MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896819434 · doi:10.18331/sfs2019.5.2.7

Effects of supplementary nutrient in an aquaponic system for production of ornamental red tilapia (Oreochromis Sp.) and lettuce (Lactuca sativa var longifolia)

2019· article· en· W2896819434 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gh. Rafiee, Ch Ros Saad, Mohd Salleh Kamarudin, Mohd Razi Ismail, Kamaruzaman Sijam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInnovations in Aquaponics and Hydroponics Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAquaponicsLactucaTilapiaOrnamental plantNutrientBiologyOreochromisBotanyHorticultureAgronomyAquacultureFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>Ecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effects of supplementary nutrient in the production of red tilapia (Oreochromis sp) and Lettuce (Lactuca sativa var longifolia) evaluated in a representative water recirculating aquaculture system. The nutrient solution supplemented was 25% level of (L25) nutrient solution as medium used for aquaponic production of lettuce in the NFT system (based on cooper’s formula). Thus, a completely randomized experimental design conducted with two treatments in triplicates (Pl25 and PL0). Six black rectangular tanks (114 x 86 x 100cm) used as fish culture tanks and each one equipped with three hydroponic troughs. Each tank filled with 640 L of water and aerated continuously with two circular air stones (3 L min-1) during the experiment. The system was efficiently able to remove high rate of total ammonia -nitrogen (TAN) excreted by fish during the experiment. The fish attained marketable size (200g) during a 110 –day period. Nutrient supply had not significant effects (p>0.05) on growth of fish during experimental period. The yields (Biomass/tank) of fish in treatments PL25 and Pl0 were 9.97 and 9.26 kg / tank, respectively. Three times cultivation and harvest of lettuce carried out during the experimental period. At the first harvest, the yield (mean wet weight) of lettuce showed significant (p<0.05) differences between treatments, 1437g and 85 g in treatments PL25 and Pl0, respectively. In the second and third lettuce harvests, the yield of lettuce did not show any significant differences (p>0.05) and averaged 2112 and 1419 (Second harvest) and 1173 and 807 (Third harvest) for treatments PL25 and PL0, respectively. It was recorded that red tilapia could tolerate 25% of nutrient solution, used for aquaponic production of lettuce, and introduction of nutrient solution to the culture system is necessary to get higher yield of lettuce at initiation of culture system.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicInnovations in Aquaponics and Hydroponics SystemsFrench-language works237,207