A comparison of three different hydroponic sub-systems (gravel bed, floating and nutrient film technique) in an Aquaponic test system

被引:173
作者
Lennard, Wilson A. [1 ]
Leonard, Brian V. [1 ]
机构
[1] RMIT Univ, Dept Biotechnol & Environm Biol, Sch Appl Sci, Bundoora, Vic 3083, Australia
关键词
Aquaponic; hydroponic; NFT; biological nutrient removal; wastewater; Murray Cod; nitrate; phosphate;
D O I
10.1007/s10499-006-9053-2
中图分类号
S9 [水产、渔业];
学科分类号
0908 ;
摘要
Murray Cod, Maccullochella peelii peelii (Mitchell), and Green Oak lettuce, Lactuca sativa, were used to test for differences between three hydroponic subsystems, Gravel Bed, Floating Raft and Nutrient Film Technique (NFT), in a freshwater Aquaponic test system, where plant nutrients were supplied from fish wastes while plants stripped nutrients from the waste water before it was returned to the fish. The Murray Cod had FCR's and biomass gains that were statistically identical in all systems. Lettuce yields were good, and in terms of biomass gain and yield, followed the relationship Gravel bed > Floating > NFT, with significant differences seen between all treatments. The NFT treatment was significantly less efficient than the other two treatments in terms of nitrate removal (20% less efficient), whilst no significant difference was seen between any test treatments in terms of phosphate removal. In terms of dissolved oxygen, water replacement and conductivity, no significant differences were observed between any test treatments. Overall, results suggest that NFT hydroponic sub-systems are less efficient at both removing nutrients from fish culture water and producing plant biomass or yield than Gravel bed or Floating hydroponic sub-systems in an Aquaponic context. Aquaponic system designers need to take these differences into account when designing hydroponic components within aquaponic systems.
引用
收藏
页码:539 / 550
页数:12
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]  
Adler P.R., 2000, INT J RECIRCULATING, V1, P15, DOI DOI 10.21061/IJRA.V1I1.1359
[2]   Economic evaluation of hydroponics and other treatment options for phosphorus removal in aquaculture effluent [J].
Adler, PR ;
Harper, JK ;
Takeda, F ;
Wade, EM ;
Summerfelt, ST .
HORTSCIENCE, 2000, 35 (06) :993-999
[3]  
Alleman J. E., 2002, BEHAV PHYSL NITRIFYI
[4]  
Burgoon P. S., 1984, Proceedings, sixth international congress on soilless culture, Lunteren, 1984., P151
[5]  
Dontje JH, 1999, T ASAE, V42, P1073, DOI 10.13031/2013.13255
[6]  
Goto E, 1996, Acta Hortic, V440, P205
[7]  
Graves CJ, 1993, HORTICULT REV, V5, P1
[8]   N-DEMAND AND THE REGULATION OF NITRATE UPTAKE [J].
IMSANDE, J ;
TOURAINE, B .
PLANT PHYSIOLOGY, 1994, 105 (01) :3-7
[9]  
INGRAM B, 2002, VICT I AN SCI ATTW V
[10]   A comparison of reciprocating flow versus constant flow in an integrated, gravel bed, aquaponic test system [J].
Lennard, WA ;
Leonard, BV .
AQUACULTURE INTERNATIONAL, 2004, 12 (06) :539-553