Culture of lily (Lilium sp.
) ‘Table Dance’ in an aquaponic
system
J. Pineda-Pineda1,a, I. Miranda-Velázquez2, J.A. Ramírez-Arias2, R. Rivera-Del Rio2,
M. Vargas-Hernández1, V. Roldán-Guzmán3 and A. García-Jaimes3
1Soil Department, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Carretera México-Texcoco, km 38.5, Texcoco, CP 26230,
Mexico; 2Agriculture High School, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Carretera México-Texcoco, km 38.5, Texcoco,
CP 26230, Mexico; 3Institute of Horticulture, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Carretera México-Texcoco, km
38.5, Texcoco, CP 26230, Mexico.
Abstract
Aquaponics could be a sustainable crop production system to reduce the excess
of fertilizers and pesticides that end up polluting the environment. This study was
conducted in order to determine the effect of aquaponics nutritional treatments in
growth and development of oriental Lilium sp. ‘Table Dance’. Three aquaponics
treatments were established: 1) aquaponics, 2) aquaponics + N, K, Ca and S in nutrient
solution, and 3) aquaponics + foliar fertilization (FF). A hydroponics treatment (50%
Steiner nutrient solution) was used as a control. Plant height, stem diameter, number
of leaves, leaf area, fresh and dry weight, number of flowers and vase life were
measured in plants, as well as pH, electrical conductivity, nutrient concentration in
aquaponic nutrient solution and nutrient content in plant tissue. Length, width and
weight of fish also were measured. Aquaponics + FF had negative effects on leaves and
flowers and on plant quality. Aquaponics + N, K, Ca and S generated optimum nutrient
concentrations in solution and in plant tissue, as well as optimum growth and
development (leaf area, dry weight, fresh weight, number of flowers and vase life) of
lilies, yielding a good standard for quality of flowers.
Keywords: aquaponics, hydroponics, nutrient concentration, shelf life
INTRODUCTION
Aquaponics is the integration of aquaculture and hydroponics in a recirculation system,
where aquatic animals like fish, molluscs, or crustaceans are connected with the production
of vegetables in a controlled environment; nutrients reach the system through the feeding
fish, and bacteria transform waste into assimilable nutrients for plants. Efficient water use is
obtained, since it is provided according to losses by evapotranspiration in a controlled
application system (Malcolm, 2005; Gilsanz, 2007; Pineda Pineda et al., 2014).
Aquaponics systems emerge as an alternative for food production, because two
products are obtained without polluting water reserves and without damaging the soil; in
addition, they can be installed in places close to consumers, so costs of transportation and
pollution are diminished (Ramirez et al., 2017). Mateus (2009) indicates that, for one ton of
fish produced in an aquaponic system, up to 7 tons of vegetables are obtained.
Within the floriculture market, bulb plants like tulip and lily (Facchinetti and
Marinangeli, 2008) are of great importance; their production covers an area worldwide of
31,000 ha. In spite of this, there is little information about specific fertilization programmes,
especially considering the great genetic variability (Ortega et al., 2006).
This study evaluated the nutrient concentration of macro- and micronutrients related
to growth and development of Lilium sp. ‘Table Dance’ in an aquaponic system as an
environmentally friendly alternative method of diversified crops production.
Autor de correspondencia
a
E-mail: [email protected] Artículo derivado de Dirección de tesis de licenciatura
de V. Roldán-Guzmán y A. García-Jaimes
Acta Hortic. 1227. ISHS 2018. DOI 10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1227.44 355
Proc. Int. Symp. on New Technologies for Environ. Control, Energy-Saving and
Crop Production in Greenhouse and Plant Factory - GreenSys2017
Eds.: Qichang Yang and Tao Li
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Location and description of the experimental units
The experiment was conducted in a greenhouse at the Autonomous Chapingo
University, Texcoco, Mexico. We established 12 experimental units with recirculation of
nutrient solution, each formed by two plastic tubs, one rectangle of 240 L (1 m long, 60 cm
wide and 40 cm deep) containing substrate of two sizes, 40% red gross volcanic tuff (1-4 cm)
in the first layer and 60% on the second layer (≤6 mm) at the top of the container, where 25
lily plants m-2 (bulbs of Lilium sp. ‘Table Dance’, calibre 20/22) were grown. In the second
cylindrical container of 200 L capacity, 25 kg m-3 of tilapia Oreochromis niloticus were
introduced (Pineda Pineda et al., 2014) and were fed twice daily with a dose of 2% of its
total weight. The experimental design was completely randomized with four treatments
(Table 1) and three replications.
Table 1. Description of treatments.
Treatment Description
Hydroponics (control) 50% Steiner nutrient solution
Aquaponics Nutrients derived from the fish-plant-bacteria system
Aquaponics + N, K, Ca and S Aquaponics + 2.5 meq L-1 Ca(NO3)2.4H2O and 2 meq L-1 K2SO4 in the fish
tank (150 L)
Aquaponics + FF Aquaponics + foliar fertilization (1% Bayfolan® + 0.15% Ca(NO3)2.4H2O +
0.15% K2SO4 each week)
Variables measured on the plant
The variables measured at flower harvest were plant height (cm), number of leaves
and stem diameter (cm). The number of flowers was counted when these began to appear;
at the end of the cycle, the plant was cut and separated into its organs (leaves, flowers and
stem) to determine fresh and dry weight. Flower vase life (days), considering physical
appearance and loss of petals, was determined, cutting the plants when colour appeared in
50% of the button flowers, and cut flowers were placed in vessels with water at room
temperature. Nutrient concentrations (N-NO3-, N-NH4+, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Cu, Mn, Zn and B) in
the aquaponic nutrient solution were measured in 50 mL nutrient solution for each replicate
75 days after treatment (DAT). In plant tissues, the first lower leaf next to the flower was
sampled and total N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Zn and B were determined.
N content was measured by a micro-Kjeldahl method, P by yellow molybdovanadate
method reading at 420 nm in a spectrophotometer (Bauch & Lomb, model Spectronic 20)
and K by flamometry (Corning Flame-photometer model 410) (Chapman and Pratt, 1973); B
was measured by azomethine-H. Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu, for both plant tissue and
aquaponic nutrient solution, were determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometry
(GBC Avanta model).
The pH was adjusted daily with sulfuric or nitric acid, keeping it to 7.0 in aquaponics
and 6.5 in hydroponics. The electrical conductivity (EC) was adjusted every 3 days in the fish
tank with 150 L water to keep it at 1.0 dS m-1 in the hydroponic treatment, but free variation
in EC was allowed in aquaponics treatments.
Every 15 days, length and width (cm) and weight (g) of five fish were measured, taking
them from the tank at random in each experimental unit.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Growth and development of Lilium
1. Plant height.
Analysis of variance (Table 2) indicates that, 75 DAT, there were significant differences
356
between treatments. Aquaponics + FF had the lowest stem height (81.31 cm) with respect to
aquaponics + N, P, Ca and S treatment, demonstrating the capacity of aquaponics to provide
nutrients that favour plant growth (Rakocy et al., 1992).
Table 2. Comparison of means of growth variables between treatments: plant height, stem
diameter, leaf area and number of leaves per plant of Lilium ‘Table Dance’. DMSH,
Minimum significant difference honest; CV, coefficient of variation
Plant height Stem diameter Leaf area Number of
Treatment
(cm) (cm) (cm2) leaves
Hydroponics (control) 99.22ᵃ 1.10ᵃ 2203.90a 72.36ᵃ
Aquaponics 100.82ᵃ 1.03ᵃ 2030.20a 70.13ᵃᵇ
Aquaponics + N, K, Ca, S 96.25ᵃ 1.07ᵃ 2330.10a 69.00ᵃᵇ
Aquaponics + FF 81.31ᵇ 1.10ᵃ 2018.60a 64.78ᵇ
DMSH 9.6354 0.1067 496.73 5.4235
CV (%) 3.9036 3.7976 8.8539 3.0032
Means with the same letter within each column are not statistically different, according to Tukey’s test (p<0.05).
2. Stem diameter.
There were no significant differences in stem diameter between treatments; the
general average was 1.08 cm (Table 2). According to Preciado et al. (2002) and Chachin
(2006), stem diameter is an indicator of plant vigour because it reflects the accumulation of
photosynthates, which subsequently can translocate to sites of demand, such as buttons and
flowers when they begin to open.
3. Number of leaves.
At 75 DAT, hydroponics was the best treatment, with an average of 72.36 leaves plant-1,
while aquaponics and aquaponics + N, K, Ca and S were the second best treatments, with
averages of 70.13 and 69 leaves plant-1, respectively. The treatment with the smallest
number of leaves was aquaponics + FF, with 64.78 leaves plant-1 (Table 2).
4. Leaf area.
According to analysis of variance (Table 2), there were no significant differences
among treatments; the general average was 2145.7 cm2 plant-1, with a range of 2018-2330
cm2 plant-1 for aquaponics + FF and aquaponics + (N, K, Ca, S) treatments, respectively.
5. Accumulation of fresh and dry matter.
The organ with the highest fresh and dry matter accumulation was the flower, except
in the treatment of aquaponics + FF; in this treatment, the greater accumulation was in leaf
and stem, due to the burn of buttons (60% per plant) and their premature fall, which
affected accumulation of fresh and dry matter of flowers (Table 3).
Number of flowers and their vase life
There were no significant differences between treatments for vase life, with a general
average of 13.52 days (Table 4), despite the negative effect of the aquaponics + FF treatment
on plants; however, physical damage was clear, with bumps on the buttons, discoloration,
and incomplete flower opening, representing loss of quality and number of commercial
flowers. According to Elgar et al. (1999), the vase life for Lilium is 5-15 days, which is
attributed to suitable concentrations of utilizable carbohydrates for flowers (Preciado et al.,
2002; Chachin, 2006). Also, no significant differences among treatments were observed for
number of flowers; the general average was 7.33 flowers plant-1 (Table 4), which is above the
average reported in the technical chart of Lilium.
357
Table 3. Comparison of means between aquaponics treatments for fresh weight (FW) and
dry weight (DW) (g plant-1) of leaf, stem and flowers of Lilium ‘Table Dance’. DMSH,
Minimum significant difference honest; CV, coefficient of variation.
Leaf Stem Flower Total
Treatment
FW DW FW DW FW DW FW DW
Hydroponics (control) 88.62ᵃ 12.40ᵃ 92.30ᵃ 10.13ᵃ 156.10ᵃ 14.13ᵃ 337.02a 36.65a
Aquaponics 82.68ᵃ 10.09ᵃ 84.68ᵃ 9.86ᵃ 160.35ᵃ 13.21ᵃᵇ 327.71a 33.15ab
Aquaponics + N, K, Ca and S 95.03ᵃ 13.00ᵃ 91.20ᵃ 12.12ᵃ 177.35ᵃ 17.75ᵃ 363.58a 42.87a
Aquaponics + FF 84.48ᵃ 12.19ᵃ 76.57ᵃ 9.28ᵃ 73.83ᵇ 7.31ᵇ 234.88b 28.79b
DMSH 38.106 4.82 25.09 4.68 72.54 6.53 96.45 9.79
CV (%) 0.00 15.46 11.14 17.33 19.55 19.07 15.88 18.56
Means with the same letter in the same column are not statistically significantly different by Tukey’s test (p≤0.05).
Table 4. Comparison of means for vase life (days) and number of flowers plant-1 of Lilium
‘Table Dance’ in aquaponics treatments. DMSH, Minimum significant difference
honest; CV, coefficient of variation.
Treatment Vase life Number of flowers
Hydroponics (control) 13.75ᵃ 7.67ᵃ
Aquaponics 13.67ᵃ 7.33ᵃ
Aquaponics + N, K, Ca and S 13.50ᵃ 7.33ᵃ
Aquaponics + FF 13.12ᵃ 7.00ᵃ
DMSH 0.626 1.307
CV (%) 1.770 6.818
Means with the same letter in the same column are not statistically significantly different by Tukey’s test (p≤0.05).
Weight, length and width of fish
Analysis of variance (Table 5) showed significant differences between treatments only
for the length of the fish; the best treatment was aquaponic, with an average of 9.46 cm. The
treatment of aquaponics + N, K, Ca and S resulted in shorter fish, with an average of 8.84 cm.
According to Tables 6 and 7, the treatment of aquaponics + N, K, Ca and S contained higher
nutrient concentrations (EC) in the nutrient solution, which would explain the trend of
lower values in parameters of fish growth (Van Gorder, 1991). In contrast, as indicated by
Turkmen and Guner (2010), tilapia tolerate varying conditions of water quality, such as pH,
temperature, oxygen and dissolved solids, which explains the similarity of fish growth
among treatments over time.
Table 5. Comparison of means for weight, length and width of the fish among aquaponics
treatments. DMSH, Minimum significant difference honest; CV, coefficient of
variation.
Treatment Weight (g) Length (cm) Width (cm)
Aquaponics 15.94ᵃ 9.46ᵃ 2.95ᵃ
Aquaponics + N, K, Ca, S 13.89ᵃ 8.84ᵇ 2.85ᵃ
Aquaponics + FF 16.27ᵃ 9.34ᵃᵇ 2.98ᵃ
DMSH 2.7273 0.551 0.172
CV (%) 16.849 5.674 5.568
Means with the same letter in the same column are not statistically significantly different by Tukey’s test (p≤0.05).
358
Table 6. Comparison of means between treatments for nutrient concentrations (mg L-1) in
aquaponics nutrient solution. Treatments: 1, hydroponics; 2, aquaponics; 3,
aquaponics + N, K, Ca, S; 4, aquaponics + FF. DMSH, Honest significant minimum
difference; CV, coefficient of variation.
Treatment N P K Ca Mg Fe Mn Cu Zn B
1 118.8a 27.50ᵃ 159.50ᵃ 47.06ᵃ 129.58ᵃ 1.64ᵃ 0.16ᵃᵇ 1.56ᵃ 0.12ᵃ 0.92ᵃ
2 68.5c 9.53ᵇ 61.67ᵇ 49.74ᵃ 144.60ᵃ 0.63ᵇ 0.23ᵃᵇ 0.27ᵇ 0.27ᵃ 0.90ᵃ
3 92.0b 7.00ᶜ 149.67ᵃ 61.37ᵃ 140.87ᵃ 0.27ᵇᶜ 0.24ᵃ 0.26ᵇ 0.20ᵃ 1.34ᵃ
4 64.0c 7.13ᶜ 45.00ᵇ 10.38ᵇ 136.57ᵃ 0.22ᶜ 0.15b 0.17ᵇ 0.18ᵃ 1.23ᵃ
DMSH 15.347 1.717 23.997 16.53 26.222 0.396 0.082 0.579 0.153 0.482
CV (%) 22.74 5.17 8.83 15.01 7.27 21.95 16.22 39.13 30.57 17.07
Means with the same letter in the same column are not statistically significantly different by Tukey’s test (p≤0.05).
Table 7. Comparison of means for nutrient concentrations in leaves of Lilium between
treatments. Treatments: 1, hydroponics; 2, aquaponics; 3, aquaponics + N, K, Ca, S;
4, aquaponics + FF. DMSH, Honest significant minimum difference; CV, coefficient of
variation.
N P K Ca Mg Fe Mn Zn B
Treatment
% mg kg-1
1 3.33ᵃ 0.36ᵇ 4.24ᵃ 0.49ᵃ 0.75ᶜ 133.00ᵃ 47.67ᵃ 29.67ᵇ 79.00ᵃ
2 2.87ᵃ 0.29ᶜ 3.51ᵇ 0.52ᵃ 1.79ᵃ 152.00ᵃ 40.33ᵃ 31.00ᵃᵇ 67.00ᵇ
3 3.27ᵃ 0.57ᵃ 4.33ᵃ 0.53ᵃ 1.29ᵇ 185.67ᵃ 47.33ᵃ 34.33ᵃ 47.00ᶜ
4 3.05ᵃ 0.28ᶜ 4.71ᵃ 0.50ᵃ 1.35ᵇ 125.67ᵃ 47.33ᵃ 30.33ᵇ 49.50ᶜ
DMSH 0.741 0.045 0.576 0.105 0.229 70.641 9.183 3.697 9.081
CV (%) 9.07 4.15 5.25 7.90 6.78 18.12 7.69 4.51 5.73
Means with the same letter in the same column are not statistically significantly different by Tukey’s test (p≤0.05).
Nutrient concentration in the aquaponic solution
1. Nitrogen (NO3 and NH4).
Hydroponics gave the highest N concentration, with an average of 118.8 mg L-1, a
higher concentration in relation to that provided in the nutrient solution (84 mg L-1); this
could be attributed to the low consumption in the final stages of cultivation, where Lilium
presents low growth rates, resulting in nutrient accumulation. According to Urrestarazu
(2004), the optimum N concentration for Lilium is 112-196 mg L-1, but, in this work, with an
average of 66.25 mg L-1, Lilium growth was normal, with optimum N concentration in leaf
tissue and flowers with acceptable commercial quality. Plants in aquaponics + N, K, Ca and S
presented the highest N concentration, with an average of 92 mg L-1; this is due to the
contributions made by calcium nitrate, which raised the N concentration relative to
aquaponics and aquaponics + FF, which supplied 68.5 and 64 mg L-1 N, respectively. In
relation to the aquaponics treatment of, contrasting it with N concentrations obtained by
Rakocy et al. (1992), Al-Hafedh et al. (2008), Pantanella et al. (2011) and Roosta and
Hamidpour (2011), who obtained very different values of N, it was proposed that the
dynamics of this nutrient in the system depend on the demand for the crop, density of
plantation, fish density and quality of the food used, fish and plant growth stages; this
explains the high variations in N concentration.
2. Phosphorus.
A significant difference was observed among treatments; hydroponics presented the
highest concentration, with an average of 27.50 mg L-1, followed by aquaponics, with 9.53
mg L-1, and aquaponics + N, K, Ca and S. Aquaponics + FF had the lower concentration, with
an average of 7.00 mg L-1 (Table 6). However, lower concentrations of P in aquaponics
359
treatments were not reflected in low concentration in the leaf tissue (Table 7), where P was
superior in aquaponics treatment + N, K, Ca and S; others treatments showed appropriate P
levels.
3. Potassium.
This cation presented significant differences among treatments (Table 6), giving the
highest concentration in hydroponics and aquaponics + N, K, Ca and S, with averages of
159.50 and 149.67 mg L-1, respectively, while aquaponics and aquaponics + FF showed lower
concentrations, with averages of 45.00 and 61.67 mg L-1, respectively. According to
Urrestarazu (2004), these concentrations are deficient, since the optimum concentration for
Lilium is 195-292 mg L-1; however, K in plant tissue (Table 7) was in the optimum
concentration range (Jones et al., 1991).
4. Calcium.
Statistical analysis showed significant differences. with the highest concentrations in
aquaponics, hydroponics and aquaponics + K, N, Ca and S and the lowest in aquaponics + FF,
with only 10.38 mg L-1 (Table 6). Urrestarazu (2004) indicated that the optimum calcium
concentration for Lilium is 140-220 mg L-1, indicating that the Ca concentrations of
aquaponics treatments were below the optimum. Despite this failure in Ca supply, there
were no deficiency symptoms, but a low concentration (Jones et al., 1991) was found in
plant tissue (Table 7).
5. Magnesium.
No significant differences were found among treatments (Table 6). However, the
values were high in hydroponic solution (Steiner, 1984), with a general average of 138 mg L-1.
These high concentrations could be attributed to the low demand of this cation with respect
to calcium and potassium (Jones et al., 1991) and therefore its accumulation in the nutrient
solutions.
6. Iron, manganese and copper.
There were significant differences between treatments in the concentration of these
micronutrients (Table 6). Iron and manganese are required in low concentrations (Steiner,
1984); the appropriate concentrations are 0.5-2.0 and 0.2-2 mg L-1, respectively; that’s why
iron deficiency was observed at the stage of appearance of flowers. Montesino (2007)
indicated that Oriental cultivars, as in the case of the ‘Table Dance’, are more susceptible to
iron deficiency. According to Rakocy et al. (1992), Fe deficiency is common because its
supply in the fish food is low and it must be supplemented with a chelate to a dose of 2 mg
L-1.
Regarding copper, the highest concentration (1.56 mg L-1) was obtained in
hydroponics, while the lowest concentration was found in aquaponics + FF, with an average
of 0.17 mg L-1; these concentrations are slightly above the optimum range of a hydroponic
solution (0.01-0.06 mg L-1) (Steiner, 1984).
7. Zinc and boron.
For Zn and B, statistical tests showed that there were no significant differences
between treatments (Table 6). According to Rakocy et al. (1992), accumulation of Zn in an
aquaponic system is four to six times higher than the levels in hydroponics. Although B
concentrations were above the optimal range (Steiner, 1984), there was no negative effect
for Lilium ‘Table Dance’.
Nutrient concentrations in leaf tissue
1. Nitrogen.
No significant difference was found in N concentration between treatments; however,
the aquaponic treatment gave the lowest value, with an average of 2.87% N, while the
360
highest value was obtained in hydroponics, with 3.33% (Table 7). According to Jones et al.
(1991) and Silva and Uchida (2000), hydroponic treatment is within the optimum range
(3.30-4.80%), while, in aquaponics treatments, N concentrations are slightly low (2.80-
3.29%). On the other hand, Mills and Jones (1996) indicated that the optimal N
concentration for Lilium is 2.0% (20 g kg-1), which would explain the normal development
observed in Lilium ‘Table Dance’.
2. Phosphorus.
Significant differences were found among treatments (Table 7), with the highest
concentration in aquaponics + N, K, Ca and S, with an average of 0.57%; hydroponics had an
average of 0.36% and aquaponics and aquaponics + FF had lower concentrations, with 0.29
and 0.28%, respectively. In all cases, these values were in the appropriate range (0.15-0.24%)
reported by Mills and Jones (1996).
3. Potassium.
The concentration of K in plant tissue showed significant differences between
treatments; aquaponics gave the lowest concentration, with an average of 3.51%, and
hydroponics, aquaponics + N, K, Ca and S and aquaponics + FF had higher concentrations of
potassium (Table 7). As Rakocy et al. (1992) mentioned, available K in aquaponic solution is
inadequate (Table 6), but Lilium did not show K deficiency during the crop cycle, with
normal K values in leaf tissue (Table 7).
4. Calcium.
There was no significant difference in Ca concentration among treatments. Tissue
analysis indicated calcium levels in the range of 0.35-0.59% (Table 7), with a general average
of 0.4%; according to Jones et al. (1991), Ca values are insufficient for cultivation of Lilium;
however, throughout the cycle, there were no deficiencies or negative effects on flower
development.
5. Magnesium.
Statistical tests identified significant differences in Mg between treatments.
Hydroponics had the lowest concentration (0.75%), and the highest concentration occurred
in aquaponics, with an average of 1.79%, while aquaponics + N, K, Ca and S and aquaponics +
FF presented 1.29 and 1.35%, respectively. All treatments had high Mg levels (>0.70%)
(Jones et al., 1991; Silva and Uchida, 2000), but this can be explained by the high
concentration of Mg in the solution (Table 6). Perhaps these high values of Mg emphasized
low Ca concentrations because of an antagonistic effect among cations (Marschner, 2012).
6. Iron and manganese.
Concentrations in plant tissue for these micronutrients did not present significant
differences between treatments, with a general average of 149.1 mg kg-1 for Fe and 45.67 mg
kg-1 for Mn (Table 7). According to Jones et al. (1991) and Silva and Uchida (2000), both Fe
and Mn concentrations are within the optimum range, 60-200 and 35-200 mg kg-1,
respectively.
7. Zinc and boron.
For these micronutrients, there were significant difference among treatments (Table
7). The mean for Zn was 31.33 mg kg-1; according to Jones et al. (1991) and Silva and Uchida
(2000), appropriate values are 20-200 mg kg-1. For B, the treatment with the highest
concentration was hydroponics, with an average of 79 mg kg-1, while the lowest
concentrations were in aquaponics + N, K, Ca and S and aquaponics + FF, with averages of 47
and 49.5 mg kg-1, respectively; all of these are within the appropriate range of 25-75 mg kg-1
(Jones et al., 1991; Silva and Uchida, 2000).
361
CONCLUSIONS
Concentrations of N, P, K and Ca were low in aquaponics nutrient solution, but
additions of N, K and Ca reached similar N and K concentration to the hydroponic nutrient
solution. Concentrations of Mg, Mn, Zn, Cu and B were within the sufficiency range, but Fe
was below the optimum level in aquaponics treatments.
Although the aquaponics nutrient solution maintained low concentrations of some
nutrients, leaf tissue contents of macro- and micronutrients were adequate for development
of Lilium ‘Table Dance’, complying with the standards of quality for this crop.
Foliar fertilization (1% Bayfolan + 0.151% calcium nitrate + 0.15% potash sulfate)
presented negative effects on leaf and flower quality, while aquaponics + additional N, K, Ca
and S in nutrient solution produced growth and development of Lilium ‘Table Dance’ similar
to hydroponics. The number of flowers and their vase life were similar in all aquaponics and
hydroponic treatments.
Literature cited
Al-Hafedh, Y.S., Alam, A., and Beltagi, M.S. (2008). Food production and water conservation in a recirculating
aquaponic system in Saudi Arabia at different ratios of fish feed to plants. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 39 (4), 510–520
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.2008.00181.x.
Chachin, A.M.G. (2006). Cultivo del Lilium. Boletín Informativo No. 15 (Santiago, Chile: Instituto de
Investigaciones Agropecuarias).
Chapman, H.D., and Pratt, P.E. (1973). Método de Análisis de Suelos, Plantas y Agua (Mexico City, Mexico: Trillas),
pp.195.
Elgar, H.J., Woolf, A.B., and Bieleski, R.L. (1999). Ethylene production by three lily species and their response to
ethylene exposure. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 16 (3), 257–267 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5214(99)00021-6.
Facchinetti, C., and Marinangeli, P. (2008). Avances de la producción nacional de bulbos de lilium. Agro UNS 5 (9),
5–9.
Gilsanz, C.J. (2007). Hidroponía (Canelones, Uruguay: Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), pp.32.
Jones, J.B., Jr., Wolf, B.M., and Mills, H.A. (1991). Plant Analysis Handbook: a Practical Sampling, Preparation,
Analysis, and Interpretation Guide (Athens, GA, USA: Micro Macro Publishing).
Malcolm, J. (2005). Backyard Aquaponics. A Guide to Building an Aquaponic System.
http://www.backyardaquaponics.com.
Marschner, H. (2012). Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants (San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press), pp.435.
Mateus, J. (2009). Acuaponia: hidroponia y acuacultura, sistema integrado de producción de alimentos. In RED
Hidroponia Boletín Informativo no. 44 (La Molina, Peru: Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina), p.7–10.
Mills, H.A., and Jones, B.J., Jr. (1996). Plant Analysis Handbook II (Athens, GA, USA: Micro Macro Publishing).
Montesino, A. (2007). Producción de Flores Cortadas. V Región. Boletín Informativo (Santiago, Chile: Instituto de
Investigaciones Agropecuarias).
Ortega, B.R., Correa, B.M., and Olate, M.E. (2006). Determinación de curvas de acumulación de nutrientes en tres
cultivares de Lilium spp. para flor de corte. Agrociencia 40 (1), 77–88.
Pantanella, E., Bergonzoli, S., Fabrizi, F., Cardarelli, M., and Colla, G. (2011). Saline aquaponics, new challenges for
marine aquaculture. Paper presented at: Aquaculture Europe 2011.
Pineda Pineda, J., Pérez Gómez, E.A., García Antonio, I.N., Miranda Velázquez, I., and Ramírez Arias, A. (2014).
Sistemas de producción en acuaponia. In Manejo Agroecológico de Sistemas, Vol. III, D. Juárez Ramón, O. Romero
Arenas, and J.C. Patrón Ibarra, eds. (Puebla, Mexico: Benemérita Uiniversidad Autónoma de Puebla), p.87–102.
Preciado, R.P., Castillo, G.A.B., Torres, J.L.T., Shibata, J.K., Chávez, L.T., and Garza, A.M. (2002). Nitrógeno y potasio
en la producción de plántulas de melón. Terra 20, 67–76.
Rakocy, J.E., Losordo, T.M., and Masser, M.P. (1992). Recirculating Aquaculture Tank Production Systems:
Integrating Fish and Plant Culture. SRAC Publication No. 454 (Stoneville, MS, USA: Southern Regional
Aquaculture Center).
Ramirez, D., Sabogal, D., Jiménez, P., and Giraldo, H.H. (2017). La acuaponía: una alternativa orientada al
desarrollo sostenible. Rev. Fac. Cienc. Básicas 4 (1-2), 32–51.
Roosta, H.R., and Hamidpour, M. (2011). Effects of foliar application of some macro-and micro-nutrients on
362
tomato plants in aquaponic and hydroponic systems. Sci. Hortic. (Amsterdam) 129 (3), 396–402
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2011.04.006.
Silva, J.A., and Uchida, R.S. (2000). Recommended plant tissue nutrient levels for some vegetable, fruit, and
ornamental foliage and flowering plants in Hawaii. In Plant Nutrient Management in Hawaii’s Soils, Approaches
for Tropical and Subtropical Agriculture (Honolulu, HI, USA: University of Hawaii Press), p.55–65.
Steiner, A.A. (1984). The universal nutrient solution. Paper presented at: Sixth International Congress on Soilless
Culture (Wageningen, The Netherlands).
Turkmen, G., and Guner, Y. (2010). Aquaponic (integrating fish and plant culture) systems. Paper presented at: 2nd
International Symposium on Sustainable Development (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina).
Urrestarazu, G.M. (2004). Tratado de Cultivo sin Suelo, 3rd edn (Madrid, Spain: Ediciones Mundi-Prensa), pp.913.
Van Gorder, S. (1991). Optimizing production by continuous loading of recirculating systems. Paper presented at:
Workshop on Design of High Density Recirculating Systems (Baton Rouge, LA, USA).
363
364
