Skip to main content
AoB Plants logoLink to AoB Plants
. 2025 Jan 20;17(2):plaf005. doi: 10.1093/aobpla/plaf005

Acclimation of functional traits leads to biomass increases in leafy green species grown in aquaponics

Victoria Nicholes 1,2, Malik Khan 3, Nicholas Lemon 4, Peter Vila 5, Courtney Campany 6,
Editor: Mary Heskel
PMCID: PMC11851069  PMID: 40007953

Abstract

As human population size continues to increase and climate change effects worsen, future food security has become a primary concern for agricultural industries worldwide. Yields of traditional agricultural methods are commonly limited by water and nutrient availability and many crop yields are predicted to decline. Alternative farming practices like aquaponics, which can alleviate these negative yield pressures, may become critical to reaching food production targets. Aquaponics approaches involve the cyclic joint production of fish and hydroponic plants where the fish efflux provides nutrients to plants that then purify the water to be recycled to the fish tanks. In this study, we investigated the acclimation of physiology and functional traits of plants grown in aquaponics versus soil for three leafy green species. We compared gas exchange, stomatal anatomy, water-use efficiency, and foliar chemistry on newly formed leaves across weekly measurements. Increased photosynthetic rate, driven by higher stomatal conductance and increases in tissue nitrogen, led to higher biomass production in aquaponics for all species. Aquaponics plants adjusted stomatal behavior and to a lesser degree stomatal anatomy to become less water-use efficient than plants grown in soil. Collectively, our findings demonstrate the ability of plants to acclimate quickly to aquaponics growing systems that largely remove water and nutrient limitations to plant growth. The increased biomass production of broccoli, pak choi, and salanova by 185%, 116%, and 362% in aquaponics compared to soil-grown plants demonstrates the potential of small-scale aquaponics systems as an efficient and sustainable alternative farming practice.

Keywords: aquaponics, photosynthesis, plants, nitrogen, stomata, water-use efficiency


As aspects of our food system are under pressure from population growth and global change, the need to investigate the efficacy of alternate agriculture practices is imminently important. Our study examined the capacity of leafy green species grown in aquaponics to acclimate to unlimited access to water and consistent supplies of nitrogen from fish efflux, compared to the same species grown in soil. We found biomass production, rates of photosynthesis, and stomatal conductance to be higher in aquaponics, while water use efficiency was lower in aquaponics for all species. Our study also found nitrogen supply to be higher in leaf tissues in plants grown in aquaponics, which correlated with the observed higher rates of photosynthesis. Our findings offer mechanistic insights into the future of sustainable farming that utilizes aquaponics to produce non-staple crops that meaningfully contribute to feed insecurity.

Introduction

Global food security

The human population is predicted to surge to over 9 billion by 2050 (Roberts 2011; Cleland 2013; Cole et al. 2018; Mote Rivas and Kalnay 2020; Siegel 2021) making sufficient food production to meet global needs an urgent problem. Within the next few decades, production of the major grain-producing staple crops including maize, wheat, and rice will need to increase by 50%–70% to feed the expanding population (Cairns et al. 2013; Ray et al. 2013; Tai Martin and Heald 2014; Long Marshall-Colon and Zhu 2015; Rockström et al. 2017; Chouchane Krol and Hoekstra 2018; Asseng et al. 2020; Gerten et al. 2020). Food security has not improved by increases in cropland efficiency as crop nutritional value has not followed the increase of production and converting natural lands to croplands has led to detrimental losses in biodiversity, soil health, and ecosystem stability (Clark and Tilman 2017; Ramankutty et al. 2018).

Additionally, biomass yields of some non-staple and legume crops are decreasing due to limited water supply and climate warming (Fahad Ali A Bajwa et al. 2017; Zhou et al. 2017; Bisbis Gruda and Blanke 2018); but impacts of climate change factors on production of non-staple crop impacts are less studied (Zhou et al. 2017; Scheelbeek et al. 2018). Further, global change factors such as pest introductions, shifts in pest phenology, and pest range expansion place additional negative pressures on crop productivity and food security (Boyer et al. 2013; Bebber Holmes and Gurr 2014; Nabout et al. 2016). These impacts will further decrease harvests and increase the urgency to enhance crop productivity to ensure food security (Boyer et al. 2013; Nabout et al. 2016; Hanes and Rhode 2050).

Globally, staple crops are impacted by nutrient and water deficiencies that restrict crop growth (Mueller et al. 2012). For example, nutrients and water can limit production of staple crops, such as wheat, soybean, and maize production by greater than 45% (Fahad Ali A. Bajwa et al. 2017). Biomass production limitations are often linked to anthropogenic disturbances like soil erosion outpacing the rate of soil replenishment in plowed fields that results in the loss of key soil nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus (Yuan et al. 2018; Dror Yaron and Berkowitz 2021) along with micronutrients like selenium (Jones et al. 2013). Additionally, the use of heavy agricultural machinery paired with other human field traffic destroys soil aggregates and degrades soil pore structure that can stunt root growth and decrease biomass production by as much as 50% (Shah et al. 2017). Additionally, alleviation of nutrient and water limitations in lettuce, an important non-staple crop, can improve production by more than 130% (Wang et al. 2023).

With altered soil nutrient cycling, the agriculture industry heavily relies on fertilizers to supplement these growth-limiting nutrients (Grzebisz et al. 2013; Paulot and Jacob 2014; Houlton et al. 2019) but it is difficult to balance the environmental harm of unstainable fertilizer use on enhanced agricultural production (X. Zhang et al. 2015). Fifty percent of the added nitrogen fertilizer in conventional soil agriculture ends up in the harvested biomass with the remaining 50% susceptible to nitrate leaching into groundwater or runoff, or as ammonia or nitrous oxide emissions to the atmosphere (Philip Robertson et al. 2013). These permanent removals of elemental resources via harvesting biomass and erosion drive a continuous, accelerating feedback loop towards poor soil quality, increased fertilizer use, and further environmental damage (Davidson et al. 2015). Moreover, other soil constraints such as low moisture content and high salinity contribute to biomass production shortfalls by constraining plant responses to vapor pressure deficits, disrupting ion homeostasis, reducing photosynthesis, and diverting energy for growth towards soil water uptake (Cemek et al. 2011; Zörb Geilfus and Dietz 2019; Rigden et al. 2020).

Groundwater depletion makes any increase in irrigated croplands unsustainable (Dalin et al. 2017; Perrone and Jasechko 2017) and projected increases in drought across major agriculture zones coupled with scarce groundwater supplies reduce the potential of irrigating new lands (Peña-Gallardo et al. 2018; Leng and Hall 2019). The complexity of tracking consumption, restricting extractions, and negotiating with irrigators makes increasing current irrigation efficiency an ineffective, slow solution (Grafton et al. 2018). To overcome water concerns, farming industries are turning to altering irrigation practices like plant-centric irrigation (Zhang et al. 2021) and water-saving irrigation (Xu et al. 2015b). However, reliance on irrigation to solve the climate water crisis is impossible with current renewable water resources falling short of the irrigation demand by as much as 47% (Wang et al. 2021).

Photosynthetic constraints of crops

Photosynthesis is fundamental to the production of food as it generates the raw materials for all plant products (Richards 2000). Photosynthesis in plants is tied to species-specific leaf traits such as leaf nitrogen content that regulates photosynthetic capacity and sensitivity to water stress through transpiration rate and stomatal conductance that regulates stomatal behavior. Photosynthesis requires many proteins, especially Rubisco, that account for the majority of nitrogen content in leaves (Evans and Clarke 2019). Photosynthesis is well-known to be limited by nitrogen availability, especially because photosynthetic enzymes require high nitrogen investments to build and maintain (Evans 1989; Evans and Seemann 1989). In addition, under water restriction, plants must optimize stomatal behavior to minimize transpiration losses while maximizing the CO2 drawdown needed to drive photosynthetic reactions. Current and projected climate instability, including higher temperatures paired with decreasing precipitation, drives increased stomatal closure via changes in soil hydraulic conductivity and higher vapor pressure deficits (Carminati and Javaux 2020; Grossiord et al. 2020; Abdalla et al. 2022). Overall, fluctuating levels of water stress and nitrogen availability drive changes in photosynthetic traits that vary widely between species (Ahanger et al. 2016; Wang Wang and Shangguan 2016; Richards 2018).

Bioengineering and genetic manipulation research focused on drought tolerance and nutrient deficiency traits has increased photosynthetic rates and crop yields (Bouzid et al. 2019; Conti 2019; Condon 2020; Martignago et al. 2020; Dietz Zörb and Geilfus 2021; Ozeki Miyazawa and Sugiura 2022). However, these approaches are often limited by unexpected side effects of inserting transgenes and biological constraints of limited availability of genetic resources (Ladics et al. 2015; Kumar et al. 2020). Improved traditional agriculture techniques like cover cropping (Rosa-Schleich et al. 2019), permaculture (Suh 2014), and biodynamic farming (Santoni et al. 2022) practices will likely still fall short of our rising food targets. Shortfalls in these improvements to traditional agriculture have driven the refinement of alternative soilless farming methods like aeroponics, hydroponics, and aquaponics (AlShrouf 2017). Aquaponics, a highly efficient system with low pollution and water consumption, combines hydroponics and aquaculture (controlled production of aquatic organisms) and is one of the highest-yield animal production systems (Palm et al. 2018; Wei et al. 2019). In aquaponics systems, fish waste efflux supplies a hydroponic source of nitrogen-based nutrients to plants, which eliminates water stress and potentially decreases nitrogen limitation for leaf photosynthetic functional traits. Aquaponics plants subsequently filter the fish efflux, which is then recycled to the fish tanks, vastly reducing water requirements (Janni and Jadhav 2022). Although soilless growth systems are shown to increase the yield and quality of some crops compared to soil (Verdoliva et al. 2021), the limited spatial capacity of those systems to contribute to crop yield demands is largely untested. Consequently, soilless agricultural practices, like aquaponics systems with cyclic water and nutrient renewal from fish efflux, need to become a research priority.

The objective of this study is to compare leaf-level functional traits in plants grown in soil to plants grown in aquaponics to investigate the capacity of aquaponics plants to acclimate to the resource environment created by fish efflux and hydroponics. We used three leafy green crop species, common in aquaponics systems, to test for acclimation of leaf gas exchange, stomatal anatomy, water-use efficiency, and foliar chemistry on newly formed leaves. We hypothesized that plants in an aquaponics system will acclimate stomatal behavior and anatomy to upregulate photosynthesis despite the increased water cost of carbon gain via transpiration.

Methods

Study site

The Shepherd University Aquaponics Laboratory is located at Shepherd Farm, a 160-acre agricultural innovation center for teaching and demonstrating small-scale agricultural techniques, in Shepherdstown WV, USA (39.44549°N, 77.83048°W). The indoor aquaponics facility uses two 4542-liter fish tanks that provide fish efflux to separate hydroponic plant growth systems (Supplementary Figure S1). This study utilized the nutrient water from the Tilapia tank that contains 60 Oreochromis aureus fed with Purina Aquamax Pondfish 4000 (Nestlé Purina PetCare, St. Louis, Missouri, USA). The large particulate fish waste from the tank is removed in the settling tank with the excreted ammonia converted to nitrate in the biofilter. Fish tank temperature ranged from 24°C to 25°C with a pH of 7.5–8.0. Water from the Deep-Water Culture beds (DWC) flows to a sump tank and is pumped back into the fish tanks. The water flows at a rate of ~3785 liters per hour through the growing systems. Aquaponic plants were grown in the DWC beds that were 1.2 m wide × 5.0 m long × 0.15 m deep. Each bed fits eight floating Styrofoam raft boards (0.6 m × 1.2 m each) that contain 18 2.5 cm. square cutouts. Nitrate levels were measured twice over the study, varied negligibly, and averaged 11.2 mg/l.

Study design

We tested three commonly used species in aquaponics, Brassica oleracea var. italica (broccoli), Brassica rapa subsp. chinensis (pak choi), and Lactuca sativa (salanova). Plants in the aquaponics treatment were seeded in a 60:40 Coco Coir:Vermiculite media into 2.54 cm. net pots. Each net pot fit into the square cutouts in each floating raft, allowing roots to be exposed to fish efflux from the tilapia tank. Plants in the soil treatment were sowed directly into square 10 cm diameter × 8 cm deep pots with organic topsoil. Pots were placed on top of adjacent floating rafts at the same planting density and spacing (max 18 plants per raft). This ensured that the two experimental groups experienced similar airflow, microclimates, and light conditions. Three 650-watt Scynce Raging Kush II LED lights (ScynceLED, Mesa, Arizona, USA) were mounted directly above the floating rafts, with a 12:12 hour daylight and night cycle light regime with the Cool and Red channels set at 100%. Incident light Photosynthetic Photon Flux density, measured with a Licor 250-A with a LI-193 sensor (LI-COR Biosciences Inc. Lincoln, Nebraska, USA), averaged 410 μmol/m2/s at 15 cm above the floating raft. This irradiance level is within ranges shown to increase biomass accumulation, while remaining near the light saturation point of photosynthesis for leafy green species (Wong et al. 2020). For each species, we conducted two experimental trials that ran for 3–4 weeks with 10 individuals for each treatment. Trials with broccoli were run simultaneously, while pak choi and salanova trails were run consecutively during the spring and fall semesters, respectively. Broccoli trials occurred from April 19 to May 3, 2022, pak choi from February 8to March 29, 2022, and salanova from October 19 to November 23, 2021. Measurements were initiated when plants had fully formed leaves, approximately 3 weeks for each species. Growth trials were kept relatively short to prevent plants grown in soil from becoming root bound or nutrient limited in small pots. Plants in soil were watered every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday to field capacity and measurements were taken one day after watering. At the end of the trials, all plants were harvested to measure biomass growth. For the soil treatment, plant roots were carefully removed from the soil and washed to remove all soil particles. The dry biomass of shoot and root components of each plant were weighed after oven drying at 60°C to a constant mass.

Leaf gas exchange

Weekly sampling was conducted on two newly formed leaves; one leaf for gas exchange and the second leaf for stomatal anatomy and stoichiometry. The species used in this experiment produced new, fully formed leaves between weekly measurements. Gas exchange was measured with a LI-6800 Portable Photosynthesis System (LI-COR Biosciences Inc. Lincoln, Nebraska, USA), fitted with a 1 × 3 cm cuvette. Gas exchange measurements were conducted with chamber conditions of Tair at 20°C, 420 µmol mol−1 reference [CO2], 60% humidity, photosynthetically active radiation of 1500 mmol m−2 s−1, and internal lights set to a 9:1 red to blue light ratio. Once water vapor and [CO2] values stabilized within the sample chamber, gas exchange parameters including light-saturated rates of photosynthesis (An), stomatal conductance (gs), and transpiration (E) were logged once for each leaf. Intrinsic water use efficiency (WUEg) was calculated as An divided by gs.

Foliar stoichiometry and anatomy

For elemental and isotope analysis, representative subsamples of dried leaf and root samples from the final harvest were ground to a fine powder using a Bead Ruptor 96 (OMNI International, Kennesaw, Georgia, USA). Elemental tissue contents (carbon and nitrogen) and shoot δ13C were measured with a Carlo Erba NA elemental analyzer coupled with a Thermo Delta C IRMS (Thermo Fischer Scientific, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA). Percentages of carbon and nitrogen in samples calculated by comparison with certified standards and tissue nitrogen (N) is reported on a mass basis (g g−1). Isotopic signatures of dry matter are reported relative to standard Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite.

Stomatal peels were taken weekly for stomata anatomical traits on the same age cohort of leaves used for gas exchange measurements. For each peel, a liquid bandage (New Skin, Advantice Health New Jersey, USA) was applied on the abaxial side of the leaf and allowed to dry. Clear tape was used to remove and transfer each peel onto a microscope slide. Two peels (~8 cm2) were taken from random locations on the fully formed leaf not chosen for gas exchange. Stomatal density (SD, # mm-2) was measured by counting stomata under 400× magnification (field of view diameter 0.50 µm) for salanova and 1000× magnification (field of view diameter 0.2 µm) for broccoli and pak choi. For each leaf, SD was counted three times for randomly selected non-overlapping fields of view across the two available peels.

Ten stomata were imaged in either one or two peels per leaf for each plant during weekly measurement trials. All stomatal pictures were taken at 400× magnification. Stomatal size was measured using ImageJ (NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA). The width of both guard cells (mm) was measured from the edge of the stomatal aperture to the outside edge of each guard cell. Stomatal length (mm) was measured from the top to the bottom edge of each stomata. The combined stomatal width was multiplied by stomatal length to calculate stomatal size (mm2) as in (Franks and Beerling 2009).

Statistical analyses

A Welch’s t-test was first used to compare differences in treatments for each weekly measurement campaign. Across the weekly campaigns, data for all variables were consistently different between treatments. Thus, we report statistical comparisons (t-tests) of treatments as pooled data for each species. To investigate acclimation, a two-way repeated measures ANOVA (Type II) was performed to evaluate the effect of treatment (aquaponics or soil) and time (weekly measurements on fully developed leaves) on functional traits and gas exchange parameters for each species separately. The “car” (Fox and Weisberg 2018) package was used to extract model coefficients. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were computed with the “emmeans” package (Lenth et al. 2022) to determine when significant differences developed within a treatment and across treatments. For pairwise comparisons across treatments, we primarily focused on identifying when treatment comparisons diverged (e.g. week 2) for a given variable to evaluate trait acclimation.

To examine bivariate trait relationships between treatments, responses of dependent variables were analyzed with either linear mixed-effect models or generalized additive models (GAM), with treatment as categorical fixed effects and species as a random effect. Akaike Information Criterion scores were used to evaluate and select the best fit model. For linear relationships, differences in slopes of significant relationships between bivariate traits by treatment or species were tested by calculating estimated marginal means and computing pairwise comparisons with the “emmeans” package (Lenth et al. 2022). Explained variance (R2) of mixed models were computed as in Nakagawa and Schielzeth (2013), in which the marginal R2 represents variance explained by fixed factors and the conditional R2 represents variance explained by both fixed and random factors. For non-linear trait relationships, confidence intervals were estimated by fitting a generalized additive model to the data with the “mgcv” package (Wood 2017). For significant GAM fits, we report the percent deviance explained and significance of smooth terms. All tests of statistical significance were conducted at an α level of 0.05. All analyses were performed with R 4.2.2 (R Development Core Team 2017).

Results

Plant growth

Harvested total biomass was significantly greater in aquaponics compared to soil for each species. Total biomass for broccoli, pak choi, and salanova increased by 170%, 114%, and 279%, respectively, in aquaponics (Fig. 1A, all P values 0.001). In broccoli, pak choi, and salanova, aboveground shoot biomass increased by 185%, 116%, and 362%, respectively when grown in aquaponics compared to soil (Supplementary Table S1 all P values < 0.001). Similarly for roots, broccoli, pak choi, and salanova biomass increased in aquaponics by 96%, 102%, and 86% (Supplementary Table S1, all P values < 0.001). The ratio of roots to shoots in broccoli and salanova decreased by 33% and 58%, respectively, in aquaponics treatments (both P < 0.001), while biomass partitioning did not change in pak choi (Fig. 1B).

Figure 1.

ALT TEXT: Boxplots comparing total biomass (A) and root:shoot ratios (B) for three leafy green species in aquaponics and soil treatments, with asterisks indicating significant differences between treatments for each species.

Boxplots of total biomass (A) and root:shoot ratios (B) for three leafy green species in aquaponics and soil treatments. Asterisks represent significant differences between growth treatments for a given species. Each box represents the interquartile range, the line is the median, and the whiskers extend to the lower and upper limits of the data.

Photosynthetic parameters

Photosynthetic parameters broadly changed for all species between aquaponics and soil treatments (Supplementary Table S2). Overall, An for broccoli, pak choi, and salanova increased by 39%, 71%, and 153%, respectively, in aquaponics compared to soil treatments (Fig. 2A, P < 0.001). For broccoli and salanova, An declined in the third week for both treatments (An * week, P < 0.001). In pak choi, photosynthesis decreased after the first week in soil treatments only (An * week, P = 0.005).

Figure 2.

ALT TEXT: Box plots of light saturated photosynthesis rates (A) and stomatal conductance (B) for three leafy green species in aquaponics and soil treatments, with asterisks indicating significant differences between treatments.

Box plots of (A) light saturated photosynthesis rates (An) and (B) stomatal conductance (gs) for three leafy green species in aquaponics and soil treatments. Asterisks represent significant differences between growth treatments for a given species. Each box represents the interquartile range, the line is the median, and the whiskers extend to the lower and upper limits of the data.

Overall, gs increased in aquaponics by 138%, 219%, and 357% in broccoli, pak choi, and salanova, respectively (Fig. 2B, P < 0.001). Stomatal conductance in broccoli was variable between weeks in soil treatments only (gs * week, P < 0.001). For pak choi, stomatal conductance declined after week one for both treatments (gs * week, P = 0.004). In salanova, stomatal conductance declined in week three in aquaponics treatments only (gs * week, P = 0.037).

Intrinsic water use efficiency (WUEg) decreased significantly in aquaponics by 52%, 54%, and 44% in broccoli, pak choi, and salanova, respectively, compared to soil treatments (Fig. 3A, P < 0.001). Intrinsic water-use efficiency in salanova, decreased by week three in aquaponics treatments only (WUEg * week, P = 0.037). For broccoli, WUEg was variable from week to week in soil treatments only (WUEg * week, P < 0.001).

Figure 3.

ALT TEXT: Box plots of intrinsic water use efficiency (A), bulk shoot δ13C (B), and stomatal density (C) for three leafy green species in aquaponics and soil treatments, with asterisks indicating significant differences

Box plots of (A) intrinsic water use efficiency (WUEg) from gas exchange, (B) bulk shoot δ13C from harvested aboveground biomass and (C) stomatal density for three leafy green species grown in aquaponics and soil treatments. Asterisks represent significant differences between growth treatments for a given species. Each box represents the interquartile range, the line is the median, and the whiskers extend to the lower and upper limits of the data.

Leaf stoichiometry and anatomy

Tissue nitrogen content of both shoots and roots was higher in aquaponics across all three species. Shoot N content increased by 367%, 491%, and 287% in broccoli, pak choi, and salanova respectively (Fig. 4A, all P < 0.001). Consequently, the C:N ratio of shoots broadly decreased across all species in aquaponics (Fig. 4B, all P < 0.001). Root N content also increased for each species in aquaponics by 167%, 100%, and 444%, respectively for broccoli, pak choi, and salanova (Supplementary Table S1, all P < 0.001). Similarly, the C:N ratio of roots decreased across all species in aquaponics (Supplementary Table S1, all P < 0.001). Bulk shoot δ13C was significantly lower in broccoli and pak choi plants grown in aquaponics compared to soil (P = 0.004 and <0.001, respectively), while values were similar for salanova between treatments (Fig. 3B).

Figure 4.

ALT TEXT: Boxplots of shoot nitrogen content (A) and shoot C:N ratio (B) for three leafy green species in aquaponics and soil treatments, with asterisks indicating significant differences between treatments.

Boxplots of (A) shoot nitrogen content and (B) shoot C:N ratio for three leafy green species grown in aquaponics and soil treatments. Asterisks represent significant differences between growth treatments for a given species. Each box represents the interquartile range, the line is the median, and the whiskers extend to the lower and upper limits of the data.

Acclimatory changes in stomatal traits between aquaponics and soil treatments varied by species (Supplementary Table S1). The stomatal density of aquaponics-grown broccoli and salanova was lower by 31% and 28%, respectively, compared to soil-grown plants (Fig. 4C, P < 0.001). Stomatal density in leaves of pak choi did not significantly change between treatments. Stomatal density (SD) for broccoli and salanova did not change through time in aquaponics, however, SD in both species did increase when grown in soil between weeks 1 and 2 (SD * week, P < 0.001 and P = 0.014, respectively). Stomatal density in pak choi in aquaponics increased from week 1 to 4 (SD * week, P = 0.024) while pak choi in soil increased from week 1 to 2 (SD * week, P < 0.001). No changes were detected in stomatal size for pak choi and salanova, while stomatal size for broccoli increased by 16% in aquaponics compared to soil treatments (P < 0.001).

Bivariate relationships between functional traits

A positive relationship between An and shoot nitrogen (N) existed across all plants (P < 0.001, R2  marginal = 0.37, R2  conditional = 0.90). However, the AnN relationship was not apparent within treatments (aquaponics nor soil), due to a large amount of variation across species. Across treatments (Fig. 5A), increases in shoot nitrogen were positively correlated with increases in An for broccoli (P < 0.001, R2 = 0.79), pak choi (P < 0.001, R2 = 0.78), and salanova (P < 0.001, R2 = 0.80). Light-saturated photosynthesis increased with higher gs across species for both treatments until An plateaued at larger rates of gs (P < 0.001, deviance explained = 84.1%). Importantly, three-fold increases in gs in some aquaponics plants led to much higher rates of An (P < 0.001, Fig. 5B). Light-saturated photosynthesis rates were also positively related to stomatal density despite large amounts of variation between species (P = 0.001, R2  marginal = 0.25, R2  conditional = 0.81). The slopes of the An—SD relationship also differed across treatments, as An aquaponics plants responded more strongly to changes in SD (P = 0.001, Fig. 5C). Intrinsic water use efficiency was not related to SD for either treatment.

Figure 5.

ALT TEXT: Graphs of the relationships between light-saturated photosynthesis (A) and shoot nitrogen content (A), stomatal conductance (B), and stomatal density (C), with dashed lines showing significant model fits and shaded areas representing confidence intervals.

Relationships between light saturated photosynthesis (An) and (A) shoot nitrogen content, (B) stomatal conductance, and (C) stomatal density. For each treatment, dashed lines represent significant linear or generalized additive model fits and gray shaded areas are 95 % confidence intervals for the mean.

Discussion

In a novel aquaponics experiment, we tested the capacity of three leafy green species to physiologically acclimate to unrestricted water availability and consistent nitrogen supply from fish efflux compared to growth in limited soil volume. We found biomass production, rates of photosynthesis, and stomatal conductance to be higher in aquaponics, while intrinsic water use efficiency was lower in aquaponics for all species. Although the relationship between photosynthetic rates (An) and either foliar nitrogen (N) or stomatal conductance (gs) is well understood, our results show the potential of plants to acclimate key photosynthetic traits to optimize physiology in a unique growth system. Our findings offer mechanistic insight into the future of sustainable farming that utilizes aquaponics to produce non-staple crops that meaningfully contribute to feed insecurity.

Changes in growth and biomass partitioning in aquaponics

Full biomass harvests showed that total biomass production of leafy green crops vastly increased in aquaponics compared to unfertilized soil. Utilizing aquaponics systems, as a substitute or complement to soil-based agriculture, contributes to stable food production while also increasing efficiency of water usage and reduction in reliance on fertilizer. For example, compared to conventional agricultural methods paired with pond-based or lake-based aquaculture, aquaponics was found to conserve water usage by greater than 75% (Cohen et al. 2018). Surprisingly, comparisons of biomass growth for key crop species between aquaponics systems and soil are largely unrepresented in the aquaponics literature. Aquaponic crop production is more commonly compared to hydroponic systems, with aquaponics systems producing higher yields (Johnson et al. 2017; Lennard and Ward 2019). Many species grow well in aquaponics systems due to their nutritional needs being supplied by the fish efflux (Krastanova et al. 2022), however, plant growth in aquaponics is linked to tradeoffs associated with maintaining fish and plant needs simultaneously, including pH, temperature, and nutrient compositions (Delaide et al. 2019). Although our study does indicate increased biomass production is possible in aquaponics, the magnitude of the increase is very likely overestimated compared to soil-based agriculture with fertilizer regimes. Nonetheless, Ranawade Tidke and Kate (2017) found the biomass production of spinach to be the highest when grown in an aquaponics system compared to both a hydroponics system and a traditional soil method with several fertilizers.

Two of the species, broccoli and salanova, also exhibited decreased root:shoot ratios when grown in aquaponics. Optimal partitioning theory describes changes in biomass allocation to environmental factors (e.g. water, light, and CO2) by correlating belowground deficiencies with higher root growth and above-ground deficiencies with an increase in aboveground biomass (Reynolds and Thornley 1982; Johnson and Thornley 1987; Poorter et al. 2012; Ledo et al. 2018). For example, shifts in biomass allocation are often linked to water stress. Increases in belowground biomass as a response to drought conditions can result in increases in root:shoot ratios (Xu et al. 2015a). In this experiment, without belowground stressors for water or nutrients driving an increased carbon sink in roots for resource uptake, aquaponic broccoli, and salanova partitioned growth more towards aboveground biomass. Simply, aquaponics plants of these species allocated more resources into aboveground biomass without concurrent increased investment in root tissue.

Acclimation of gas exchange in aquaponics

Photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance significantly increased in all three leafy green species when grown in aquaponics. Our results support the stomatal optimality theory that stomata regulate functions to balance carbon uptake with the penalties of open stomata (Buckley and Schymanski 2014), albeit with a phenomenon that is less often observed. With a continuous supply of water, aquaponics plants acclimated stomatal behavior by maintaining high rates of gs because the consequences of transpiration were negligible compared to plants grown in soil. This acclimation of stomatal behavior in aquaponics plants contributed to concurrent higher rates of An. As instantaneous photosynthetic rates are a function of stomatal opening and the biochemical parameters (Vcmax and Jmax) that regulate photosynthetic capacity (Wang et al. 2020), further research on the capacity of N-rich fish efflux to enhance rates of Rubisco carboxylation and/or electron transport for RuBP regeneration in aquaponics plants are still needed.

Importantly, stomatal responses can respond slower than photosynthetic responses to environmental factors, often limiting the capacity of An (Lawson and Blatt 2014; Lawson and Vialet-Chabrand 2019). Here, the lag between stomatal responses to external factors was inconsequential for plants grown in the controlled aquaponics environment, allowing for optimization of carbon gain. Thus, the larger rates of gs exhibited across species in aquaponics did result in some apparent degree of saturation of An at a given light and temperature environment. Future studies in aquaponics should prioritize optimizing light regimes and growth temperatures to test if crop plants can further optimize the acclimation of gas exchange.

Our study found N supply to be significantly higher in aboveground and belowground tissues in plants grown in aquaponics. Crop plants, like the ones used in this study, are sensitive to changes in N supply and N limitation can drive changes in leaf traits and N investment to maintain photosynthetic capacity (Vos Van Der Putten and Birch 2005). For example, leaves rely on sufficient N intake to produce essential photosynthetic proteins like Rubisco, creating an extensive N sink to support photosynthesis and subsequent growth (Gastal et al. 2015; Evans and Clarke 2019). Here, higher rates of An for all three species in aquaponics were correlated with increased leaf nitrogen content. Aquaponics plants simply had access to more N to allocate to photosynthetic machinery, without the need to invest in higher root production. The access to a larger pool of N likely allowed the upregulated An rates to meet the sink demands of aboveground organs (Zhang et al. 2015; Tegeder and Masclaux-Daubresse 2018). The access to a continuous pool of N also resulted in a consistently lower C:N ratio of both above- and belowground tissues in aquaponics plants. With lower C:N ratios, plants can prioritize growth in nitrogen-sufficient environments compared to the need to prioritize nitrogen use efficiency (Zhang et al. 2019). Further work should determine the degree to which typical fertilization regimes in soil-based agriculture close the observed gap in plant nitrogen economy with aquaponics.

Water-use “”inefficiency” in aquaponics plants

As hypothesized, one of the strongest acclimatory responses in aquaponics plants was a functional shift towards water-use inefficiency in leaf gas exchange. Stomatal behavior defines a plant’s water use efficiency, as the pore acts as the resistant force towards atmosphere flux and internal stimuli interact with CO2 flux and transpiration (Lawson and Blatt 2014; de Santana et al. 2015; Zhao et al. 2020). We detected aspects of these shifts in both adjustments in physiological behavior and anatomical traits. Instantaneous transpiration efficiency was lower in all three leafy green species when grown in aquaponics. For broccoli and pak choi, the removal of water limitation in aquaponics plants also drove decreases in water-use efficiency across the leaf life span (lower foliar δ13C content), revealing likely sustained higher uptake of CO2 and decreased water-use efficiency across the experiment.

Contrary to our hypothesis, stomata density (SD) decreased in aquaponics. Water vapor losses from leaves are functions of the size, density, and distributions of stomata (Franks and Beerling 2009; Dow Berry and Bergmann 2014; Fanourakis et al. 2015; Devi and Reddy 2018). Our results relate to evidence highlighted by Lawson and Blatt (2014) that decreased SD can be compensated for with an increase in stomatal aperture. Here, aquaponic plants increased gs by leaving stomata pores more open, while also investing less into creating more stomata on newly created leaves. Our study uniquely focused on an environment without water stress and consistent light and CO2 levels that is seldom found in literature as investigations of stomatal traits often involve responses to drought, light regimes, or altered CO2 levels (Bertolino Caine and Gray 2019). For example, changes to stomatal aperture size, without acclimation of SD, was detected in Arabidopsis plants in response to drought (Doheny-Adams et al. 2012). Additionally, Xu and Zhou (2008) found a positive correlation between SD and water-use efficiency, gs, and An in false wheatgrass experiencing drought conditions. In contrast to these drought studies, the ability of aquaponics plants to maintain consistent levels of water-use “inefficiency“ via high gs, allowed concurrent upregulation of An and down regulation of stomatal production. Experiments in both aquaponics and hydroponics systems should continue to prioritize understanding how acclimation of plant water-use strategies can be harnessed to optimize crop production.

Acclimation potential of aquaponics plants

Plants are known to acclimate to a variety of changing environmental conditions such as cold temperatures (Hassan et al. 2021; Juurakko et al. 2021a, b), diffused light (Li et al. 2014; Liu and Su 2016), high salinity (Hossain et al. 2017; Pandolfi et al. 2017), and drought (Pandey and Shukla 2015; Ahmad et al. 2016; Menezes-Silva et al. 2017). Currently, evidence of plant acclimation in hydroponics growth environments compared to soil-based growth is mostly absent in the literature. Overall, these leafy green species were capable of adjustments to the aquaponic growth environment for key processes that regulate photosynthesis and growth by the time the initial cohort of leaves was fully formed. Here, gas exchange variables of all species had acclimated to aquaponics when the first cohort of leaves was measured, and stomatal anatomy had acclimated by the second cohort of leaves. As future food security concerns become a driving force in agricultural research, the acclimation potential exhibited by the hydroponically grown crops in this study should be more broadly investigated to improve precision farming.

Summary

Connections between decreasing human health from malnourishment resulting from climate change continue to rise as concerns grow for future food and freshwater availability, soil health, and biodiversity (Mcmichael 2013). Our experimental findings that functional traits of different leafy green species all acclimated to enhance photosynthesis in aquaponics provide evidence that aquaponics has the capacity to improve production on large and small scales and that aquaponics systems could become a key contributor to global food security as the system is unaffected by urbanization, environmental degradation, and climate change (Ghandar et al. 2021). Although not part of the study, dietary deficiencies can be combatted through increased consumption of fish which are high in protein and contain vitamin A, B, and D along with essential micronutrients like calcium, iron, and zinc (Béné et al. 2015). Thus, the capacity of aquaponics to support sustainable vegetarian and pescetarian style diets could combat health concerns, climate change complications like drought, and food security risks by relying on the improved vegetable production capacities of aquaponics systems (Springmann et al. 2016). Higher investments in aquaponics growing systems could meaningfully contribute to the supply of crucial greens, herbs, vegetables, and fish needed to support the growing human population in an agriculture world plagued by global change (Shreejana et al. 2022).

Supplementary Material

plaf005_suppl_Supplementary_Materials

Contributor Information

Victoria Nicholes, Department of Natural and Physical Sciences, Shepherd University, 301 N. King St., Shepherdstown, WV, 25443, USA; Department of Biology, West Virginia University, Life Sciences Bldg, PO Box 6057, Morgantown, WV, 26506, USA.

Malik Khan, Department of Natural and Physical Sciences, Shepherd University, 301 N. King St., Shepherdstown, WV, 25443, USA.

Nicholas Lemon, Department of Natural and Physical Sciences, Shepherd University, 301 N. King St., Shepherdstown, WV, 25443, USA.

Peter Vila, Department of Natural and Physical Sciences, Shepherd University, 301 N. King St., Shepherdstown, WV, 25443, USA.

Courtney Campany, Department of Natural and Physical Sciences, Shepherd University, 301 N. King St., Shepherdstown, WV, 25443, USA.

Conflict of interest: None declared.

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by Shepherd University professional development mini-grants and the NASA Undergraduate Affiliate Fellowship program.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available at https://figshare.com/projects/Aquaponics_Physiology_dataset_Nicholes_et_al_2025_AoB_Plants/233471.

References

  1. Abdalla  M, Ahmed  MA, Cai  G  et al.  Stomatal closure during water deficit is controlled by below-ground hydraulics. Ann Bot (Lond)  2022;129:161–70. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/aob/mcab141 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahanger  MA  et al.  Plant growth under drought stress: significance of mineral nutrients. Water Stress and Crop Plants: A sustainable Approach  2016;2:649–68. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/9781119054450.ch37 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahmad  N, Malagoli  M, Wirtz  M  et al.  Drought stress in maize causes differential acclimation responses of glutathione and sulfur metabolism in leaves and roots. BMC Plant Biol  2016;16:1–15. https://doi.org/ 10.1186/S12870-016-0940-Z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. AlShrouf  A.  Hydroponics, aeroponic and aquaponic as compared with conventional farming. AASRJETS  2017;27:247–55. https://asrjetsjournal.org/index.php/American_Scientific_Journal/article/view/2543 Accessed 24 October 2022. [Google Scholar]
  5. Asseng  S, Guarin  JR, Raman  M  et al.  Wheat yield potential in controlled-environment vertical farms, . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA  2020;117:19131–5. https://doi.org/ 10.1073/pnas.2002655117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bebber  DP, Holmes  T, Gurr  SJ.  The global spread of crop pests and pathogens. Glob Ecol Biogeogr  2014;23:1398–407. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/geb.12214 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Béné  C, Barange  M, Subasinghe  R  et al.  Feeding 9 billion by 2050—putting fish back on the menu. Food Security  2015;7:261–74. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12571-015-0427-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bertolino  LT, Caine  RS, Gray  JE.  Impact of stomatal density and morphology on water-use efficiency in a changing world. Front Plant Sci  2019;10:225. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpls.2019.00225 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bisbis  MB, Gruda  N, Blanke  M.  Potential impacts of climate change on vegetable production and product quality—a review. J Clean Prod  2018;170:1602–20. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.224 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bouzid  M, He  F, Schmitz  G  et al.  Arabidopsis species deploy distinct strategies to cope with drought stress. Ann Bot (Lond)  2019;124:27–40. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/aob/mcy237 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Boyer  JS, Byrne  P, Cassman  KG  et al.  The U.S. drought of 2012 in perspective: a call to action. Glob Food Secur  2013;2:139–43. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.gfs.2013.08.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Buckley  TN, Schymanski  SJ.  Stomatal optimisation in relation to atmospheric CO2. New Phytol  2014;201:372–7. http://www.jstor.org/stable/newphytologist.201.2.372. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cairns  JE, Hellin  J, Sonder  K  et al.  Adapting maize production to climate change in sub-Saharan Africa. Food Secur  2013;5:345–60. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12571-013-0256-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Carminati  A, Javaux  M.  Soil rather than xylem vulnerability controls stomatal response to drought. Trends Plant Sci  2020;25:868–80. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tplants.2020.04.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cemek  B  et al.  Effects of evapotranspiration and soil salinity on some growth parameters and yield of lettuce (Lactuca sativa var. crispa). Zemdirbyste-Agriculture 2011;98:139–48. [Google Scholar]
  16. Chouchane  H, Krol  MS, Hoekstra  AY.  Expected increase in staple crop imports in water-scarce countries in 2050. Water Research X  2018;1:100001. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.wroa.2018.09.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Clark  M, Tilman  D.  Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environ Res Lett  2017;12:064016. https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Cleland  J.  World population growth; past, present and future. Environ Resource Econ  2013;55:543–54. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10640-013-9675-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Cohen  A, Malone  S, Morris  Z  et al.  Combined fish and lettuce cultivation: an aquaponics life cycle assessment. Procedia CIRP  2018;69:551–6. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.029 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Cole  MB, Augustin  MA, Robertson  MJ  et al.  PERSPECTIVE The science of food security. npj Sci Food  2018;2:14. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41538-018-0021-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Condon  AG.  Drying times: plant traits to improve crop water use efficiency and yield. J Exp Bot  2020;71:2239–52. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/jxb/eraa002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Conti  L.  The A-B-A of floral transition: the to do list for perfect escape. Mole Plant  2019;12:289–91. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.molp.2019.02.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Dalin  C, Wada  Y, Kastner  T  et al.  Groundwater depletion embedded in international food trade NASA Public Access. Nature  2017;543:700–4. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/nature21403 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Davidson  EA, Suddick  EC, Rice  CW  et al.  More food, low pollution (Mo Fo Lo Po): a grand challenge for the 21st century. J Environ Qual  2015;44:305–11. https://doi.org/ 10.2134/jeq2015.02.0078 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Delaide  B, Monsees  H, Gross  A, Goddek  S  Aerobic and anaerobic treatments for aquaponic sludge reduction and mineralisation. Aquaponics Food Prod Systems  2019;1: 247–66. [Google Scholar]
  26. de Santana  TA, Oliveira  PS, Silva  LD  et al.  Water use efficiency and consumption in different Brazilian genotypes of Jatropha curcas L. subjected to soil water deficit. Biomass Bioenergy  2015;75:119–25. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.02.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Devi  MJ, Reddy  VR.  Transpiration response of cotton to vapor pressure deficit and its relationship with stomatal traits. Front Plant Sci  2018;9:1572. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/FPLS.2018.01572 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Dietz  KJ, Zörb  C, Geilfus  CM.  Drought and crop yield. Plant Biol  2021, 23:881–93. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/plb.13304 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Doheny-Adams  T, Hunt  L, Franks  PJ  et al.  Genetic manipulation of stomatal density influences stomatal size, plant growth and tolerance to restricted water supply across a growth carbon dioxide gradient. Philos Trans R Soc B, Biol Sci  2012;367:547–55. https://doi.org/ 10.1098/rstb.2011.0272 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Dow  GJ, Berry  JA, Bergmann  DC.  The physiological importance of developmental mechanisms that enforce proper stomatal spacing in Arabidopsis thaliana. New Phytol  2014;201:1205–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Dror  I, Yaron  B, Berkowitz  B.  The human impact on all soil-forming factors during the anthropocene. 2021;2:11–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Evans  JR.  Photosynthesis and nitrogen relationships in leaves of C3 plants. Oecologia  1989;78:9–19. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/BF00377192 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Evans  JR, Clarke  VC.  The nitrogen cost of photosynthesis. J Exp Bot  2019;70:7–15. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/jxb/ery366 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Evans  JR, Seemann  JR.  The allocation of protein nitrogen in the photosynthetic apparatus: costs, consequences, and control. Photosynthesis  1989;8:183–205. [Google Scholar]
  35. Fahad  S, Bajwa, Ali  A  et al.  Crop production under drought and heat stress: plant responses and management options. Front Plant Sci  2017;8:1147. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpls.2017.01147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Fanourakis  D, Giday  H, Milla  R  et al.  Pore size regulates operating stomatal conductance, while stomatal densities drive the partitioning of conductance between leaf sides. Ann Bot (Lond)  2015;115:555–65. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/aob/mcu247 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Fox  J, Weisberg  S.  2018. An R Companion to Applied Regression. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage publications. [Google Scholar]
  38. Franks  PJ, Beerling  DJ.  Maximum leaf conductance driven by CO2 effects on stomatal size and density over geologic time. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA  2009;106:10343–7. https://doi.org/ 10.1073/pnas.0904209106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Gastal, F.  et al.  Quantifying crop responses to nitrogen and avenues to improve nitrogen-use efficiency. In Sadras  VO and Calderini DE (eds.), Crop Physiology: Application for Genetic Improvement and Agronomy, 2nd Edn.  San Diego, CA, USA: Elsevier Inc., 2015, 161–206. Available at: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/B978-0-12-417104-6.00008-X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Gerten  D, Heck  V, Jägermeyr  J  et al.  Feeding ten billion people is possible within four terrestrial planetary boundaries. Nat Sustainability  2020;3:200–8. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41893-019-0465-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Ghandar  A  et al.  A decision support system for urban agriculture using digital twin: a case study with aquaponics. IEEE  2021;9:35691–708. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3061722 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Grafton  RQ, Williams  J, Perry  CJ  et al.  The paradox of irrigation efficiency. Science  2018;361:748–50. https://doi.org/ 10.1126/science.aat9314 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Grossiord  C, Buckley  TN, Cernusak  LA  et al.  Plant responses to rising vapor pressure deficit. New Phytol  2020;226:1550–66. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/nph.16485 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Grzebisz  W, Gransee  A, Szczepaniak  W  et al.  The effects of potassium fertilization on water-use efficiency in crop plants. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci  2013;176:355–74. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/jpln.201200287 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Hanes  C, Rhode  PW.  Harvests and financial crises in gold standard America. J Econ Hist 2013;73:201–46.  https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S0022050713000077 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Hassan  MA, Xiang  C, Farooq  M  et al.  Cold stress in wheat: plant acclimation responses and management strategies. Front Plant Sci  2021;12:1234. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/FPLS.2021.676884/BIBTEX [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Hossain  MS, ElSayed  AI, Moore  M  et al.  Redox and reactive oxygen species network in acclimation for salinity tolerance in sugar beet. J Exp Bot  2017;68:1283–98. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/jxb/erx019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Houlton  BZ, Almaraz  M, Aneja  V  et al.  A world of cobenefits: solving the global nitrogen challenge. Earths Future  2019;7:865–72. https://doi.org/ 10.1029/2019ef001222 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Janni  YD, Jadhav  DB.  Aquaponics uses, cultivation and beneficial effects. Just Agricult  2022;2:1–7. [Google Scholar]
  50. Johnson  G  et al.  Evaluation of lettuce between spring water, hydroponic, and flow-through aquaponic systems. Int J .Veg Sci  2017;23:456–70. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/19315260.2017.1319888 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Johnson  IR, Thornley  JHM.  A model of shoot: root partitioning with optimal growth. Ann Bot (Lond)  1987;60:133–42. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a087429 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Jones  DL, Cross  P, Withers  PJA  et al.  REVIEW: Nutrient stripping: the global disparity between food security and soil nutrient stocks. J Appl Ecol  2013;50:851–62. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/1365-2664.12089 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Juurakko  CL, Bredow  M, Nakayama  T  et al.  The Brachypodium distachyon cold-acclimated plasma membrane proteome is primed for stress resistance. G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics  2021a;11, jkab198. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/G3JOURNAL/JKAB198 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Juurakko  CL, diCenzo  GC, Walker  VK.  Cold acclimation  and prospects for cold-resilient crops. Plant Stress  2021b;2:100028. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.stress.2021.100028 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Krastanova  M, Sirakov  I, Ivanova-Kirilova  S  et al.  Aquaponic systems: biological and technological parameters. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip  2022;36:305–16. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13102818.2022.2074892 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Kumar  K, Gambhir  G, Dass  A  et al.  Genetically modified crops: current status and future prospects. Planta  2020;251:1–27. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00425-020-03372-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Ladics  GS, Bartholomaeus  A, Bregitzer  P  et al.  Genetic basis and detection of unintended effects in genetically modified crop plants. Transgenic Res  2015;24:587–603. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11248-015-9867-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Lawson  T, Blatt  MR.  Topical review on stomata and water use efficiency stomatal size, speed, and responsiveness impact on photosynthesis and water use efficiency. Plant Physiol  2014;164:1556–70. https://doi.org/ 10.1104/pp.114.237107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Lawson  T, Vialet-Chabrand  S.  Speedy stomata, photosynthesis and plant water use efficiency. New Phytol  2019;221:93–8. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/NPH.15330 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Ledo  A  et al.  Tree size and climatic water deficit control root to shoot ratio in individual trees globally. New Phytol  2018;217:8–11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/90016341 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Leng  G, Hall  J.  Crop yield sensitivity of global major agricultural countries to droughts and the projected changes in the future. Sci Total Environ  2019;654:811–21. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.434 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Lennard  W, Ward  J.  A comparison of plant growth rates between an NFT hydroponic system and an NFT aquaponic system. Horticulturae  2019;5:27. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/horticulturae5020027 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Lenth  RV  Emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R  package version 1.7.2. 2022.
  64. Li  T, Heuvelink  E, Dueck  TA  et al.  Enhancement of crop photosynthesis by diffuse light: quantifying the contributing factors. Ann Bot (Lond)  2014;114:145–56. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/aob/mcu071 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Liu  W, Su  J.  Effects of light acclimation on shoot morphology, structure, and biomass allocation of two Taxus species in southwestern China. Sci Rep  2016;6:1–9. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/srep35384 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Long  SP, Marshall-Colon  A, Zhu  XG.  Meeting the global food demand of the future by engineering crop photosynthesis and yield potential. Cell  2015;161:56–66. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cell.2015.03.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Martignago  D, Rico-Medina  A, Blasco-Escámez  D  et al.  Drought resistance by engineering plant tissue-specific responses. Front Plant Sci  2020;10:1676. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpls.2019.01676. Frontiers Media S.A. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Mcmichael  AJ.  Globalization, climate change, and human health. N Engl J Med  2013;368:1335–43. https://doi.org/ 10.1056/NEJMra1109341 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Menezes-Silva  PE, Sanglard  LMVP, Ávila  RT  et al.  Photosynthetic and metabolic acclimation to repeated drought events play key roles in drought tolerance in coffee. J Exp Bot  2017;68:4309–22. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/jxb/erx211 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Mote  S, Rivas  J, Kalnay  E.  A novel approach to carrying capacity: from a priori prescription to a posteriori derivation based on underlying mechanisms and dynamics. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci  2020;48:657–83. https://doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev-earth-053018-060428 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Mueller  ND, Gerber  JS, Johnston  M  et al.  Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature  2012;490:254–7. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/nature11420 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Nabout  JC, Magalhães  MR, de Amorim Gomes  MA  et al.  The impact of global climate change on the geographic distribution and sustainable harvest of Hancornia speciosa Gomes (Apocynaceae) in Brazil. Environ Manage  2016;57:814–21. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00267-016-0659-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Nakagawa  S, Schielzeth  H.  A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects  models. Methods Ecol Evol  2013;4:133–42. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/J.2041-210X.2012.00261.X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Ozeki  K, Miyazawa  Y, Sugiura  D.  Rapid stomatal closure contributes to higher water use efficiency in major C 4 compared to C 3 Poaceae crops. Plant Physiol  2022;189:188–203. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/plphys/kiac040 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Palm  HW, Knaus  U, Appelbaum  S  et al.  Towards commercial aquaponics: a review of systems, designs, scales and nomenclature. Aquac Int  2018;26:813–42. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10499-018-0249-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. Pandey  V, Shukla  A.  Acclimation and tolerance strategies of rice under drought stress. Rice Sci  2015;22:147–61. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rsci.2015.04.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Pandolfi  C, Bazihizina  N, Giordano  C  et al.  Salt acclimation process: a comparison between a sensitive and a tolerant Olea europaea cultivar. Tree Physiol  2017;37:380–8. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/treephys/tpw127 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Paulot  F, Jacob  DJ.  Hidden cost of U.S. agricultural exports: particulate matter from ammonia emissions. Environ Sci Technol  2014;48:903–8. https://doi.org/ 10.1021/es4034793 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Peña-Gallardo  M, Vicente-Serrano  SM, Domínguez-Castro  F  et al.  Effectiveness of drought indices in identifying impacts on major crops across the USA. Clim Res  2018;75:221–40. https://doi.org/ 10.3354/cr01519 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  80. Perrone  D, Jasechko  S.  Dry groundwater wells in the western United States. Environ Res Lett  2017;12:104002. https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1748-9326/aa8ac0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  81. Philip Robertson  G  et al.  Nitrogen–climate interactions in US agriculture. Biogeochemistry 2013;114:41–70. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10533-012-9802-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  82. Poorter  H  et al.  Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. New Phytol  2012;193:30–50 https://doi.org/ 10.1111/J.1469-8137.2011.03952.X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  84. Ramankutty  N, Mehrabi  Z, Waha  K  et al.  Trends in global agricultural land use: implications for environmental health and food security. Annu Rev Plant Biol  2018;69:789–815. https://doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev-arplant-042817-040256 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Ranawade  PS, Tidke  SD, Kate  AK.  Comparative cultivation and biochemical analysis of Spinacia oleraceae grown in aquaponics, hydroponics and field conditions. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci  2017;6:1007–13. https://doi.org/ 10.20546/ijcmas.2017.604.125 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  86. Ray  DK, Mueller  ND, West  PC  et al.  Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PLoS One  2013;8:e66428. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0066428 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Reynolds  JF, Thornley  JHM.  A shoot: root partitioning model. Ann Bot (Lond)  1982;49:585–97. Available at: https://about.jstor.org/terms [Google Scholar]
  88. Richards  RA.  Selectable traits to increase crop photosynthesis and yield of grain crops. J Exp Bot  2000;51 Spec No:447–58. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/jexbot/51.suppl_1.447 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Richards  RA.  Is nitrogen a key determinant of water transport and photosynthesis in higher plants upon drought stress? Front Plant Sci  2018;9:1143. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpls.2018.01143 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Rigden  AJ, Mueller  ND, Holbrook  NM  et al.  Combined influence of soil moisture and atmospheric evaporative demand is important for accurately predicting US maize yields. Nature Food  2020;1:127–33. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s43016-020-0028-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Roberts  L.  9 Billion? Science  2011;333:540–3. https://doi.org/ 10.1126/science.333.6042.540 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Rockström  J, Williams  J, Daily  G  et al.  Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability. Ambio  2017;46:4–17. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s13280-016-0793-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Rosa-Schleich  J, Loos  J, Mußhoff  O  et al.  Ecological-economic trade-offs of diversified farming systems—a review. Ecolog Econ  2019;160:251–63. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.03.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  94. Santoni  M, Ferretti  L, Migliorini  P  et al.  A review of scientific research on biodynamic agriculture. Org Agr  2022;12:373–96. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s13165-022-00394-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  95. Scheelbeek  PF.  et al.  Effect of environmental change on vegetable and legumes yields and nutriional quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2018;115:6804–9.  https://doi.org/ 10.1073/pnas.1800442115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Shah  AN, Tanveer  M, Shahzad  B  et al.  Soil compaction effects on soil health and cropproductivity: an overview. Environ Sci Pollut Res  2017;24:10056–67. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11356-017-8421-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Shreejana  KC  et al.  Aquaponics a modern approach for integrated farming and wise utilization of components for sustainability of food security: a review. Arch Agric Environ Sci  2022;7:121–6. https://doi.org/ 10.26832/24566632.2022.0701017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  98. Siegel  FR.  Impact of global warming/climate change on food security 2020. In: Siegel FR (ed.), The Earth’s Human Carrying Capacity: Limitations Assessed, Solutions Proposed, Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. 2021: 1–5. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-030-73476-3_1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  99. Springmann  M, Godfray  HCJ, Rayner  M  et al.  Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA  2016;113:4146–51. https://doi.org/ 10.1073/pnas.1523119113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Suh  J.  Towards sustainable agricultural stewardship: evolution and future directions of the permaculture concept. Environ Values  2014;23:75–98. https://doi.org/ 10.3197/096327114x13851122269089 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  101. Tai  APK, Martin  MV, Heald  CL.  Threat to future global food security from climate change and ozone air pollution. Nat Clim Change  2014;4:817–21. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/nclimate2317 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  102. Tegeder  M, Masclaux-Daubresse  C.  Source and sink mechanisms of nitrogen transport and use. New Phytol  2018;217:35–53. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/NPH.14876 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  103. Verdoliva  SG, Gwyn-Jones  D, Detheridge  A  et al.  Controlled comparisons between soil and hydroponic systems reveal increased water use efficiency and higher lycopene and β-carotene contents in hydroponically grown tomatoes. Sci Horticult  2021;279:109896. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.scienta.2021.109896 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Vos  J, Van Der Putten  PEL, Birch  CJ.  Effect of nitrogen supply on leaf appearance, leaf growth, leaf nitrogen economy and photosynthetic capacity in maize (Zea mays L.). Field Crops Res  2005;93:64–73. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.fcr.2004.09.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  105. Wang  X, Wang  L, Shangguan  Z.  Leaf gas exchange and fluorescence of two winter wheat varieties in response to drought stress and nitrogen supply. PLoS One  2016;11:e0165733. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0165733 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  106. Wang  Y, Sperry  JS, Anderegg  WRL  et al.  A theoretical and empirical assessment of stomatal optimization modeling. New Phytol  2020;227:311–25. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/nph.16572 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  107. Wang  X, Müller  C, Elliot  J  et al.  Global irrigation contribution to wheat and maize yield. Nat Commun  2021;12:1235. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41467-021-21498-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  108. Wang  L, Ning  S, Zheng  W  et al.  Performance analysis of two typical greenhouse lettuce production systems: commercial hydroponic production and traditional soil cultivation. Front Plant Sci  2023;14:1165856. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpls.2023.1165856 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. Wei  Y  et al.  Equipment and intelligent control system in aquaponics: a review. IEEE  2019;7:169306–26. Available at: https://doi.org/ 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2953491 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  110. Wong  CE  et al.  Seeing the lights for leafy greens in indoor vertical farming. Trends Food Sci Technol  2020;106:48–63. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/J.TIFS.2020.09.031 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  111. Wood  S.  Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction With R, Second Edition (2nd ed.). New York, NY, USA: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  112. Xu  Z, Zhou  G.  Responses of leaf stomatal density to water status and its relationship with photosynthesis in a grass. J Exp Bot  2008;59:3317–25. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/jxb/ern185 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  113. Xu  W, Cui  K, Xu  A  et al.  Drought stress condition increases root to shoot ratio via alteration of carbohydrate partitioning and enzymatic activity in rice seedlings. Acta Physiol Plant  2015a;37:1–11. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11738-014-1760-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  114. Xu  Y, Ge  J, Tian  S  et al.  Effects of water-saving irrigation  practices and drought resistant rice variety on greenhouse gas emissions from a no-till paddy in the central lowlands of China. Sci Total Environ  2015b;505:1043–52. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.10.073 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  115. Yuan  Z, Jiang  S, Sheng  H  et al.  Human perturbation of the global phosphorus cycle: changes and consequences. Environ Sci Technol  2018;52:2438–50. https://doi.org/ 10.1021/acs.est.7b03910 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  116. Zhang  L  et al.  Improvement of pea biomass and seed productivity by simultaneous increase of phloem and embryo loading with amino acids. Plant J  2015;81:134–46. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/TPJ.12716 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  117. Zhang  J  et al.  Variation and evolution of C:N ratio among different organs enable plants to adapt to N-limited environments Global Dryland Ecosystem Programme (Global-DEP) view project ecosystem restoration following disturbances view project. Global Change Biol  2019;26:2534–43. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/gcb.14973 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  118. Zhang  X, Davidson  EA, Mauzerall  DL  et al.  Managing nitrogen for sustainable development. Nature  2015;528:51–9. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/nature15743 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  119. Zhang  J, Guan  K, Peng  B  et al.  Sustainable irrigation based on co-regulation of soil water supply and atmospheric evaporative demand. Nat Commun  2021;12:5549. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41467-021-25254-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  120. Zhao  W, Liu  L, Shen  Q  et al.  Effects of water stress on photosynthesis, yield, and water use efficiency in winter wheat. Water  2020;12:2127. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/w12082127 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  121. Zhou  R, Yu  X, Ottosen  C-O  et al.  Drought stress had a predominant effect over heat stress on three tomato cultivars subjected to combined stress. BMC Plant Biol  2017;17:1–13. https://doi.org/ 10.1186/S12870-017-0974-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  122. Zörb  C, Geilfus  C-M, Dietz  K-J.  Salinity and crop yield. Plant Biol  21:2019: 31–38. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/plb.12884 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

plaf005_suppl_Supplementary_Materials

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available at https://figshare.com/projects/Aquaponics_Physiology_dataset_Nicholes_et_al_2025_AoB_Plants/233471.


Articles from AoB Plants are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES