate, crop growth rate, survival rate, and production per plant, and for fish, there were growth rate, feed conversion factor, protein efficiency ratio, and survival rate. For fruit quality, the variables were pH, total soluble solids (TSS), titratable acidity (TA), TSS/TA ratio, and lycopene content; for fillet quality, the following were considered: percentage of protein, lipids, ash, and nitrogen-free extract. Finally, in the safety evaluation of both products, the variables were the presence of total coliforms, Salmonella, and Escherichia coli. Intensive fish density (40 kg/m³) significantly improves tilapia biomass and fillet quality, while tomato yield remains comparable to that of hydroponics, with some quality variables even higher, without showing significant differences in the microbiological safety of the fillet or the fruit.

Key words:
Oreochromis niloticus; Solanum lycopersicum; aquaponic systems; productive performance

HIGHLIGHTS:

Increasing the density of fish in aquaponic cultures is an effective strategy to imaprove the efficiency of the system.

In intensive aquaponics, the products generated (vegetables and fish) have an attractive commercial quality.

The safety of the tomatoes and fillets obtained is similar to that present in hydroponics and conventional aquaculture.

RESUMO

Em aquaponia, uma limitação no desempenho produtivo é a concentração de nutrientes disponíveis para o desenvolvimento das plantas. Assim, a densidade de peixes pode atuar como uma variável interna que favorece a disponibilidade de nutrientes, reduzindo a necessidade de suplementação externa. Assim, o objetivo deste estudo foi determinar o efeito da densidade intensiva de peixes durante três estágios biológicos (alevino, juvenil e adulto) sobre a produtividade, qualidade e segurança do tomate (Solanum lycopersicum) e da tilápia (Oreochromis niloticus) em sistema aquapônico. O experimento foi conduzido em um delineamento em blocos casualizados, tendo como unidade experimental um sistema aquapônico intensivo e, como controles, um módulo de aquicultura e um módulo hidropônico, com três repetições. As variáveis-resposta avaliadas para a produtividade vegetal foram: massa seca, taxa de crescimento relativo, taxa de crescimento da cultura, taxa de sobrevivência e produção por planta. Para os peixes, foram analisadas: taxa de crescimento, fator de conversão alimentar, taxa de eficiência proteica e de sobrevivência. A qualidade dos frutos foi determinada através das variáveis: pH, sólidos solúveis totais, acidez titulável, razão SST/AT e teor de licopeno. Para a qualidade do filé de tilápia, foram consideradas as porcentagens de proteína, lipídios, cinzas e extrato livre de nitrogênio. Por fim, a avaliação da segurança microbiológica dos produtos incluiu a presença de coliformes totais, Salmonella spp. e Escherichia coli. A densidade intensiva de peixes (40 kg/m³) melhorou significativamente a biomassa e a qualidade do filé de tilápia, enquanto a produtividade do tomate se manteve comparável à da hidroponia, com algumas variáveis de qualidade superiores, sem diferenças significativas na segurança microbiológica dos filés ou dos frutos.

Palavras-chave:
Oreochromis niloticus; Solanum lycopersicum; sistemas aquapônicos; desempenho produtivo

Introduction

Aquaponics refers to the cultivation of fish and plants in the same production system, where the residues generated from the feeding and metabolism of the fish are used as nutrients by the plants (Wongkiew et al., 2017; Li et al., 2018). This has led to considering aquaponics as one of the food production systems close to sustainability (FAO, 2014; Forchino et al., 2017). However, the generation of favorable conditions for the growth and development of both organisms (fishes and plants) is sometimes complex (Goddek et al., 2015).

Nile tilapia, one of the most widely farmed fish species globally, is valued for its adaptability to diverse aquaculture systems, rapid growth, and high nutritional quality, particularly its protein content (Biswas et al., 2018). On the other hand, Tomatoes are a staple crop of high economic value and a rich source of essential nutrients and antioxidants like lycopene, contributing to their global demand (Beckles, 2012). Some research has shown that tomatoes grown in aquaponics alongside tilapia can achieve yields and quality comparable to conventional hydroponic or soil-based systems (Schmautz et al., 2016; Suhl et al., 2016; Kralik et al., 2023).

One of the limitations for the productive performance of aquaponic systems (yield, quality, and safety) is the concentration of nutrients available for plant development, being that, sometimes, the water coming from the fishponds does not possess them in its entirety (Rakocy, 2012; Reyes-Flores et al., 2017). The above is usually due to the use of low densities of fish typical of the extensive or semi-intensive management characteristic of aquaponics (Ani et al., 2022). Thus, to increase the productive performance of each system, in some aquaponic cultures, nutrient supplementation is chosen to satisfy the requirements of the plants fully (Bittsanszky et al., 2016).

Currently, nutrient deficiency is amended through fertigation or foliar spraying (Rakocy et al., 2006). However, the complementary application in aquaponic systems could detract from their virtue of nutrient recycling and thus their sustainability, being that, like any crop, it constantly and permanently requires the supply of external nutrients (Yep & Zheng, 2019; Goddek & Keesman, 2020; Okomoda et al., 2023). Thus, the solution to low performance should address internal variants of the system.

Among the internal variants, there the density fishes in the system, being that the higher the density, the concentration of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus increases, which improves the generation of plant biomass as well as its quality (Sabwa et al., 2022; Gao et al., 2024). Another possibility is the simultaneous use of fish in different biological stages since satisfactory growth in plant culture is reported in the fingerling and juvenile stages (Félix-Cuencas et al., 2021; Al-Zahrani et al., 2023). Therefore, the study aimed to determine the effect of intensive fish density during its three biological stages (fingerling, juvenile, and adult) on the yield, quality, and safety of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) and tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) in an aquaponic system.

Material and Methods

This study was conducted in one of the greenhouses of the aquaculture unit of the Amazcala Campus of the Autonomous University of Querétaro, Mx. (20º38’43.3” N, 100º25’10.3” W, and 1980 m.a.s.l.) during March to August 2023 under the approval 10846 of the Ethics Committee.

Three aquaponic systems were designed and built, consisting of six geomembrane tanks with a capacity of 100 L each, a canister-type biofilter, a 10 L water reservoir (for plant irrigation), and four beds of substrate (coconut fiber) each of 5.0 × 0.25 m (Figure 1). As a control, an aquaculture module was established with six geomembrane tanks with a capacity of 100 L each, a canister-type biofilter, and a hydroponic module with a tank with hydroponic solution and four beds of substrate (coconut fiber), each measuring 5.0 × 0.25 m (Figure 2).

Figure 1
General scheme of the aquaponic systems used.

Figure 2
General scheme of the control modules.

For this research, 240 40-day-old tomato plants (Rio Grande variety) with an initial mean height of 25.85 ± 3.24 cm were used. Likewise, 576 Nile tilapia fingerlings with a mean initial weight of 4.85 ± 0.04 grams were used; 192 juveniles with a mean initial weight of 50.85 ± 0.04 g and finally, 192 adults with a mean initial weight of 150.85 ± 0.04 g. During the experimental period (180 days), the tomato plants were irrigated thrice daily, varying the total volume according to the physiological stage (Table 1). For their part, the tilapia specimens were fed three times per day with a commercial diet and eating plan of the MaltaCleyton^® brand (Table 2).

Thumbnail

Table 1
Description of plant management during the experimental period (Mercado-Luna, 2007)

Thumbnail

Table 2
Description of the feeding plan used (MaltaCleyton^® brand): the amount of feed supplied was adjusted based on weekly biometrics

To evaluate the effect of intensive fish density in an aquaponic system, three replicates of intensive aquaponic systems (IAS), a control hydroponic module (HM; professional Peters solution 5-11-26, Table 3), and a control aquaculture module (AM) were considered. In AM and each IAS, 16 adult tilapia were introduced into three ponds, 24 juvenile tilapia into two ponds, and 48 fingerlings into one pond (Table 4). In HM and each IAS, 15 plants were placed in each substrate, obtaining 60 plants in each system.

Thumbnail

Table 3
Nutritional composition of the solution used (professional Peters solution 5-11-26).

Thumbnail

Table 4
Description of the management of the fish in the intensive aquaponic systems (IAS) as well as the control used - aquaculture module (AM)

The water in the ponds was monitored for temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH using a Hach HQ40d^®. Likewise, the concentrations of nitrates, nitrites, and non-ionized ammonia were monitored, which were determined by the Hach DR6000^® spectrophotometer under methods 8039, 8057, and 8038, respectively. On the other hand, the water intended for irrigation of plants was monitored for dissolved oxygen and pH variables with a Hach HQ40d^®, as well as electrical conductivity using Hanna^® HI 98130; pH adjustment (value of 6) was performed with citric acid when necessary (Suárez-Cáceres et al., 2021).

The following variables were established as a response to evaluate the effect of intensive fish density on the yield of tomatoes: dry weight (Eq. 1), relative growth rate (Eq. 2), crop growth rate (Eq. 3), survival rate (Eq. 4), and production per plant (Eq. 5). Whereas, the response variables considered for tilapia were: growth rate (Eq. 6), feed conversion factor (Eq. 7), protein efficiency ratio (Eq. 8), and survival rate (Eq. 9).

\begin{array}{l} D W & = & weight in grams of plant after \\ dehydration at 70 ºC for 72 \end{array}

(1)

R G R = \frac{(I n D W_{f} - I n D W_{i})}{t}

(2)

where:

DW - dry weight;

RGR - relative growth rate;

InDW_f - natural logarithm of the final dry weight;

InDW_i - natural logarithm of the initial dry weight; and

T - Time in days.

C G R = \frac{(1) (D W_{2} - D W_{1})}{(G S) (T_{2} - T_{1})}

(3)

where:

CGR - culture growth rate;

DW₂ - final dry weight of the plant;

DW₁ - initial dry weight of the plant;

GS - ground surface in cm²;

T₂ - final time in days; and,

T₁ - initial time in days.

S R = \frac{Final number of plants}{Initial number of plants} \times 100

(4)

P P = \frac{kilograms of tomato}{m^{2}}

(5)

G R = final weight (g) - initial weight (g)

(6)

F C R (%) = \frac{grams of feed consumend}{grams of increase in weight}

(7)

P E R (%) = \frac{increase in weight}{grams of protein ingested}

(8)

F S R = \frac{final number of fish}{initial number of fish} \times 100

(9)

where:

SR - survival rate;

PP - production per plant;

GR - growth rate;

FCR - feed conversion factor;

PER - protein efficiency ratio; and,

FSR - fish survival rate.

On the other hand, as an evaluation of the effect of intensive fish density on the quality of tomatoes, the following were considered as response variables: hydrogen potential (pH), total soluble solids (TSS), titratable acidity (TA), the TSS/AT ratio and the lycopene content. The response variables established for the quality of tilapia were the percentage of protein, lipids, ash, and nitrogen-free extract (NFE).

To determine the pH, 20 g of tomato were taken, which were liquefied with 50 mL of distilled water and filtered with Whatman No. 42 paper; it was subsequently supplemented to 100 mL for measurement with a digital potentiometer (Reyes-Flores et al., 2020). TSS was measured using a digital refractometer (Generic Home019) to determine ºBrix in foods (Reyes-Flores et al., 2020). AT was measured using 0.1 N NaOH and phenolphthalein as an indicator, expressing the results as % citric acid (Tyl & Sadler, 2017). To determine the lycopene content, 0.5 g of dry sample was mixed with 50 mL of hexane:acetone:ethanol (2:1:1) solution, stirred for 10 minutes, followed by the incorporation of 7.5 mL of distilled water, continuing with stirring for 5 minutes; A sample of the supernatant was taken for reading in a spectrophotometer at 503 nm, expressing the result in µg g^-1 (Eq. 10) (Mahieddine et al., 2018).

L y c o p e n e (\frac{μ g}{g}) = \frac{A 503 nm \times 3 .1}{g of sample}

(10)

where:

A 503 - wavelength read on the spectrophotometer.

Moisture, protein, lipid, and ash contents were determined according to those established by the Association of Official Analytical Chemistry (AOAC, 2000), using AOAC methods 930.15, 981.10, 920.39, and 942.05, respectively. The nitrogen-free extract (NFE) was calculated by difference, subtracting the moisture, protein, lipid, and ash contents (Eq. 11) (Wortman, 2015).

N F E (%) = 100 - (moisture - protein - lipids - ashes)

(11)

where:

NFE - nitrogen - free extract.

Finally, to evaluate the effect of intensive density on the safety of tomato and tilapia, 25 g of fruit and 25 g of fillet were taken at each harvest time to determine the presence of total coliforms, Salmonella, and Escherichia coli. Total coliforms were quantified using the AOAC method 966.24, the presence of Salmonella was determined by the AOAC method 967.26, and finally, the presence of E. coli was determined by the AOAC method 965.30.

The data were subjected to analysis of variance. Likewise, Tukey’s test was performed to determine the significant differences between the means of the treatments at p < 0.05. Data analysis was performed using JMP 9.01 software.

Results and Discussion

During the 180 days of experimentation, the values obtained in the monitoring of the water quality of the ponds remained within the tolerance ranges established for the cultivation of tilapia (Table 5). The temperature and pH did not show significant differences between the treatments, indicating that they did not influence the observed behavior. However, the higher concentration of dissolved oxygen in the IAS system compared to the AM could be related to the presence of organic matter. In the IAS system, plants act as a second filter, preventing the accumulation of organic matter that would otherwise consume oxygen during its decomposition (Rakocy et al., 2006; Endut et al., 2010). Despite these differences, dissolved oxygen levels remained within the range suitable for cultivation, suggesting that this variable did not limit fish growth. On the other hand, the concentrations of nitrates, nitrites, and non-ionized ammonia remained below toxic levels for tilapias, which could be linked to the higher presence of organic matter in the AM system (Zoopas et al., 2016).

Thumbnail

Table 5
Water quality in fish ponds and plant irrigation tanks during the experimental period for intensive aquaponic system (IAS), aquaculture module (AM), and hydroponic module (HM)

The nitrogen concentration in the IAS treatment was considerably low compared to the control nutrient solution (150 mg L^-1), whose composition is shown in Table 3; however, slightly low values have been reported to favor the development of fruiting plants (Rakocy, 2012). The nitrate concentration in the IAS system was similar to that reported by Yang & Kim (2019) (32.5 mg L^-1), so it is relevant to highlight that Yang & Kim (2019) used cherry tomatoes in their research.

The values in the water reservoirs for irrigation of the plants remained within the range suitable for the cultivation of tomato plants (Table 5), which excludes water quality as a factor that could have negatively affected the objective of the experiment. However, the pH of the irrigation water contributed positively to the control since, as reported by Blanchard et al. (2020), a pH close to 6 benefits physiological processes that eventually influence productive performance.

Yield data in plants showed some significant differences (Table 6). The higher DW, CGR, and SR values were observed in the hydroponic module (HM), while RGR and PP did not show significant differences between the IAS and the control (HM). The similarity in production between these two systems could be related to the concentration of non-ionized ammonium in the IAS, which, according to Wongkiew et al. (2017), acts as an additional source of nitrogen for plants and, at certain stages, favors physiological and metabolic processes essential for growth. Non-ionized ammonium is assimilated by plants primarily through the glutamine synthetase-glutamate synthase pathway, facilitating amino acid synthesis (Li et al., 2013). However, for its absorption to be effective and to avoid toxicity, optimal water conditions must be maintained in aquaponic systems, such as low pH (Trach et al., 2024). As for the other variables of productive behavior of plants (PS, TCC, TCC, and SR), the values of the control treatment are mainly attributed to irrigation with nutrient solution, where the complete availability of nutrients promotes the generation of biomass and, consequently, improves the monitored variables (Suhl et al., 2016).

Thumbnail

Table 6
Productive performance of tomato for dry weight (DW), relative growth rate (RGR), crop growth rate (CGR), survival rate (SR), and production per plant (PP) at the end of the 180 days of experimentation grown in intensive aquaponic system (IAS) and hydroponic module (HM)

Concerning fish yield (Table 7), the growth rate (GR) at the fingerling stage was similar between the IAS and control (AM) systems; however, the variables FCR, PER, and FSR showed better performance in the IAS system. During the juvenile stage, no differences were observed in GR and FSR, although the variables FCR and PER continued to show superior performance in IAS. At the adult stage, the growth rate (GR) of tilapia in IAS was significantly higher compared to the AM system. Yield values at the fingerling and juvenile stages suggest that the aquaponic system does not negatively affect growth but influences feed consumption and survival. At the adult stage, the aquaponic system favors biomass generation (GR) and improves FCR and FSR.

Thumbnail

Table 7
Productive performance of tilapia for growth rate (GR), feed conversion rate (FCR), protein efficiency rate (PER), and fish survival rate (FSR) at the end of the fingerling, juvenile, and adult stages (60, 120, and 180 days respectively)

Nevertheless, the FCR of the system is still above the value of 1, which is ideal for fish farming (Mengistu et al., 2020). This bias could be related to ammonium concentration in the IAS system since its presence can negatively affect the FCR (Sanchéz-Ortíz et al., 2023). Despite this, the aquaponic system is considered to be beneficial for the productive performance of tilapia.

Regarding the quality of tomato fruits, the variables monitored presented significant differences (Table 8). The highest pH value was recorded in the IAS system, surpassing the control with hydroponic solution (HM). Likewise, the IAS system showed the highest values of ºBrix and titratable acidity, while the highest amount of lycopene was found in the control (HM). According to Oltman et al. (2014), SST and TA are essential for tomato quality. In this study, the SST values in both treatments were similar to those reported by Kralik et al. (2022), while the TA values exceeded those reported in that study (4.20 - 7.26 ºBrix and 0.25 - 0.39%, respectively). Both values are above the thresholds of 5 ºBrix and 0.4%, established by Beckles (2012) as desirable for tomatoes. Regarding the amount of lycopene, the values obtained in both treatments were higher than those reported by Pezzarossa et al. (2014) (24.4 µg g^-1) and by Braglia et al. (2022) (13.68 µg/g), although lower than those reported by Suhl et al. (2016) (900 µg g^-1), who supplemented nutrients in their study. However, the fruit quality in this study is considered acceptable, especially given the absence of nutrient supplementation. Some indicators as total soluble solids (TSS) and titratable acidity (TA), exceeded desirable thresholds for tomatoes (Beckles, 2012), highlighting the effectiveness of nutrient recycling in the aquaponic system under intensive production conditions (Bittsanszky et al., 2016; Suhl et al., 2016).

Thumbnail

Table 8
Fruit quality of tomato of hydrogen potential (pH), total soluble solids (TSS), titratable acidity (TA), TSS/AT ratio, and lycopene content. Fillet quality of tilapia of protein, lipid, nitrogen-free extract (NFE), and ashes

Regarding the quality of the tilapia fillet, significant differences were observed between the treatments and their controls (Table 8). The highest protein content was recorded in the IAS system, with 28.15 ± 0.81, while this system also presented the lowest lipid content, with 2.42 ± 0.16, suggesting a better nutritional composition than the control. The amount of protein in the fillets of both groups was higher than that reported by Wu et al. (2018), who found 18.75% protein, and Morais et al. (2020), who reported 20.2%. Furthermore, these results slightly exceed the reference range of 15-25% (Biswas et al., 2018; Grassi et al., 2020), highlighting the high quality of the fillet obtained. Regarding lipid content, the results are similar to those reported by Morais et al. (2020) (2.38%) and higher than those of Wu et al. (2018) (1.55%). However, it is considered that the percentage of lipids observed in this study does not compromise the quality of the fillet.

In the safety of tomato fruits (Table 9), total coliform counts were significantly higher in the IAS system (97.88 ± 9.74 CFU g^-1) compared to the hydroponic control (37.83 ± 7.10 CFU g^-1). This increase in IAS could be associated with the greater presence of organic matter in aquaponic systems, which could favor the proliferation of coliforms (Schmautz et al., 2017). However, it is important to note that despite this increase, the values of total coliforms in both systems remain within acceptable limits for fresh products. On the other hand, the presence of Salmonella was null in both treatments, which is a positive indication of food safety in crop management (Weller et al., 2020). Regarding E. coli, the levels were extremely low in both systems (0.25 ± 0.02 CFU g^-1 in IAS and 0.27 ± 0.04 CFU g^-1 in the control), with no significant differences between them. These results suggest that, although the IAS system may increase the total coliform load, it does not significantly compromise the microbiological safety of tomato fruit.

Thumbnail

Table 9
Safety of tomato fruit and tilapia fillet of total coliform, Salmonella and Escherichia coli

Regarding the safety of tilapia fillets, a notable reduction in the total coliform load was observed in fish cultured in the IAS system (23.34 ± 0.43 CFU g^-1) compared to those in the traditional aquaculture system (74.13 ± 0.92 CFU g^-1). This finding suggests that the IAS system could offer a more controlled environment and less prone to bacterial contamination, possibly due to better water quality and more rigorous management in integrating fish culture with plants (Endut et al., 2010). As in tomatoes, Salmonella was absent in both systems, reinforcing the microbiological safety of the products obtained. As for E. coli, the presence was minimal in tilapia fillets in both the IAS system (0.13 ± 0.03 CFU g^-1) and the control (0.28 ± 0.10 CFU g^-1), with a slight advantage in favor of the IAS system.

Conclusions

Intensive density in aquaponics (40 kg m^-3) improves tilapia biomass and fillet quality concerning aquaculture;
Tomato production in intensive aquaponics is similar to hydroponics, with some quality variables higher;
Tomato safety is slightly lower in intensive aquaponics compared to hydroponics, but tilapia safety is higher than in aquaculture;
Intensive fish density (40 kg m^-3) optimizes the yield of the aquaponic system.

Acknowledgments

The first author received financial support (through a scholarship) to conduct this research from the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT). The rest of the authors have non-financial interests to disclose.

Literature Cited

Abd El-Hack, M. E.; El-Saadony, M. T.; Nader, M. M.; Salem, H. M.; El-Tahan, A. M.; Soliman, S. M.; Khafaga, A. F. Effect of environmental factors on growth performance of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). International Journal of Biometeorology, v.66, p.2183-2194, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-022-02347-6
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-022-02347-6
Ani, J. S; Manyala, J. O.; Masese, F. O.; Fitzsimmons, K. Effect of stocking density on growth performance of monosex Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) in the aquaponic system integrated with lettuce (Lactuca sativa). Aquaculture and Fisheries, v.7, p.328-335, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaf.2021.03.002
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaf.2021.03.002
Al-Zahrani, M. S.; Hassanien, H. A.; Alsaade, F. W.; Wahsheh, H. A. Effect of stocking density on sustainable growth performance and water quality of Nile tilapia-spinach in NFT aquaponic system. Sustainability, v.15, e6935, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086935
» https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086935
AOAC - Association of Official Analytical Chemistry. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International. 17^th ed. Gaithersburg, 2000. 2200p.
Beckles, D. M. Factors affecting the postharvest soluble solids and sugar content of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) fruit. Postharvest Biology and Technology, v.63, p.129-140, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2011.05.016
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2011.05.016
Bittsanszky, A.; Uzinger, N.; Gyulai, G.; Mathis, A.; Junge, R.; Villarroel, M.; Kőmíves, T. Nutrient supply of plants in aquaponic systems. Ecocycles, v.2, p.17-20, 2016. https://doi.org/10.19040/ecocycles.v2i2.57
» https://doi.org/10.19040/ecocycles.v2i2.57
Biswas, M.; Islam, M. S.; Das, P.; Das, P. R.; Akter, M. Comparative study on proximate composition and amino acids of probiotics treated and nontreated cage reared monosex tilapia Oreochromis niloticus in Dekar haor, Sunamganj district, Bangladesh. International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, v.62, p.431-435, 2018.
Blanchard, C.; Wells, D. E.; Pickens, J. M.; Blersch, D. M. Effect of pH on cucumber growth and nutrient availability in a decoupled aquaponic system with minimal solids removal. Horticulturae, v.6, p.10, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae6010010
» https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae6010010
Braglia, R.; Costa, P.; Di Marco, G.; D’Agostino, A.; Redi, E. L.; Scuderi, F.; Canini, A. Phytochemicals and quality level of food plants grown in an aquaponics system. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, v.102, p.844-850, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.11420
» https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.11420
Endut, A.; Jusoh, A.; Ali, N.; Nik, W. W.; Hassan, A. A study on the optimal hydraulic loading rate and plant ratios in recirculation aquaponic system. Bioresource Technology, v.101, p.1511-1517, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.09.040
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.09.040
FAO. Small-scale Aquaponic Food Production ¿ Integrated Fish and Plant Farming. FAO Fisheries Aquac. Techn. (Paper No. 589), 2014.
Félix-Cuencas, L.; García-Trejo, J. F.; López-Tejeida, S.; León-Ramírez, J. J.; Soto-Zarazúa, G. M. Effect of three productive stages of tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) under hyper-intensive recirculation aquaculture system on the growth of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). Latin American Journal of Aquatic Research, v.49, p.689-701, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.3856/vol49-issue5-fulltext-2620
» http://dx.doi.org/10.3856/vol49-issue5-fulltext-2620
Forchino, A. A.; Lourguioui, H.; Brigolina, D.; Pastresa, R. Aquaponics and sustainability: the comparison of two different aquaponic techniques using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Aquaculture Engineering, v.77, p.80-88, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2017.03.002
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2017.03.002
Gao, X.; Xu, Y.; Shan, J.; Jiang, J.; Zhang, H.; Ni, Q.; Zhang, Y. Effects of different stocking density start-up conditions on water nitrogen and phosphorus use efficiency, production, and microbial composition in aquaponics systems. Aquaculture, v.585, e740696, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2024.740696
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2024.740696
Goddek, S.; Keesman, K. J. Improving nutrient and water use efficiencies in multi-loop aquaponics systems. Aquaculture International, v.28, p.2481-2490, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-020-00600-6
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-020-00600-6
Goddek, S.; Delaide, B.; Mankasingh, U.; Ragnarsdottir, K.V.; Jijakli, H.; Thorarinsdottir, R. Challenges of sustainable and commercial aquaponics. Sustainability, v.7, p.4199-4224, 2015. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7044199
» https://doi.org/10.3390/su7044199
Grassi, T. L. M.; Paiva, N. M.; Oliveira, D. L.; Taniwaki, F.; Cavazzana, J. F.; Costa Camargo, G. C. R.; Ponsano, E. H. G. Growth performance and flesh quality of tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fed low concentrations of Rubrivivax gelatinosus, Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Spirulina platensis Aquaculture International , v.28, p.1305-1317, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-020-00527-y
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-020-00527-y
Kralik, B; Weisstein, F; Meyer, J; Neves, K; Anderson, D; Kershaw, J. From water to table: A multidisciplinary approach comparing fish from aquaponics with traditional production methods. Aquaculture, v.552, e737953, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.737953
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.737953
Kralik, B.; Nieschwitz, N.; Neves, K.; Zeedyk, N.; Wildschutte, H.; Kershaw, J. The effect of aquaponics on tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) sensory, quality, and safety outcomes. Journal of Food Science, v.88, p.2261-2272, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.16578
» https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.16578
Li, S.-X.; Wang, Z.-H.; Stewart, B. A. Responses of crop plants to ammonium and nitrate N. In D. L. Sparks (Ed.), Advances in Agronomy, v.118, p. 205-397, 2013. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-405942-9.00005-0
» https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-405942-9.00005-0
Li, C.; Zhang, B.; Luo, P.; Shi, H.; Li, L.; Gao, Y.; Wu, W. M. Performance of a pilot scale aquaponics system using hydroponics and immobilized biofilm treatment for water quality control. Journal of Cleaner Production, v.208, p.274-284, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.170
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.170
Mahieddine, B.; Amina, B.; Faouzi, S. M.; Sana, B.; Wided, D. Effects of microwave heating on the antioxidant activities of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). Annals of Agricultural Sciences, v.63, p.135-139, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2018.09.001
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2018.09.001
Mengistu, S. B.; Mulder, H. A.; Benzie, J. A.; Komen, H. A systematic literature review of the major factors causing yield gap by affecting growth, feed conversion ratio and survival in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Reviews in Aquaculture, v.12, p.524-541, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12331
» https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12331
Mercado-Luna, A. Manual de producción de jitomate (Lycopersicon esculentum) en variedades de crecimiento indeterminado bajo invernadero. Querétaro: Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro, 2007. 53p.
Morais, C. A. R. S.; Santana, T. P; Santos, C. A.; Passetti, R. A. C.; Melo, J. F. B.; Macedo, F. D. A. F.; Del Vesco, A. P. Effect of slaughter weight on the quality of Nile tilapia fillets. Aquaculture, v.520, e734941, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.734941
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.734941
Okomoda, V. T.; Oladimeji, S. A.; Solomon, S. G.; Olufeagba, S. O.; Ogah, S. I.; Ikhwanuddin, M. Aquaponics production system: A review of historical perspective, opportunities, and challenges of its adoption. Food Science & Nutrition, v.11, p.1157-1165, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.3154
» https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.3154
Oltman, A. E.; Jervis, S. M.; Drake, M. A. Consumer attitudes and preferences for fresh market tomatoes. Journal of Food Science , v.79, p.2091-2097, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.12638
» https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.12638
Pezzarossa, B.; Rosellini, I.; Borghesi, E.; Tonutti, P.; Malorgio, F. Effects of Se-enrichment on yield, fruit composition and ripening of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) plants grown in hydroponics. Scientia Horticulturae , v.165, p.106-110, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2013.10.029
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2013.10.029
Rakocy, J. E.; Masser, M. P.; Losordo, T. M. Recirculating aquaculture tank production systems: aquaponics-integrating fish and plant culture. Agrilife Extension, v.454, 2006.
Rakocy, J. E. Aquaponics-integrating fish and plant culture. Aquaculture Production Systems, p.344-386, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118250105
» https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118250105
Reyes-Flores, M.; Sandoval-Villa, M.; Rodríguez-Mendoza, M. D. L. N.; Trejo-Téllez, L. I.; Sánchez-Escudero, J.; Reta-Mendiola, J. Concentración de nutrientes en efluente acuapónico para producción de Solanum lycopersicum L. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas, v.17, p.3529-3542, 2017.
Reyes-Flores, M.; Sandoval-Villa, M.; Rodríguez-Mendoza, M. D. L. N.; Trejo-Téllez, L. I. Tomato quality (Solanum lycopersicum L.) produced in aquaponics complemented with foliar fertilization of micronutrients. Agroproductividad, v.13, p.79-86, 2020. https://doi.org/10.32854/agrop.vi.1635
» https://doi.org/10.32854/agrop.vi.1635
Sabwa, J. A.; Manyala, J. O.; Masese, F. O.; Fitzsimmons, K.; Achieng, A. O; Munguti, J. M. Effects of stocking density on the performance of lettuce (Lactuca sativa) in small-scale lettuce-Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.) aquaponic system. Aquaculture, Fish and Fisheries, v.2, p.458-469, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/aff2.71
» https://doi.org/10.1002/aff2.71
Sánchez Ortiz, I. A.; Bastos, R. K. X.; Lanna, E. A. T. Effects of chronic ammonia exposure on growth of genetically improved farmed tilapia (GIFT) cultured under different densities. North American Journal of Aquaculture, v.85, p.21-30, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1002/naaq.10268
» https://doi.org/10.1002/naaq.10268
Schmautz, Z.; Loeu, F.; Liebisch, F.; Graber, A.; Mathis, A.; Griessler Bulc, T.; Junge, R. Tomato productivity and quality in aquaponics: comparison of three hydroponic methods. Water, v.8, p.533, 2016. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8110533
» https://doi.org/10.3390/w8110533
Schmautz, Z.; Graber, A.; Jaenicke, S.; Goesmann, A.; Junge, R.; Smits, T. H. Microbial diversity in different compartments of an aquaponics system. Archives of microbiology, v.199, p.613-620, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-016-1334-1
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-016-1334-1
Suárez-Cáceres, G. P.; Pérez-Urrestarazu, L.; Avilés, M.; Borrero, C.; Eguíbar, J. R. L.; Fernández-Cabanás, V. M. Susceptibility to water-borne plant diseases of hydroponic vs. aquaponics systems. Aquaculture, v.544, e737093, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737093
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737093
Suhl, J.; Dannehl, D.; Kloas, W.; Baganz, D.; Jobs, S.; Scheibe, G.; Schmidt, U. Advanced aquaponics: Evaluation of intensive tomato production in aquaponics vs. conventional hydroponics. Agricultural Water Management, v.178, p.335-344, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.10.013
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.10.013
Trach, Y.; Trach, R.; Kuznietsov, P.; Pryshchepa, A.; Biedunkova, O.; Kiersnowska, A.; Statnyk, I. Predicting the influence of ammonium toxicity levels in water using fuzzy logic and ANN models. Sustainability, v.16, e5835, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145835
» https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145835
Tyl, C.; Sadler, G.D. pH and Titratable Acidity. In: Nielsen, S.S. Food Analysis. Food Science Text Series. London: Springer. 2017. p.389-406. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45776-5_22
» https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45776-5_22
Weller, D. L.; Saylor, L.; Turkon, P. Total coliform and generic E. coli levels, and Salmonella presence in eight experimental aquaponics and hydroponics systems: A brief report highlighting exploratory data. Horticulturae , v.6, e42. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae6030042
» https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae6030042
Wongkiew, S.; Hu, Z.; Chandran, K.; Lee, J. W.; Khanal, S. K. Nitrogen transformations in aquaponic systems: A review. Aquacultural Engineering, v.76, p.9-19, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2017.01.004
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2017.01.004
Wortman, S. E. Crop physiological response to nutrient solution electrical conductivity and pH in an ebb- and-flow hydroponic system. Scientia Horticulturae , v.194, p.34-42, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2015.07.045
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2015.07.045
Wu, F.; Wen, H.; Tian, J.; Jiang, M.; Liu, W.; Yang, C.; Lu, X. Effect of stocking density on growth performance, serum biochemical parameters, and muscle texture properties of genetically improved farm tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus Aquaculture International , v.26, p.1247-1259, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-018-0281-z
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-018-0281-z
Yang, T.; Kim, H. J. Nutrient management regime affects water quality, crop growth, and nitrogen use efficiency of aquaponic systems. Scientia Horticulturae , v.256, e108619, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2019.108619
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2019.108619
Yep, B.; Zheng, Y. Aquaponic trends and challenges-A review. Journal of Cleaner Production , v.228, p.1586-1599, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.290
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.290
Zoppas, F. M.; Bernardes, A. M.; Meneguzzi, Á. Parâmetros operacionais na remoção biológica de nitrogênio de águas por nitrificação e desnitrificação simultânea. Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental, v.21, p.29-42, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-41520201600100134682
» https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-41520201600100134682

¹ Research developed at Autonomous University of Querétaro, Faculty of Engineering, El Marqués, Querétaro, Mexico

Supplementary documents

There are no supplementary documents.

Edited by

Editors: Ítalo Herbet Lucena Cavalcante & Walter Esfrain Pereira

Data availability

There are no supplementary documents.

Publication Dates

Publication in this collection
23 May 2025
Date of issue
Sept 2025

History

Received
13 Aug 2024
Accepted
12 Mar 2025
Published
02 Apr 2025

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License

[1] Abd El-Hack, M. E.; El-Saadony, M. T.; Nader, M. M.; Salem, H. M.; El-Tahan, A. M.; Soliman, S. M.; Khafaga, A. F. Effect of environmental factors on growth performance of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). International Journal of Biometeorology, v.66, p.2183-2194, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-022-02347-6
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-022-02347-6

[2] Ani, J. S; Manyala, J. O.; Masese, F. O.; Fitzsimmons, K. Effect of stocking density on growth performance of monosex Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) in the aquaponic system integrated with lettuce (Lactuca sativa). Aquaculture and Fisheries, v.7, p.328-335, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaf.2021.03.002
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaf.2021.03.002

[3] Al-Zahrani, M. S.; Hassanien, H. A.; Alsaade, F. W.; Wahsheh, H. A. Effect of stocking density on sustainable growth performance and water quality of Nile tilapia-spinach in NFT aquaponic system. Sustainability, v.15, e6935, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086935
» https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086935

[4] AOAC - Association of Official Analytical Chemistry. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International. 17^th ed. Gaithersburg, 2000. 2200p.

[5] Beckles, D. M. Factors affecting the postharvest soluble solids and sugar content of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) fruit. Postharvest Biology and Technology, v.63, p.129-140, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2011.05.016
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2011.05.016

[6] Bittsanszky, A.; Uzinger, N.; Gyulai, G.; Mathis, A.; Junge, R.; Villarroel, M.; Kőmíves, T. Nutrient supply of plants in aquaponic systems. Ecocycles, v.2, p.17-20, 2016. https://doi.org/10.19040/ecocycles.v2i2.57
» https://doi.org/10.19040/ecocycles.v2i2.57

[7] Biswas, M.; Islam, M. S.; Das, P.; Das, P. R.; Akter, M. Comparative study on proximate composition and amino acids of probiotics treated and nontreated cage reared monosex tilapia Oreochromis niloticus in Dekar haor, Sunamganj district, Bangladesh. International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, v.62, p.431-435, 2018.

[8] Blanchard, C.; Wells, D. E.; Pickens, J. M.; Blersch, D. M. Effect of pH on cucumber growth and nutrient availability in a decoupled aquaponic system with minimal solids removal. Horticulturae, v.6, p.10, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae6010010
» https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae6010010

[9] Braglia, R.; Costa, P.; Di Marco, G.; D’Agostino, A.; Redi, E. L.; Scuderi, F.; Canini, A. Phytochemicals and quality level of food plants grown in an aquaponics system. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, v.102, p.844-850, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.11420
» https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.11420

[10] Endut, A.; Jusoh, A.; Ali, N.; Nik, W. W.; Hassan, A. A study on the optimal hydraulic loading rate and plant ratios in recirculation aquaponic system. Bioresource Technology, v.101, p.1511-1517, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.09.040
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.09.040

[11] FAO. Small-scale Aquaponic Food Production ¿ Integrated Fish and Plant Farming. FAO Fisheries Aquac. Techn. (Paper No. 589), 2014.

[12] Félix-Cuencas, L.; García-Trejo, J. F.; López-Tejeida, S.; León-Ramírez, J. J.; Soto-Zarazúa, G. M. Effect of three productive stages of tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) under hyper-intensive recirculation aquaculture system on the growth of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). Latin American Journal of Aquatic Research, v.49, p.689-701, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.3856/vol49-issue5-fulltext-2620
» http://dx.doi.org/10.3856/vol49-issue5-fulltext-2620

[13] Forchino, A. A.; Lourguioui, H.; Brigolina, D.; Pastresa, R. Aquaponics and sustainability: the comparison of two different aquaponic techniques using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Aquaculture Engineering, v.77, p.80-88, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2017.03.002
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2017.03.002

[14] Gao, X.; Xu, Y.; Shan, J.; Jiang, J.; Zhang, H.; Ni, Q.; Zhang, Y. Effects of different stocking density start-up conditions on water nitrogen and phosphorus use efficiency, production, and microbial composition in aquaponics systems. Aquaculture, v.585, e740696, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2024.740696
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2024.740696

[15] Goddek, S.; Keesman, K. J. Improving nutrient and water use efficiencies in multi-loop aquaponics systems. Aquaculture International, v.28, p.2481-2490, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-020-00600-6
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-020-00600-6

[16] Goddek, S.; Delaide, B.; Mankasingh, U.; Ragnarsdottir, K.V.; Jijakli, H.; Thorarinsdottir, R. Challenges of sustainable and commercial aquaponics. Sustainability, v.7, p.4199-4224, 2015. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7044199
» https://doi.org/10.3390/su7044199

[17] Grassi, T. L. M.; Paiva, N. M.; Oliveira, D. L.; Taniwaki, F.; Cavazzana, J. F.; Costa Camargo, G. C. R.; Ponsano, E. H. G. Growth performance and flesh quality of tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fed low concentrations of Rubrivivax gelatinosus, Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Spirulina platensis Aquaculture International , v.28, p.1305-1317, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-020-00527-y
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-020-00527-y

[18] Kralik, B; Weisstein, F; Meyer, J; Neves, K; Anderson, D; Kershaw, J. From water to table: A multidisciplinary approach comparing fish from aquaponics with traditional production methods. Aquaculture, v.552, e737953, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.737953
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.737953

[19] Kralik, B.; Nieschwitz, N.; Neves, K.; Zeedyk, N.; Wildschutte, H.; Kershaw, J. The effect of aquaponics on tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) sensory, quality, and safety outcomes. Journal of Food Science, v.88, p.2261-2272, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.16578
» https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.16578

[20] Li, S.-X.; Wang, Z.-H.; Stewart, B. A. Responses of crop plants to ammonium and nitrate N. In D. L. Sparks (Ed.), Advances in Agronomy, v.118, p. 205-397, 2013. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-405942-9.00005-0
» https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-405942-9.00005-0

[21] Li, C.; Zhang, B.; Luo, P.; Shi, H.; Li, L.; Gao, Y.; Wu, W. M. Performance of a pilot scale aquaponics system using hydroponics and immobilized biofilm treatment for water quality control. Journal of Cleaner Production, v.208, p.274-284, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.170
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.170

[22] Mahieddine, B.; Amina, B.; Faouzi, S. M.; Sana, B.; Wided, D. Effects of microwave heating on the antioxidant activities of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). Annals of Agricultural Sciences, v.63, p.135-139, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2018.09.001
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2018.09.001

[23] Mengistu, S. B.; Mulder, H. A.; Benzie, J. A.; Komen, H. A systematic literature review of the major factors causing yield gap by affecting growth, feed conversion ratio and survival in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Reviews in Aquaculture, v.12, p.524-541, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12331
» https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12331

[24] Mercado-Luna, A. Manual de producción de jitomate (Lycopersicon esculentum) en variedades de crecimiento indeterminado bajo invernadero. Querétaro: Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro, 2007. 53p.

[25] Morais, C. A. R. S.; Santana, T. P; Santos, C. A.; Passetti, R. A. C.; Melo, J. F. B.; Macedo, F. D. A. F.; Del Vesco, A. P. Effect of slaughter weight on the quality of Nile tilapia fillets. Aquaculture, v.520, e734941, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.734941
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.734941

[26] Okomoda, V. T.; Oladimeji, S. A.; Solomon, S. G.; Olufeagba, S. O.; Ogah, S. I.; Ikhwanuddin, M. Aquaponics production system: A review of historical perspective, opportunities, and challenges of its adoption. Food Science & Nutrition, v.11, p.1157-1165, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.3154
» https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.3154

[27] Oltman, A. E.; Jervis, S. M.; Drake, M. A. Consumer attitudes and preferences for fresh market tomatoes. Journal of Food Science , v.79, p.2091-2097, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.12638
» https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.12638

[28] Pezzarossa, B.; Rosellini, I.; Borghesi, E.; Tonutti, P.; Malorgio, F. Effects of Se-enrichment on yield, fruit composition and ripening of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) plants grown in hydroponics. Scientia Horticulturae , v.165, p.106-110, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2013.10.029
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2013.10.029

[29] Rakocy, J. E.; Masser, M. P.; Losordo, T. M. Recirculating aquaculture tank production systems: aquaponics-integrating fish and plant culture. Agrilife Extension, v.454, 2006.

[30] Rakocy, J. E. Aquaponics-integrating fish and plant culture. Aquaculture Production Systems, p.344-386, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118250105
» https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118250105

[31] Reyes-Flores, M.; Sandoval-Villa, M.; Rodríguez-Mendoza, M. D. L. N.; Trejo-Téllez, L. I.; Sánchez-Escudero, J.; Reta-Mendiola, J. Concentración de nutrientes en efluente acuapónico para producción de Solanum lycopersicum L. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas, v.17, p.3529-3542, 2017.

[32] Reyes-Flores, M.; Sandoval-Villa, M.; Rodríguez-Mendoza, M. D. L. N.; Trejo-Téllez, L. I. Tomato quality (Solanum lycopersicum L.) produced in aquaponics complemented with foliar fertilization of micronutrients. Agroproductividad, v.13, p.79-86, 2020. https://doi.org/10.32854/agrop.vi.1635
» https://doi.org/10.32854/agrop.vi.1635

[33] Sabwa, J. A.; Manyala, J. O.; Masese, F. O.; Fitzsimmons, K.; Achieng, A. O; Munguti, J. M. Effects of stocking density on the performance of lettuce (Lactuca sativa) in small-scale lettuce-Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.) aquaponic system. Aquaculture, Fish and Fisheries, v.2, p.458-469, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/aff2.71
» https://doi.org/10.1002/aff2.71

[34] Sánchez Ortiz, I. A.; Bastos, R. K. X.; Lanna, E. A. T. Effects of chronic ammonia exposure on growth of genetically improved farmed tilapia (GIFT) cultured under different densities. North American Journal of Aquaculture, v.85, p.21-30, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1002/naaq.10268
» https://doi.org/10.1002/naaq.10268

[35] Schmautz, Z.; Loeu, F.; Liebisch, F.; Graber, A.; Mathis, A.; Griessler Bulc, T.; Junge, R. Tomato productivity and quality in aquaponics: comparison of three hydroponic methods. Water, v.8, p.533, 2016. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8110533
» https://doi.org/10.3390/w8110533

[36] Schmautz, Z.; Graber, A.; Jaenicke, S.; Goesmann, A.; Junge, R.; Smits, T. H. Microbial diversity in different compartments of an aquaponics system. Archives of microbiology, v.199, p.613-620, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-016-1334-1
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-016-1334-1

[37] Suárez-Cáceres, G. P.; Pérez-Urrestarazu, L.; Avilés, M.; Borrero, C.; Eguíbar, J. R. L.; Fernández-Cabanás, V. M. Susceptibility to water-borne plant diseases of hydroponic vs. aquaponics systems. Aquaculture, v.544, e737093, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737093
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737093

[38] Suhl, J.; Dannehl, D.; Kloas, W.; Baganz, D.; Jobs, S.; Scheibe, G.; Schmidt, U. Advanced aquaponics: Evaluation of intensive tomato production in aquaponics vs. conventional hydroponics. Agricultural Water Management, v.178, p.335-344, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.10.013
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.10.013

[39] Trach, Y.; Trach, R.; Kuznietsov, P.; Pryshchepa, A.; Biedunkova, O.; Kiersnowska, A.; Statnyk, I. Predicting the influence of ammonium toxicity levels in water using fuzzy logic and ANN models. Sustainability, v.16, e5835, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145835
» https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145835

[40] Tyl, C.; Sadler, G.D. pH and Titratable Acidity. In: Nielsen, S.S. Food Analysis. Food Science Text Series. London: Springer. 2017. p.389-406. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45776-5_22
» https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45776-5_22

[41] Weller, D. L.; Saylor, L.; Turkon, P. Total coliform and generic E. coli levels, and Salmonella presence in eight experimental aquaponics and hydroponics systems: A brief report highlighting exploratory data. Horticulturae , v.6, e42. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae6030042
» https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae6030042

[42] Wongkiew, S.; Hu, Z.; Chandran, K.; Lee, J. W.; Khanal, S. K. Nitrogen transformations in aquaponic systems: A review. Aquacultural Engineering, v.76, p.9-19, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2017.01.004
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2017.01.004

[43] Wortman, S. E. Crop physiological response to nutrient solution electrical conductivity and pH in an ebb- and-flow hydroponic system. Scientia Horticulturae , v.194, p.34-42, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2015.07.045
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2015.07.045

[44] Wu, F.; Wen, H.; Tian, J.; Jiang, M.; Liu, W.; Yang, C.; Lu, X. Effect of stocking density on growth performance, serum biochemical parameters, and muscle texture properties of genetically improved farm tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus Aquaculture International , v.26, p.1247-1259, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-018-0281-z
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-018-0281-z

[45] Yang, T.; Kim, H. J. Nutrient management regime affects water quality, crop growth, and nitrogen use efficiency of aquaponic systems. Scientia Horticulturae , v.256, e108619, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2019.108619
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2019.108619

[46] Yep, B.; Zheng, Y. Aquaponic trends and challenges-A review. Journal of Cleaner Production , v.228, p.1586-1599, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.290
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.290

[47] Zoppas, F. M.; Bernardes, A. M.; Meneguzzi, Á. Parâmetros operacionais na remoção biológica de nitrogênio de águas por nitrificação e desnitrificação simultânea. Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental, v.21, p.29-42, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-41520201600100134682
» https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-41520201600100134682

Stage	Irrigation volume per plant	Schedules and irrigation ration	Particular actions by stage
Vegetative	1.5 L	10:00 am (30%)	Start of tutoring
Flowering	2.4 L	2:00 pm (40%)	Pruning axial shoots and leaves
Fructification	3.6 L	2:00 pm (40%)	Fruit thinning: six fruits per bunch
Maturation	2.4 L	4:00 pm (30%)	Fruit cut (maturity 4)

Stage	Weight range per fish	Daily percentage of feed	Feeding times
Fingerlings	5 - 20 g	8%	8:00 am (30%)
Fingerlings	20 - 50 g	5%	1:00 pm (40%)
Juveniles	50 - 150 g	4%	1:00 pm (40%)
Adults	150 - 300 g	2%	6:00 pm (30%)

Treatment	Particular actions by stage
IAS and AM	Changes at 60 and 120 days of the experiment
	1. Adult fish were harvested.
	2. The juveniles were redistributed in the three ponds for the adult stage.
	3. The fingerlings were redistributed in the two ponds for the juvenile stage.
	4. In the pond for fingerlings, 48 individuals have entered again.

Variable	Water in fish ponds
Variable	Reference values (Abd El-Hack et al., 2022)	IAS	Control (AM)
Temperature (ºC)	20 - 32	24.2 ± 1.2 a	23.9 ± 1.3 a
pH	5 - 9	8.3 ± 0.6 a	7.9 ± 0.4 a
Dissolved oxygen (mg L^-1)	4 - 9	6.34 ± 0.52 a	4.97 ± 0.41 b
Nitrates (mg L^-1)	< 300	38.32 ± 3.65 a	43.87 ± 3.68 a
Nitrites (mg L^-1)	< 5	1.87 ± 0.21 b	3.18 ± 0.37 a
Non-ionized ammonia (mg L^-1)	< 2	1.09 ± 0.14 b	1.27 ± 0.21 b
Variable	Water for irrigation plants
Variable	Reference values (Mercado-Luna, 2007)	IAS	Control (HM)
pH	5.5 - 6.5	6.3 ± 0.3 a	5.7 ± 0.2 b
Dissolved oxygen (mg L^-1)	5 - 8	4.82 ± 0.26 a	3.61 ± 0.29 b
Electrical conductivity (mS)	1.5 - 2.5	2.2 ± 0.3 a	1.6 ± 0.2 b

Variable	IAS	Control (HM)
DW (g)	304.67 ± 13.62 b	342.81 ± 14.52 a
RGR	0.0423 ± 0.0004 a	0.0428 ± 0.0003 a
CGR	0. 0381 ± 0.0002 b	0.0485 ± 0.0002 a
SR (%)	74.1 ± 3.4 b	81.3 ± 1.2 a
PP (g)	783 ± 22 a	815 ± 25 a

Tomato and tilapia yield, quality and safety in an intensive aquaponic system¹

Produtividade, qualidade e segurança de tomate e tilápia em sistema aquapônico intensivo

ABSTRACT

HIGHLIGHTS:

RESUMO

Introduction

Material and Methods

Results and Discussion

Conclusions

Acknowledgments

Literature Cited

Supplementary documents

Edited by

Data availability

Publication Dates

History

Variable	IAS	Control (AM)
	Fingerling stage
GR (g)	54.66 ± 2.17 a	51.62 ± 3.51 a
FCR	1.74 ± 0.07 b	1.95 ± 0.06 a
PER	1.43 ± 0.06 a	1.26 ± 0.04 b
FSR (%)	89.6 ± 2.9 a	82.2 ± 3.3 b
	Juvenile stage
GR (g)	99.79 ± 4.23 a	95.57 ± 3.82 a
FCR	1.72 ± 0.09 b	1.88 ± 0.06 a
PER	1.64 ± 0.06 a	1.47 ± 0.07 b
FSR (%)	88.3 ± 1.7 b	93.2 ± 2.5 a
	Adult stage
GR (g)	115.45 ± 4.92 a	105.53 ± 4.64 b
FCR	1.69 ± 0.08 a	1.81 ± 0.09 a
PER	1.85 ± 0.05 a	1.78 ± 0.06 a
FSR (%)	98.9 ± 1.1 a	97.4 ± 0.9 a

Variable	IAS	Control (HM)
pH	4.49 ± 0.09 a	4.13 ± 0.10 b
TSS (ºBrix)	6.42 ± 0.21 a	5.77 ± 0.19 b
AT (%)	0. 57 ± 0.03 a	0.51 ± 0.02 b
TSS/AT	11.26 ± 0.13 a	11.31 ± 0.10 a
Lycopene (µg g^-1)	41.15 ± 0.12 b	65.57 ± 0.08 a
	IAS	Control (AM)
Protein (%)	28.15 ± 0.81 a	25.98 ± 0.73 b
Lipid (%)	2.42 ± 0.16 a	2.51 ± 0.14 a
NFE (%)	1.74 ± 0.09 b	1.86 ± 0.08 a
Ashes (%)	1.71 ± 0.04 a	1.42 ± 0.04 b

Nutrient (mg L^-1)
N	P	K	Mg	SO₄	Fe	Mn	Zn	Cu	B	Mo	K
150	48	216	31	125	3	0.5	0.15	0.15	0.5	1	116

Tomato and tilapia yield, quality and safety in an intensive aquaponic system1

Produtividade, qualidade e segurança de tomate e tilápia em sistema aquapônico intensivo

ABSTRACT

HIGHLIGHTS:

RESUMO

Introduction

Material and Methods

Results and Discussion

Conclusions

Acknowledgments

Literature Cited

Supplementary documents

Edited by

Data availability

Publication Dates

History

Tomato and tilapia yield, quality and safety in an intensive aquaponic system¹