Next Article in Journal
The Impact of Insect-Proof Screen on Microclimate, Reference Evapotranspiration and Growth of Chinese Flowering Cabbage in Arid and Semi-Arid Region
Previous Article in Journal
Biology, Diagnostics, Pathogenomics and Mitigation Strategies of Jackfruit-Bronzing Bacterium Pantoea stewartii subspecies stewartii: What Do We Know So Far about This Culprit?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 8
Issue 8
10.3390/horticulturae8080703
horticulturae-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Multi-Criteria DEXi Analysis for the Selection of Crop Species for Saltwater Aquaponics

by
Martina Puccinelli
1,
Juan Francisco Fierro-Sañudo
2,
Carlo Bibbiani
3,*,
Baldassare Fronte
3,
Chingoileima Maibam
1,
Theo Dubois
4,
Alberto Pardossi
1,
Luca Incrocci
1 and
Lorenzo Rossi
3
1
Department of Agriculture Food and Environment, University of Pisa, Via del Borghetto 80, 56124 Pisa, Italy
2
Colegio de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad Autonoma de Sinaloa, Boulevard San Angel s/n, Fraccionamiento San Benito, Predio Las Coloradas, Culiacan 80000, Sinaloa, Mexico
3
Department of Veterinary Science, University of Pisa, Viale delle Piagge 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
4
National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment (INRAE), UMR1069 SAS, 65 Rue de Saint-Brieuc, CEDEX, 35042 Rennes, France
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2022, 8(8), 703; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8080703
Submission received: 27 June 2022 / Revised: 18 July 2022 / Accepted: 29 July 2022 / Published: 3 August 2022
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Saltwater aquaponics is a sustainable alternative system for food production. The success of this system largely depends on the selection of both fish and plant species, for which several features and criteria must be considered. This paper aims to identify the most suitable plant species for saltwater aquaponics by using a multi-criteria decision-making method also based on current literature. One simple model that contained one root criterion, four aggregated criteria, and four sub-criteria was created using DEXi software. The same model was evaluated considering two different salinity levels in the recirculating water: 10 (brackish water) and 35 (sea water) g L−1. The relevance of the model structure was evaluated by the sensitivity analysis, through the ‘plus/minus-1′ analysis. Our results suggest that Salicornia europaea L. and Portulaca oleracea L. were suitable species for saltwater aquaponics at 35 g L−1. Moreover, at 10 g L−1, the suitable candidates were: Salicornia bigelovii Torr, S. europaea L., Beta vulgaris ssp. maritima (L.) Arcang, Atriplex hortensis L., and P. oleracea L. The DEXi analysis resulted in being an easy and effective tool to select proper species in similar contexts. DEXi can help to identify the hotspots of production processes, according to our results. Since the selected species are wild edible species or minor crops, the availability of their seeds is one of the main constraints of their cultivation in saltwater aquaponics.

1. Introduction

Marine–coastal and inland aquaculture contributes approximately 83% and 17% of the seafood production worldwide and in Europe, respectively [1]. The intensification of marine aquaculture is associated with a large production of wastes that negatively impact the sea environment [2]. Therefore, it is necessary to develop and apply new integrated sustainable production methods [3].
Aquaponics is the combination of tank-based animal aquaculture (e.g., Recirculating Aquaculture Systems, RAS) and soilless cultivation of plants involving microbiological processes [4]. Aquaponic production can be obtained with both freshwater and saltwater. Aquaponic systems that use saline water can be classified according to the salinity level as: haloponics (1–3 g·L−1), moderately saline (3–10 g·L−1), high salinity (10–35 g·L−1), and maraponics (>35 g·L−1) [5]. Saltwater aquaponics does not differ much from the freshwater aquaponics in terms of system design, but the selection of the species is highly affected by water salinity [6]. Euryhaline fish could adapt to large salinity ranges [7], while few plants tolerate high salinity levels.
Plants can be divided into two groups based on their salt tolerance: glycophytes and halophytes. The growth of glycophytes is markedly reduced by relatively low salt concentration and they are not able to complete their life cycle at high salinity. The most sensitive crops of glycophytes are harmed by 1.2 to 2.9 g·L−1 NaCl [8]. However, some salt-tolerant glycophytes can grow at quite high salinity levels (e.g., 4–8 g·L−1). On the other hand, halophytes have developed various mechanisms (e.g., osmoregulation, synthesis of osmoprotectants, vacuolar compartmentation of Na+ and Cl−) to grow in saline conditions [9]. Halophyte plants are cultivated for the nutraceutical properties of their leaves [10]; some of them (e.g., Salicornia spp.) are gourmet vegetables with a high retail price.
The use of salt-tolerant plants has great potential for integration within saltwater aquaponics, where plants are grown using different soilless techniques (e.g., bag culture, nutrient film technique, floating system), which can increase plant tolerance to salinity stress [11]. Saltwater aquaponics is a relatively new application and needs further research and technological development to achieve satisfactory results on a larger scale [3].
Several features, as evaluated following different biological, economic, and social criteria, must be taken into account to select suitable plant species for saltwater aquaponics [12]. Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods can allow the integration of heterogeneous and uncertain information in an understandable framework to rank the project [13].
Decision EXpert (DEX) is a methodology for qualitative multi-attribute modeling, applied for over 40 years to complex real-world decision problems [14]. DEXi is a decision support system software based on the DEX methodology and decision rules (‘IF-THEN’), which allows the breakdown of a decisional problem into less complex sub-problems represented by criteria. It combines a hierarchical decision model with an expert system approach based on qualitative scoring using words instead of numbers to assign the values [15]. In the agri-food sector, DEXi has been employed to assess hop hybrids [16], innovative cropping systems [17], genetically modified crops [18], the biological, physical and chemical properties associated with changes in soil quality [19], the environmental sustainability of different agronomic practices in horticultural rotations [20], and the environmental sustainability of aquaculture systems [12]. Rossi et al. [6] used DEXi for the selection of marine fish species for integrated multi-trophic aquaponic production in the Mediterranean area. The use of MCDM based on qualitative input information, such as DEXi, is suggested in case of multi-dimensional constraints [20]. Furthermore, the use of DEXi is suitable when judgments prevail, and it is difficult to provide a numerical answer [21]. Moreover, DEXi is an open access software that can be used to apply the same model, or its variants, in different geographical contexts. Finally, the results from the comparison of different MCDM with DEXi are scarce and often contrasting [21,22,23].
In saltwater aquaponics, growing conditions may be critical for plants and there are few species able to tolerate moderate to high salinity. In these conditions, a decision model that takes into account several parameters may be helpful to select the proper plant species considering production, economic, and technical aspects together. However, to the best of our knowledge DEXi has not been used for the selection of suitable plant species for saltwater aquaponic systems.
The goal of the present study was therefore to identify the most suitable plant species for saltwater aquaponics, in particular in the Mediterranean area, using a MCDM. To address this issue, we used DEXi, taking into account seven criteria and 14 indicators regarding crop production, seed availability, know-how, and economic relevance of 15 salt-tolerant glycophyte or halophyte species crops. An extensive literature analysis was conducted to assign the score to each indicator.

2. Materials and Methods

The analysis was performed following the guidelines proposed by Craheix et al. [15] using a ‘top-down’ approach. A group of academic experts in agriculture production, plant nutrition, hydroponics, aquaponics, aquaculture, and agricultural engineering, from five different countries (Italy 39.2%, Mexico 26.1%, India 21.7%, Turkey 8.7%, and Guatemala 4.3%), planned the design process of the model. Aquafarmers have been avoided because saltwater aquaponic is not yet commercially. Fifteen salt-tolerant plant species were selected for the present analysis. Their general features are summarized in Table 1.
The model consisted of a simple tree structure that contained one root criterion (‘Plant species selection’), four aggregated criteria, three aggregated sub-criteria, and 14 indicators (Table 2). The aggregated criteria and sub-criteria were evaluated by a three-value scale (‘High’, ‘Medium’ and ‘Low’), meanwhile, indicators were evaluated only by two- (‘High’ and ‘Low’) or three-value scale (‘High’, ‘Medium’, and ‘Low’) to avoid a ‘combinatory explosion’ of decision rules [15]. A set of 81 decision rules was defined by the ‘weight’ function (‘Model’ > ‘Utility function’ > ‘Weight editor’) of the software [14], to find out the final score for the root criterion. However, some decision rules had to be manually assessed: for the ‘Plant species selection’ criterion only 2.5% (2 out of 81) of the decision rules were determined by the panel of experts. Finally, a five-value scale (‘Excellent’, ‘Good’, ‘Medium’, ‘Poor’, and ‘Unacceptable’) was adopted as the final score of each plant species assessed. This procedure led to a slightly different distribution of initial weight (45% for ‘Potential yield’, 30% for ‘Economic importance’, 14% for ‘Seed availability’, and 11% for ‘Level of knowledge available’), as shown in Table 2.
To identify the potential species and their features for the evaluation, an extensive literature analysis was conducted. The cut off criteria for preliminary selection of the candidate species were their potential salinity tolerance and commercial use. The bibliography search was carried out through scientific databases by the advance document search tool within Scopus (trademarks of Elsevier B.V. Copyright © 2022, Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.) and Google Scholar™ (trademark of Google Inc., Mountain View, CA 94043, USA). Based on the information obtained from the literature review, the experts assigned the score of each indicator and sub-criteria. A summary of the literature information is reported in Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7.
The aggregated criteria and the respective indicators were evaluated as follows:
-
Potential yield. Plants with high annual yield were selected (Table 3). For each plant species, the annual yields used for the analysis were obtained under optimal growing conditions, assuming that soilless culture and foliar application of mineral nutrients can overcome the effect of high salinity on plan mineral nutrition, thus avoiding the occurrence of nutrient deficiencies [85]. Optimal salinity levels of the species evaluated in the current work are reported in Table 3. Plants with the highest annual yield in the scenario conditions and higher resistance to salinity, scored ‘High’ in both indicators (i.e., ‘Annual yield’ and ‘Salinity tolerance and its impact on yield’).
-
Seed availability in Italy and surrounding countries. The supply of seeds from seed companies,, which offer high-quality seeds of different genotypes at a competitive price, was considered the best option. Therefore, a ‘High’ score was assigned to the ‘Source of seed’ indicator. Relatively cheap seeds of the crop species under evaluation are currently supplied by some seed companies (e.g., SAIS, Cesena, Italy; Enza Zaden Italia S.r.l., Tarquinia, Italy). Thus, a ‘High’ score was assigned for the lower priced seeds to the ‘Cost of seed per unit’ indicator. Moreover, most of the species evaluated are not cultivated on a large scale. For this reason, genetically selected varieties are not available for these species, and their seeds are difficult to find or sold on Internet at relatively high prices (Table 4). If certified seeds of well identified varieties are available, ‘High’ score was assigned to the 2.3 indicator (Table 2).
-
Level of knowledge available. Scientific literature can help to develop a proper cultivation protocol for each species. Thus, previous experience of cultivation in soilless systems were positively considered in this evaluation and a ‘High’ score was assigned to the ‘Availability of protocols for hydroponic cultivations’. The main hotspots considered were propagation and cultivation technique, crop protection strategy, and environmental and nutritional needs. If this information is available, a ‘High’ score was assigned to the ‘Availability of biological/botanical features’ indicator.
-
Economic importance of the species. Halophytes and salt-tolerant glycophytes are cultivated for many purposes, including food production and the extraction of active principles of medicinal or nutraceutical interest [86]. If plants are already used for food production, a ‘High’ score was assigned to the ‘Species used as human food’ indicator. For the present evaluation, plant species that have been used in modern pharmacology and have the potential for drug manufacturing, obtained a better score (Table 5 and Table 6); thus ‘High’ score was assigned to the ‘Species with pharmaceutical and cosmetic use’. Leaf vegetables can be a good source of minerals, vitamins, antioxidants, minerals, dietary fibers, and polyunsaturated fatty acids, as reviewed by Tripathy et al. [87]. As a consequence, a ‘High’ score was assigned for ‘Vitamin content’ and ‘Mineral content’ indicators. Moreover, the content of harmful compounds, e.g., nitrates and oxalates, has to be taken into account to evaluate the quality of a leafy vegetable [88]. Vegetables with higher protein and energy content scored ‘High’ for ‘Protein content and amino acid profile’ and ‘Energy content’ indicators, respectively.
Due to their growing popularity, wide acceptance in gourmet cuisine and medicinal properties, halophytes and salt-tolerant glycophytes can reach relatively high sale prices. Halophyte and salt-tolerant glycophyte are mainly marketed by specialized buyers/sellers (Table 7). Plants with already higher market price, scored ‘High’ for the ‘Economic value of the species’ indicator.
The weights assigned to the aggregated criteria, sub-criteria, and indicators were selected by consensus by the panel of experts. ‘Potential yield’ and ‘Economic importance of the species’ were chosen as the most influenced aggregated criteria for the choice (weights equal to 47 and 30%, respectively). ‘Seed availability’ and ‘Level of knowledge available’ were considered less influent for the decision process. Thus, weights assigned were equal to 13% and 10%, respectively.
The relevance of the model structure was evaluated by the sensitivity analysis, through the ‘plus/minus-1 analysis’ function of the software, performed individually per species. This analysis investigated the effects on aggregated criteria caused by changing the value of each sub-criteria by one qualitative value down or up, independently of others [14].

3. Results and Discussion

The scores assigned to each criterion and indicators and the effect of the sensitivity analysis of each species for ‘Low salinity’ scenario and ‘High salinity’ scenario are reported in Table 8 and Table 9, respectively. The final results of the model of both scenarios are reported in Table 10.

3.1. Evaluated Characteristics of Plant Species and Its Overall Score

A. tripolium L. scored ‘Medium’ in both assessed scenarios (Table 10). Its optimal salinity level ranges from 2.9 to 4.7 g L−1 (Table 3) [38]. Moreover, A. tripolium L. gave a moderate yield under optimal conditions (Table 3). Its seeds are not easy to find and have a high sale price (Table 4). Waller et al. [89] evaluated A. tripolium L. growth in an RAS with European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L.) using brackish water (16 g L−1). Leaf production gained was 30 g per plant in 35 days of experimentation. Quintã et al. [90] concluded that A. tripolium L. is a good candidate for inclusion in saltwater aquaponic systems after evaluating its growth in nutrient conditions typical of aquaculture wastewater (1 mM of N and 0.2 mM of P) with brackish water (10 g L−1). Halophytes of the genera Aster have gained popularity in the European markets and their demand is increasing as their leaves are a good source of minerals [60].
A. hortensis L. scored ‘Good’ for growing at 10 g L−1 of salinity, and ‘Medium’ at 35 g L−1 (Table 10). This species gave high annual yield under optimal conditions (Table 3) and grows well in a salinity range between 4.4 to 9.4 g L−1 [39] (Table 3). Seeds are not easy to find and are generally sold on e-commerce platforms at high prices (Table 4). There is limited information regarding the hydroponic cultivation of this species. The price of fresh leaves could be around EUR 5 kg−1 on e-commerce platforms (Table 7). In addition, the leaves of A. hortensis L. are a good source of Vitamin C, and minerals such as calcium, potassium, copper, and manganese, and have natural diuretic and laxative properties [61].
B. vulgaris var. cicla L., a very popular vegetable, resulted as a ‘Medium’ candidate for cultivation at both 10 g L−1 and 35 g L−1 of salinity (Table 10); its optimal salinity range is between 0 and 5.0 g L−1 [26] (Table 3). This species showed a medium leaf production (9.6–10.5 kg m−2) (Table 3). Registered varieties and certified seeds of B. vulgaris var. cicla L. are available on the market from many seed companies and at low prices (Table 4). There is much information available about its biology and hydroponic cultivation [40,91,92,93]. It is a popular leafy vegetable around the world [94], and its leaves are usually sold at a lower price as compared to the other assessed species (Table 7).
B. vulgaris ssp. maritima (L.) Arcang scored ‘Good’ at 10 g L−1 and ‘Medium’ at 35 g L−1 (Table 10). This species showed a high annual yield under optimal conditions (Table 3); its optimal salinity range is between 7.3 and 14.6 g L−1 [42] (Table 3). Seeds are sold by small companies and e-commerce platforms at a high price (Table 4). Despite the existence of considerable scientific literature on the biological knowledge of this species [43], little is known on the hydroponic cultivation of this species. Puccinelli et al. [40] reported that B. vulgaris spp. maritima (L.) grown with brackish water (10 g L−1) obtained a yield of about 13 kg m−2. This plant has a relatively low sale price as compared with the other species evaluated (Table 7).
C. officinalis L. scored ‘Poor’ in both of the evaluated scenarios (Table 10). This is mainly due to its maximum threshold value of salinity which is 2.9 g L−1 (Table 3) [64]. Its annual yield is moderate compared with the other species assessed (Table 3). Seeds are sold on specialized online websites and there are no genetically selected strains of this species (Table 4). The information available about its botanical knowledge and its cultivation in hydroponic systems is limited. C. officinalis L. is used for salads and it is appreciated for its Vitamin C content, in the past, it was used to combat scurvy by the mariners [64].
C. maritimum L. achieved a ‘Medium’ and ‘Poor’ score for cultivation at 10 g L−1 and at 35 g L−1, respectively (Table 10). Its optimal salinity for growing is 5.8 g L−1 [44] (Table 3), annual yield is low (Table 3) and seeds are relatively expensive and marketed by small seed companies (Table 4). There is much information in the literature about biological and botanical aspects of C. maritimum L. [44,95], which has been cultivated in floating system [44] or in pots with sand [96]. C. maritimum L. is considered as a functional food and is largely used for its nutritional and health-promoting value as it is rich in vitamins, carotenoids, polyphenols, and other bioactive constituents [97]. In addition, C. maritimum L. contains essentials oils and different sugars, organic acids, and minerals [96]. However, its shoots are sold at a relatively low price, compared to the other species evaluated (Table 7).
D. tenuifolia (L.) DC. scored ‘Medium’ in both of the evaluated scenarios (Table 10) and its optimal salinity range is between 0 and 2.9 g L−1 [43] (Table 3). This species showed a high annual yield (Table 3). Cheap seeds are marketed by several seed companies (Table 4), and information are available of the biology and hydroponic cultivation (floating system) of this species [43]. This crop has gained greater importance as vegetables and culinary herb in Europe. D. tenuifolia (L.) DC. contains significant levels of poly-glycosylated flavonoids, which protect the colonic epithelium from free radical attack [43]. Leaves of D. tenuifolia (L.) DC. are usually sold at a low price compared to the other assessed species (Table 7).
I. crithmoides L. was considered a ‘Medium’ candidate for aquaponics at 10 g L−1 and 35 g L−1 of salinity (Table 10), as its optimal salinity is 6.3 g L−1 [31] (Table 3). I. crithmoides L. gives a high annual yield (Table 3) compared with the other species assessed. There are no registered varieties and the seeds are sold only by small seed companies at a relatively high price (Table 4). There is limited information available about biology and hydroponic cultivation of this plant [31,65]. I. crithmoides L. is a source of minerals and it is consumed in salads or cooked, as animal fodder, and in herbal medicine (Table 5) [65]. Its leaves are sold at a medium price, compared to the other species (Table 7).
P. oleracea L. scored ‘Good’ in both the salinity scenarios assessed (Table 10). This species presented a high annual yield in optimal conditions and its optimal range of salinity is 1.6–6.3 g L−1 (Table 3) [46]. Seeds are widely available at relatively high prices by several companies in Mediterranean countries (Table 4). The botanical knowledge of this species is extensive. In addition, P. oleracea L. has been tested in hydroponics with satisfactory results [32,66]. This species is a source of vitamins (e.g., Vitamin A, Vitamin C) and minerals (e.g., potassium, magnesium) [66] and it has been employed in herbal medicine and modern pharmacology due to its analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties [98].
S. bigelovii Torr resulted as a ‘Good’ and ‘Medium’ candidate for the cultivation at 10 and 35 g L−1 of salinity, respectively. Moreover, S. europaea L. resulted to be a ‘Good’ candidate for cultivation at 10 and 35 g L−1 of salinity (Table 10). S. bigelovii Torr. presented the optimal growth at 11.7 g L−1 of salinity [47] and S. europaea L. between 16.5 and 24.7 g L−1 (Table 3) [48]. Both species give a medium annual yield (Table 3), compared with the other assessed species, the cost of seeds is relatively high, and there are not registered varieties (Table 4). There is much information in the literature about the biological and botanical aspects of S. bigelovii Torr [47,48,99] and S. europaea L. [34,90,100,101]. In contrast, there are many studies on the hydroponic cultivation of different Salicornia species [102]. S. bigelovii Torr. has been hydroponically cultivated with perlite [99] or sand [47] as a substrate or in the floating system [103]. Moreover, S. europaea L. has been cultivated in the floating system [90,100], aeroponics [34] and in silica sand [101]. S.bigelovii Torr has been introduced to the U.S. and European markets as a special green vegetable, and its succulent young shoots are in high demand in gourmet cousine due to their salty taste and high nutritional value [104]. Besides, S. europea L. has very high levels of Vitamin C, carotenoids [105], and proteins (Table 6). The demand of S. europaea L. is growing in the European markets and its sale price is relatively high (Table 7).
S. fructicosa (L.) L. resulted as a ‘Medium’ candidate for the cultivation at 10 and 35 g L−1 of salinity (Table 10); the optimal salinity range is between 8.25 and 24.7 g L−1 (Table 3) [48]. This species presented a low annual yield (Table 3) as compared with the other species assessed. There are not registered varieties and its seeds are difficult to find. The available information on the biological and botanical features and hydroponic cultivation of S. fructicosa (L.) L. is limited [48,99]. S. fructicosa (L.) L. has been cultivated in perlite-filled pots [48,103]. Its young fleshy tips have a high demand in gourmet cuisine due to their salty taste and its content of minerals and vitamins [34] and are usually sold at a high price (Table 7).
S. ramosissima J. Woods resulted as a ‘Medium’ candidate for cultivation at 10 g L−1 of salinity, while it resulted as a ‘Poor’ candidate at 35 g L−1 (Table 10). Optimal salinity level is between 0 and 3.4 g L−1 for this species [49] (Table 3); its annual yield is low (Table 3) and seeds are difficult to find. There is much information about the biological and botanical aspects of S. ramosissima J. Woods [106], but very few works have been carried out on soilless cultivation [107]. However, S. ramosissima J. Woods is a multifunctional (food and pharmaceutical) cash crop [34]; for these reasons, its shoots are sold at a relatively high cost (Table 7).
S. soda L. got ‘Medium’ and ‘Poor’ scores at 10 and 35 g L−1, respectively, (Table 10); its optimal salinity range is between 4.5 to 8.9 g L−1 [50] (Table 3). This plant showed a low annual yield (Table 3) compared to the other species assessed. The seeds of S. soda L. are relatively easy to find in Italy [37], but the price is relatively high (Table 4). Information on cultivation in hydroponic systems is scarce, although there is scientific evidence of the positive performance of this species grown in saltwater aquaponics. For instance, Pantanella [108] reported a production of 2.2 to 3.2 kg m−2 of S. soda L. grown in a saltwater (10 g L−1) aquaponics with grey mullet (Mugil cephalus) as companion fish species. This species is consumed as a gourmet vegetable around the world and mainly in Italy [37]. It is a good source of Vitamin A, C, K, calcium, and iron. In herbal medicine, it has been used as a treatment of hypertension, constipation, and inflammation [67]. Alkaloid extracts from this plant showed good results for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease [86] (Table 5).
T. tetragonoides (Pall.) Kuntze scored ‘Medium’ in both scenarios (Table 10). This species grows well in a salinity range between 0.4 and 25.1 g L−1 [51], although it gives a low annual yield (Table 3). Its seeds can be found on e-commerce platforms at high sales prices (Table 4). The information available about its botanical knowledge and its cultivation in hydroponic systems is scarce. However, the market prices for T. tetragonoides (Pall.) Kuntze could reach up to EUR 24 kg−1 [84] (Table 7). It is consumed fresh or cooked and used in herbal medicine. The extract from the leaves of T. tetragonoides (Pall.) Kuntze has anti-obesity, anti-hyperlipidemic, and anti-hyperuricemic effects [109]. In addition, this species is a source of iron, calcium, vitamin C, and has a high protein content (Table 6).
The present model helps to point out the main issues in the decision process. In this case, resulting from Table 8 and Table 9, were criterion 2 (‘Seed availability in Italy and surrounding countries’) scores that are nearly always low for the plant species considered. This suggests how the scarce availability of certified seed and registered varieties is one of the main constraints for a commercial application of saltwater aquaponics in the Mediterranean area.

3.2. Sensitivity Analysis

The results of the sensitivity analysis show how a plus/minus 1 change in the scores reported in Table 8 and Table 9 affects the overall score. The ‘plus/minus 1′ analysis indicates that the indicators ‘Annual yield’ and ‘Salinity tolerance’ (under ‘Potential yield’ aggregated criterion) had a larger influence on the final score in both scenarios: 6/15 and 9/15 times, respectively, in the scenario at 10 g L−1 and 7/15 times for both indicators in the scenario at 35 g L−1. The remaining indicators had less influence on the final score in a range of 0/15 to 4/15 times each (Table 8 and Table 9).
The model was very sensitive as the ranking of candidate plant species when the qualitative value of low-weight sub-criteria was modified, especially in the aforementioned indicators. This result was expected as a decision-making model is more sensitive to input variables when its structure is simple and uses a low number of criteria [15]. The low number of criteria and the limited qualitative values adopted to avoid the previously mentioned ‘combinatory explosion’ of the decision rules, determined a quite high sensitivity of the model itself. Even a change in the qualitative value assigned to low weight sub-criteria was able to induce changes in the result (candidates ranking).

3.3. General Considerations

The model proposed in this work is implemented with the open-access MCDM software, DEXi. The model includes several attributes regarding agronomic, nutritional, and economic features of the candidate plant species for saltwater aquaponics, ordered in a hierarchical structure defined by decision rules. The model provides a general tool for the selection of plant species that can be easily adapted to local constraints or additional features.
The model gives a final evaluation consisting of a single score for each species in the two scenarios considered. In this section the assigned scores are explained and supported with the literature information. The DEXi model can be used to highlight hotspots for the decision problem, such as, in this case, the availability of registered varieties and certified seeds on the market.
The proposed model addresses the problem at a general level [18] and uses discrete descriptive attributes, thus imposing a simplification of a more complex problem and offering qualitative evaluation of the species selected. An improvement in this evaluation could be the combination with other models, such as the use of impact categories from Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as indicator for the DEXi as proposed by Le Féon et al. [12] or GIS-based decision model to also take into consideration spatial or geographical limitations to site selection [110]. Another important issue of the proposed decision model is the limited evaluation scale for the indicators and basic criteria, which gives the final user a few possible options. This choice is also proposed by Craheix et al. [15] to avoid the so called ‘combinatory explosion’ of the decision rules.
So far, the model has been validated only by experts in previous works [18]. Thus, this model required additional validation, and or an ex-post comparison of its predictions with field results.

4. Conclusions

The results of the present study suggest that S. europaea L. and P. oleracea L. were the most suitable species for production in saltwater aquaponics at 35 g L−1. Strengths of these species were the ‘Level of knowledge available’ and the ‘Economic importance of the species’. However, other species could be good candidates for saltwater aquaponics at a lower salinity. Indeed, at 10 g L−1, the best candidate species were S. bigelovii Torr., B. vulgaris ssp. maritima (L.) Arcang., A. hortensis L. along with S. europaea L. and P. oleracea L. The scarce availability of certified seed and registered varieties is one of the main constraints to a commercial application of saltwater aquaponics. The DEXi analysis resulted in being a relatively easy and effective tool, which can be used for the selection of proper species in similar contexts. In addition, MCDM can help to identify the hotspots for production processes. In future it will be interesting to apply other qualitative and/or quantitative MCDM to verify and integrate the results obtained in the present work. Moreover, MCDM could be applied to select species in different environmental conditions and different geographic contexts. Furthermore, the combinations of models for the selection, respectively, of fish or plant species in aquaponics would allow to know how the compartments (RAS and soilless cultivation) affect each other. Another possible improvement is integrating the impact categories obtained by LCA analysis within the decision model methodology.

Author Contributions

M.P.: methodology, formal analysis, investigation, writing—original draft; J.F.F.-S.: methodology, formal analysis, investigation, writing—original draft; C.B.: conceptualization, methodology, validation, writing—review and editing, supervision, funding acquisition; B.F.: supervision, funding acquisition; C.M.: writing—review and editing; T.D.: validation, writing—review and editing; A.P.: validation, writing—review and editing, supervision, funding acquisition, project administration; L.I.: funding acquisition; L.R.: methodology, formal analysis, writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was conducted within the framework of the EU-PRIMA (Section 2, 2018) project entitled ‘Self-sufficient Integrated MultiTrophic AquaPonic—SIMTAP’ and financially supported (Directorial Decree 16/09/2020 n.1439) by the Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR) of Italy.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Fierro-Sañudo thanks the “Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología” (CONACYT) for its support through the scholarship “Apoyo para Estancias Posdoctorales en el Extranjero Vinculadas a la Consolidación de Grupos de Investigación y Fortalecimiento del Posgrado Nacional 2019 (1)”.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. FAO. FAO The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022–Towards Blue Transformation; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  2. Troell, M.; Naylor, R.L.; Metian, M.; Beveridge, M.; Tyedmers, P.H.; Folke, C.; Arrow, K.J.; Barrett, S.; Crépin, A.-S.; Ehrlich, P.R.; et al. Does Aquaculture Add Resilience to the Global Food System? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 13257–13263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Custódio, M.; Villasante, S.; Cremades, J.; Calado, R.; Lillebø, A.I. Unravelling the Potential of Halophytes for Marine Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA)-A Perspective on Performance, Opportunities and Challenges. Aquac. Environ. Interact. 2017, 9, 445–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Baganz, G.F.M.; Junge, R.; Portella, M.C.; Goddek, S.; Keesman, K.J.; Baganz, D.; Staaks, G.; Shaw, C.; Lohrberg, F.; Kloas, W. The Aquaponic Principle—It Is All about Coupling. Rev. Aquac. 2022, 14, 252–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kotzen, B.; Emerenciano, M.G.C.; Moheimani, N.; Burnell, G.M. Aquaponics: Alternative Types and Approaches. In Aquaponics Food Production Systems; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 301–330. ISBN 9783030159436. [Google Scholar]
  6. Rossi, L.; Bibbiani, C.; Fierro-Sañudo, J.F.; Maibam, C.; Incrocci, L.; Pardossi, A.; Fronte, B. Selection of Marine Fish for Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaponic Production in the Mediterranean Area Using DEXi Multi-Criteria Analysis. Aquaculture 2021, 535, 736402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Edwards, S.L.; Marshall, W.S. Principles and Patterns of Osmoregulation and Euryhalinity in Fishes. Fish Physiol. 2012, 32, 1–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Greenway, H.; Munns, R. Mechanisms of Salt Tolerance in Nonhalophytes. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 1980, 31, 149–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Munns, R.; Tester, M. Mechanisms of Salinity Tolerance. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2008, 59, 651–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Lombardi, T.; Bertacchi, A.; Pistelli, L.; Pardossi, A.; Pecchia, S.; Toffanin, A.; Sanmartin, C. Biological and Agronomic Traits of the Main Halophytes Widespread in the Mediterranean Region as Potential New Vegetable Crops. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Maucieri, C.; Nicoletto, C.; van Os, E.; Anseeuw, D.; Van Havermaet, R.; Junge, R.; Van Os, E.; Anseeuw, D.; Van Havermaet, R.; Junge, R. Hydroponic Technologies. In Aquaponics food production systems; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 77–110. [Google Scholar]
  12. Féon, S.L.; Dubois, T.; Jaeger, C.; Wilfart, A.; Akkal-Corfini, N.; Bacenetti, J.; Costantini, M.; Aubin, J. DEXiAqua, a Model to Assess the Sustainability of Aquaculture Systems: Methodological Development and Application to a French Salmon Farm. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cegan, J.C.; Filion, A.M.; Keisler, J.M.; Linkov, I. Trends and Applications of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Environmental Sciences: Literature Review. Environ. Syst. Decis. 2017, 37, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bohanec, M.; Žnidaržič, M.; Rajkovič, V.; Bratko, I.; Zupan, B. DEX Methodology: Three Decades of Qualitative Multi-Attribute Modeling. Informatica 2013, 37, 49–54. [Google Scholar]
  15. Craheix, D.; Bergez, J.E.; Angevin, F.; Bockstaller, C.; Bohanec, M.; Colomb, B.; Doré, T.; Fortino, G.; Guichard, L.; Pelzer, E.; et al. Guidelines to Design Models Assessing Agricultural Sustainability, Based upon Feedbacks from the DEXi Decision Support System. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 1431–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pavlovic, M.; Cerenak, A.; Pavlovic, V.; Rozman, C.; Pazek, K.; Bohanec, M. Development of DEX-HOP Multi-Attribute Decision Model for Preliminary Hop Hybrids Assessment. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2011, 75, 181–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pelzer, E.; Fortino, G.; Bockstaller, C.; Angevin, F.; Lamine, C.; Moonen, C.; Vasileiadis, V.; Guérin, D.; Guichard, L.; Reau, R.; et al. Assessing Innovative Cropping Systems with DEXiPM, a Qualitative Multi-Criteria Assessment Tool Derived from DEXi. Ecol. Ind. 2012, 18, 171–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bohanec, M.; Messéan, A.; Scatasta, S.; Angevin, F.; Griffiths, B.; Krogh, P.H.; Žnidaršič, M.; Džeroski, S. A qualitative multi-attribute model for economic and ecological assessment of genetically modified crops. Ecol. Modell. 2008, 215, 247–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Griffiths, B.S.; Ball, B.C.; Daniell, T.J.; Hallett, P.D.; Neilson, R.; Wheatley, R.E.; Osler, G.; Bohanec, M. Integrating Soil Quality Changes to Arable Agricultural Systems Following Organic Matter Addition, or Adoption of a Ley-Arable Rotation. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2010, 46, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Montemurro, F.; Persiani, A.; Diacono, M. Environmental Sustainability Assessment of Horticultural Systems: A Multi-Criteria Evaluation Approach Applied in a Case Study in Mediterranean Conditions. Agronomy 2018, 8, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Prevolsek, B.; Rozman, C.; Pazek, K.; Maksimovic, A.; Potocniktopler, J. Development of Family Tourism Businesses in Rural Areas: Multi Criteria Assessment of Businesses in Easter Slovenia. Podravina 2017, 16, 136–149. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ohunakin, O.S.; Saracoglu, B.O. A Comparative Study of Selected Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methodologies for Location Selection of Very Large Concentrated Solar Power Plants in Nigeria. Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Dev. 2018, 10, 551–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Karleuša, B.; Hajdinger, A.; Tadić, L. The Application of Multi-Criteria Analysis Methods for the Determination of Priorities in the Implementation of Irrigation Plans. Water 2019, 11, 501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bercu, R.; Fǎgǎraş, M.; Broascǎ, L. Anatomical Features of Aster tripolium L. (Asteraceae) to Saline Environments. Ann. Rom. Soc. Cell Biol. 2012, 17, 271–277. [Google Scholar]
  25. Wilson, C.; Lesch, S.M.; Grieve, C.M. Growth Stage Modulates Salinity Tolerance of New Zealand Spinach (Tetragonia tetragonioides, Pall.) and Red Orach (Atriplex hortensis L.). Ann. Bot. 2000, 85, 501–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mwazi, F.N.; Amoonga, S.; Mubiana, F.S. Evaluation of the Effects of Salinity on Spinach (Beta vulgaris Var. Cicla) Grown in a Hydroponic System along the Coast of Namibia. Agricola 2010, 20, 14–17. [Google Scholar]
  27. Rana, M.K.; Sagwal, K. Sea Beet; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; ISBN 9781315116204. [Google Scholar]
  28. Pegtel, D.M. Effect of Ploidy Level on Fruit Morphology, Seed Germination and Juvenile Growth in Scurvy Grass (Cochlearia officinalis L. s.l., Brassicaceae). Plant Species Biol. 1999, 14, 201–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Renna, M. Reviewing the Prospects of Sea Fennel (Crithmum maritimum L.) as Emerging Vegetable Crop. Plants 2018, 7, 92. [Google Scholar]
  30. Nicoletti, R.; Raimo, F.; Miccio, G. Diplotaxis tenuifolia: Biology, Production and Properties. Eur. J. Plant Sci. Biotechnol. 2007, 1, 36–43. [Google Scholar]
  31. Zurayk, R.A.; Baalbaki, R. Inula crithmoides: A Candidate Plant for Saline Agriculture. Arid. Soil Res. Rehabil. 1996, 10, 213–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yazici, I.; Türkan, I.; Sekmen, A.H.; Demiral, T. Salinity Tolerance of Purslane (Portulaca oleracea L.) Is Achieved by Enhanced Antioxidative System, Lower Level of Lipid Peroxidation and Proline Accumulation. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2007, 61, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lu, D.; Zhang, M.; Wang, S.; Cai, J.; Zhou, X.; Zhu, C. Nutritional Characterization and Changes in Quality of Salicornia bigelovii Torr. during Storage. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2010, 43, 519–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gunning, D. Cultivating Salicornia Europaea (Marsh Samphire); Irish Sea Fisheries Board: Dublin, Ireland, 2016; Volume 4, pp. 1–95. [Google Scholar]
  35. Fern, K. Sarcocornia fruticosa-Useful Temperate Plants. Available online: http://temperate.theferns.info/plant/Sarcocornia+fruticosa (accessed on 24 September 2020).
  36. Isca, V.M.S.V.; Seca, A.A.M.L.; Pinto, D.D.C.G.A.; Silva, H.; Silva, A.M.S. Chemistry. Food Chem. 2014, 165, 330–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhu, H.; Cheng, R.; Bañuelos, G.; Centofanti, T. Feasibility of Growing Halophyte “Agretti” (Salsola soda) as an Alternative Boron-Tolerant Food Crop in Unproductive Boron-Laden Regions. Plant Soil 2019, 445, 323–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ventura, Y.; Myrzabayeva, M.; Alikulov, Z.; Cohen, S.; Shemer, Z.; Sagi, M. The Importance of Iron Supply during Repetitive Harvesting of Aster tripolium. Funct. Plant Biol. 2013, 40, 968–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kachout, S.S. The Effect of Salinity on the Growth of the Halophyte Atriplex hortensis (Chenopodiaceae). Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2009, 7, 319–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Puccinelli, M.; Carmassi, G.; Botrini, L.; Bindi, A.; Rossi, L.; Fierro-Sañudo, J.F.; Pardossi, A.; Incrocci, L. Growth and Mineral Relations of Beta vulgaris var. cicla and Beta vulgaris ssp. maritima Cultivated Hydroponically with Diluted Seawater and Low Nitrogen Level in the Nutrient Solution. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rozema, J.; Cornelisse, D.; Zhang, Y.; Li, H.; Bruning, B.; Katschnig, D.; Broekman, R.; Ji, B.; van Bodegom, P. Comparing Salt Tolerance of Beet Cultivars and Their Halophytic Ancestor: Consequences of Domestication and Breeding Programmes. AoB Plants 2014, 7, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Koyro, H.W.; Daoud, S.; Harrouni, C.; Huchzermeyer, B. Strategies of a Potential Cash Crop Halophyte (Beta vulgaris ssp. maritima) to Avoid Salt Injury. Trop. Ecol. 2006, 47, 191–200. [Google Scholar]
  43. de Vos, A.C.; Broekman, R.; de Almeida Guerra, C.C.; van Rijsselberghe, M.; Rozema, J. Developing and Testing New Halophyte Crops: A Case Study of Salt Tolerance of Two Species of the Brassicaceae, Diplotaxis tenuifolia and Cochlearia officinalis. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2013, 92, 154–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. ben Hamed, K.; Castagna, A.; Salem, E.; Ranieri, A.; Abdelly, C. Sea Fennel (Crithmum maritimum L.) under Salinity Conditions: A Comparison of Leaf and Root Antioxidant Responses. Plant Growth Regul. 2007, 53, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ngosong, C.; Halpern, M.T.; Whalen, J.K.; Smith, D.L. Purslane (Portulaca oleracea L.) Has Potential for Desalinizing Greenhouse Recirculation Water. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2013, 93, 961–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Franco, J.A.; Cros, V.; Vicente, M.J.; Martínez-Sánchez, J.J. Effects of Salinity on the Germination, Growth, and Nitrate Contents of Purslane (Portulaca oleracea L.) Cultivated under Different Climatic Conditions. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2011, 86, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kong, Y.; Zheng, Y. Potential of Producing Salicornia bigelovii Hydroponically as a Vegetable at Moderate NaCl Salinity. HortScience 2014, 49, 1154–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ventura, Y.; Wuddineh, W.A.; Myrzabayeva, M.; Alikulov, Z.; Khozin-Goldberg, I.; Shpigel, M.; Samocha, T.M.; Sagi, M. Effect of Seawater Concentration on the Productivity and Nutritional Value of Annual Salicornia and Perennial Sarcocornia Halophytes as Leafy Vegetable Crops. Sci. Hortic. 2011, 128, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Silva, H.; Caldeira, G.; Freitas, H. Salicornia ramosissima Population Dynamics and Tolerance of Salinity. Ecol. Res. 2007, 22, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Karakaş, S.; Çullu, M.A.; Dikilitaş, M. Comparison of Two Halophyte Species (Salsola soda and Portulaca oleracea) for Salt Removal Potential under Different Soil Salinity Conditions. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2017, 41, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kim, S.-K.; Kim, I.-K.; Lee, G.-J.; Kim, S.-K.; Kim, I.-K.; Lee, G.-J. Growth Responses of New Zealand Spinach [Tetragonia tetragonoides (Pall.) Kuntze] to Different Soil Texture and Salinity. Korean J. Agric. Sci. 2011, 38, 631–639. [Google Scholar]
  52. Boyd, C.E.C.E. Standardize Terminology for Low-Salinity Shrimp Culture. Glob. Aquac. Advocate 2002, 5, 58–59. [Google Scholar]
  53. Alsagarden Jardinerie En Ligne Alsagarden: Plantes Rares & Variétés Anciennes. Available online: https://www.alsagarden.com/ (accessed on 16 July 2020).
  54. Pennard Plants Pennard Plants, Heritage Vegetable and Flower Seeds, Edible Plants and Agapanthus. Available online: https://www.pennardplants.com (accessed on 16 July 2020).
  55. SAIS LISTINO PREZZI Sementi per l’orticoltura Professionale. 2020. Available online: https://it.readkong.com/page/2020-listino-prezzi-sementi-per-l-orticoltura-1506028/ (accessed on 19 May 2020).
  56. Catalogo Semencoop. 2018. Available online: http://www.lortolano.com/upload/catalogo/categorie/cataloghi/CATALOGO_SEMENCOOP_2018/mobile/index.html#p=12 (accessed on 29 September 2020).
  57. B and T World Seeds B and T World Seeds, Seeds from over 35,000 Different Plants. Available online: https://b-and-t-world-seeds.com/ (accessed on 25 May 2020).
  58. RB Sementi Bertolino Sementi Shop-RBsementi-Vendita Sementi-Semenze e Giardinaggio Online. Available online: https://rbsementi.com/shop/ (accessed on 16 July 2020).
  59. Enza Zaden Enza Zaden-Vegetable-Breeding Company. Available online: https://www.enzazaden.com/ (accessed on 16 July 2020).
  60. Daoud, S.; Koyro, H.W.; Harrouni, M.C. Salt Response of Halophytes with Potential Interest in Food Crops and Reclamation of Saline Soils: Growth, Water Relations, Mineral Content and Anatomical Adaptations. In Developments in Soil Salinity Assessment and Reclamation: Innovative Thinking and Use of Marginal Soil and Water Resources in Irrigated Agriculture; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 543–560. ISBN 9789400756847. [Google Scholar]
  61. López Donate, J.A.; Fernández García, J.; Fajardo Rodríguez, J.; Verde López, A. El Armuelle (Atriplex hortensis L.), Un Intento Para La Recuperación Del Cultivo de Una Verdura Tradicional. Agricultura 2005, 879, 796–804. [Google Scholar]
  62. Ninfali, P.; Angelino, D. Nutritional and Functional Potential of Beta Vulgaris Cicla and Rubra. Fitoterapia 2013, 89, 188–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Boscaiu, M.; Vicente, O. Halophytic Crops for a Salinising World. Bull. UASVM Hortic. 2013, 70, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Panta, S.; Flowers, T.; Lane, P.; Doyle, R.; Haros, G.; Shabala, S. Halophyte Agriculture: Success Stories. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2014, 107, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Omezzine, F.; Ladhari, A.; Rinez, A.; Haouala, R. Potent Herbicidal Activity of Inula crithmoïdes L. Sci. Hortic. 2011, 130, 853–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Teixeira, M.; Carvalho, I.S. Effects of Salt Stress on Purslane (Portulaca oleracea) Nutrition. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2009, 154, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Centofanti, T.; Bañuelos, G. Evaluation of the Halophyte Salsola soda as an Alternative Crop for Saline Soils High in Selenium and Boron. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 157, 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Summers, R.W.; Atkins, C. Selection by Brent Geese Branta Bernicla for Different Leaf Lengths of Aster tripolium on Saltmarsh. Wildfowl 1991, 42, 33–36. [Google Scholar]
  69. Rinchen, T.; Singh, N. Exploring Nutritional Potential of Atriplex hortensis. Indian Hortic. 2015, 60, 16–17. [Google Scholar]
  70. INRAN Dietetica-Tabelle-Composizione-Alimenti. Available online: https://www.clitt.it/contents/scienze-files/6160_rodato_quaderno-files/6160_TabelleComposAlim.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2020).
  71. Guerrero, J.L.G.G.; Madrid, P.C.; Isasa, M.E.T.T. Mineral Elements Determination in Wild Edible Plants. Ecol. Food Nutr. 1999, 38, 209–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mercatenerife.com Berros. Available online: http://mercatenerife.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Berros-2018-Nueva.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2020).
  73. Acar, R.; Coşkun, B.; Özköse, A.; Musa Özcan, M.; Özcan, C.; Koç, N. The Importance and Agricutural Usage of Wild Rocked (Diplotaxis tenuifolia (L.) DC). In Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Agriculture and Enviroment, Konya, Turkey, September 30–October 3 2015; pp. 829–833. [Google Scholar]
  74. Petropoulos, S.A.; Fernandes, Â.; Dias, M.I.; Vasilakoglou, I.B.; Petrotos, K.; Barros, L.; Ferreira, I.C. Nutritional Value, Chemical Composition and Cytotoxic Properties of Common Purslane (Portulaca oleracea L.) in Relation to Harvesting Stage and Plant Part. Antioxidants 2019, 8, 293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Foodnutritiontable.com Nutritions Samphire, Fresh, Raw per 100 g. Available online: http://www.foodnutritiontable.com/nutritions/nutrient/?id=1301 (accessed on 28 September 2020).
  76. Lopes, M.; Cavaleiro, C.; Ramos, F. Sodium Reduction in Bread: A Role for Glasswort (Salicornia ramosissima J. Woods). Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2017, 16, 1056–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Araújo de Azevedo, F.L.A. Valor Nutricional, Capacidade Antioxidante e Utilizaçao de Folhas de Espinafre (Tetragonia tetragonoides) Em Pó Como Ingrediente de Pao de Forma. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, João Pessoa, Brazil, 4 September 2012. [Google Scholar]
  78. champvieux.e-monsite.com/Prix-Legumes-Aude. Available online: http://champvieux.e-monsite.com/medias/files/prix-legumes-aude-2017.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2020).
  79. Camera di Commercio di Firenze Listino Settimanale Dei Prezzi All’ingrosso Sulla Piazza Di Vercelli. 2020. Available online: https://www.fi.camcom.gov.it/regolazione-del-mercato/tutela-di-consumatori-e-imprese/prezzi/listini-settimanali-dei-prezzi-allingrosso/listini-prezzi-settimanali-2020 (accessed on 20 June 2020).
  80. La Flor del Pirineo, S.L. SCURVYGRASS (Cochlearia officinalis). Available online: http://www.laflordelpirineo.com/en/loose-medical-herbs/139-scurvygrass-cochlearia-officinalis.html (accessed on 1 October 2020).
  81. FrescoMarket Rucola Bio Confezione 100 G. Available online: https://www.frescomarketonline.it/online/product/rucola-bio-confezione-100-g?productId=8440&generalid=100020&generaltype=subcategory (accessed on 20 June 2022).
  82. Agroprice. net Purslane Market Prices. Available online: https://www.agroprice.net/1_168_0_1/purslane-market-prices (accessed on 29 September 2020).
  83. Goddek, S.; Joyce, A.; Kotzen, B.; Burnell, G.M. Aquaponics Food Production Systems: Combined Aquaculture and Hydroponic Production Technologies for the Future; Springer Nature: Berlin, Germany, 2019; ISBN 978-3-030-15943-6. [Google Scholar]
  84. Ingegnoli Spinacio-Della Nuova Zelanda-(Spinacio Perenne). Available online: https://www.ingegnoli.it/ita/spinacio-della-nuova-zelanda-spinacio-perenne.html (accessed on 23 September 2020).
  85. Roosta, H.R.; Mohsenian, Y. Alleviation of Alkalinity-Induced Fe Deficiency in Eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) by Foliar Application of Different Fe Sources in Recirculating System. J. Plant Nutr. 2015, 38, 1768–1786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Tundis, R.; Menichini, F.F.; Conforti, F.; Loizzo, M.R.; Bonesi, M.; Statti, G.; Menichini, F.F. A Potential Role of Alkaloid Extracts from Salsola Species (Chenopodiaceae) in the Treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease. J. Enzyme Inhib. Med. Chem. 2009, 24, 818–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Tripathy, B.; Rout, S.; Mishra, U.N.; Sahoo, G. Vegetables: A Potential Source of Nutraceuticals. Ann. Rom. Soc. Cell Biol. 2021, 25, 17921–17941. [Google Scholar]
  88. Santamaria, P.; Elia, A.; Serio, F.; Todaro, E. A Survey of Nitrate and Oxalate Content in Fresh Vegetables. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1999, 79, 1882–1888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Waller, U.; Buhmann, A.K.; Ernst, A.; Hanke, V.; Kulakowski, A.; Wecker, B.; Orellana, J.; Papenbrock, J. Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture in a Zero-Exchange Recirculation Aquaculture System for Marine Fish and Hydroponic Halophyte Production. Aquac. Int. 2015, 23, 1473–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Quintã, R.; Santos, R.; Thomas, D.N.; le Vay, L. Growth and Nitrogen Uptake by Salicornia europaea and Aster tripolium in Nutrient Conditions Typical of Aquaculture Wastewater. Chemosphere 2015, 120, 414–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Takagi, H.; Yamada, S. Roles of Enzymes in Anti-Oxidative Response System on Three Species of Chenopodiaceous Halophytes under NaCl-Stress Condition. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2013, 59, 603–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Nozzi, V.; Parisi, G.; di Crescenzo, D.; Giordano, M.; Carnevali, O. Evaluation of Dicentrarchus labrax Meats and the Vegetable Quality of Beta vulgaris var. Cicla Farmed in Freshwater and Saltwater Aquaponic Systems. Water 2016, 8, 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Liu, L.; Ueda, A.; Saneoka, H. Physiological Responses of White Swiss Chard (Beta vulgaris L. Subsp. Cicla) to Saline and Alkaline Stresses. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2013, 7, 1046–1052. [Google Scholar]
  94. Bor, M.; Özdemir, F.; Türkan, I. The Effect of Salt Stress on Lipid Peroxidation and Antioxidants in Leaves of Sugar Beet Beta vulgaris L. and Wild Beet Beta maritima L. Plant Sci. 2003, 164, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Vlahos, N.; Levizou, E.; Stathopoulou, P.; Berillis, P.; Antonopoulou, E.; Bekiari, V.; Krigas, N.; Kormas, K.; Mente, E. An Experimental Brackish Aquaponic System Using Juvenile Gilthead Sea Bream (Sparus aurata) and Rock Samphire (Crithmum maritimum). Sustainability. 2019, 11, 4820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Abdallah, A.; Zouhaier, B. Environmental Eco-Physiology and Economical Potential of the Halophyte Crithmum maritimum L. (Apiaceae). J. Med. Plant Res. 2011, 5, 3564–3571. [Google Scholar]
  97. Pavela, R.; Maggi, F.; Lupidi, G.; Cianfaglione, K.; Dauvergne, X.; Bruno, M.; Benelli, G. Efficacy of Sea Fennel (Crithmum maritimum L., Apiaceae) Essential Oils against Culex Quinquefasciatus Say and Spodoptera littoralis (Boisd.). Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 109, 603–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Chan, K.; Islam, M.W.; Kamil, M.; Radhakrishnan, R.; Zakaria, M.N.M.; Habibullah, M.; Attas, A. The Analgesic and Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Portulaca oleracea L. Subsp. Sativa (Haw.) Celak. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2000, 73, 445–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Ventura, Y.; Wuddineh, W.A.; Shpigel, M.; Samocha, T.M.; Klim, B.C.; Cohen, S.; Shemer, Z.; Santos, R.; Sagi, M. Effects of Day Length on Flowering and Yield Production of Salicornia and Sarcocornia Species. Sci. Hortic. 2011, 130, 510–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Ushakova, S.A.; Kovaleva, N.P.; Tikhomirova, N.A.; Gribovskaya, I.v.; Kolmakova, A.A. Effect of Photosynthetically Active Radiation, Salinization, and Type of Nitrogen Nutrition on Growth of Salicornia europaea Plants. Russ. J. Plant Physiol. 2006, 53, 785–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Algharib, A.M.; Örçen, N.; Nazarian, G.R. Effect of Salt Stress on Plant Growth and Physiological Parameters of Common Glasswort (Salicornia europaea). Int. J. Biosci. (IJB) 2016, 8, 218–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Cárdenas-Pérez, S.; Piernik, A.; Chanona-Pérez, J.J.; Grigore, M.N.; Perea-Flores, M.J. An Overview of the Emerging Trends of the Salicornia L. Genus as a Sustainable Crop. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2021, 191, 104606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Ventura, Y.; Sagi, M. Halophyte Crop Cultivation: The Case for Salicornia and Sarcocornia. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2013, 92, 144–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Glenn, E.P.; O’Leary, J.W.; Watson, M.C.; Thompson, T.L.; Kuehl, R.O. Salicornia bigelovii Torr.: An Oilseed Halophyte for Seawater Irrigation. Science 1991, 251, 1065–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Guil, J.L.; Rodríguez-Garcí, I.; Torija, E. Nutritional and Toxic Factors in Selected Wild Edible Plants. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 1997, 51, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Pérez-romero, J.A.; Barcia-Piedras, J.M.; Redondo-Gómez, S.; Mateos-Naranjo, E.; Barcia-Piedras, J.M.; Redondo-Gómez, S.; Mateos-Naranjo, E. Impact of Short-Term Extreme Temperature Events on Physiological Performance of Salicornia ramosissima J. Woods under Optimal and Sub-Optimal Saline Conditions. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Maciel, E.; Lillebø, A.; Domingues, P.; da Costa, E.; Calado, R.; Domingues, M.R.M. Polar Lipidome Profiling of Salicornia ramosissima and Halimione portulacoides and the Relevance of Lipidomics for the Valorization of Halophytes. Phytochemistry 2018, 153, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Pantanella, E. Nutrition and Quality of Aquaponic Systems. Ph.D. Dissertation, Università Degli Studi Della Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  109. Lee, U.; Chang, S.; Putra, G.A.; Kim, H.; Kim, D.H. An Automated, High-Throughput Plant Phenotyping System Using Machine Learning-Based Plant Segmentation and Image Analysis. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0196615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Bandira, P.N.A.; Mahamud, M.A.; Samat, N.; Tan, M.L.; Chan, N.W. GIS-Based Multi-Criteria Evaluation for Potential Inland Aquaculture Site Selection in the George Town Conurbation, Malaysia. Land 2021, 10, 1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Species assessed for the selection of suitable species for saltwater aquaponics using DEXi method.
Table 1. Species assessed for the selection of suitable species for saltwater aquaponics using DEXi method.
Scientific NameFamilyComun NameResponse to Salinity
Aster tripolium L. [24]AsteraceaeSea asterSalt-tolerant glycophyte
Atriplex hortensis L. [25]AmaranthaceaeRed orachFacultative halophyte
Beta vulgaris var. cicla L. [26]AmaranthaceaeSwiss chardFacultative halophyte
Beta vulgaris ssp. maritima (L.) Arcang [27]AmaranthaceaeSea beetSalt-tolerant glycophyte
Cichlearia officinalis L. [28]BrassicaceaeScurvy grassSalt-tolerant glycophyte
Crithmum maritimum L. [29]ApiaceaeSea fennel, rock samphireFacultative halophyte
Diplotaxis tenuifolia (L.) DC. [30]BrassicaceaePerennial wallrocketSalt-tolerant glycophyte
Inula crithmoides L. [31]AsteraceaeSea grassFacultative halophyte
Portulaca oleracea L. [32]PortulacaceaeCommon purslaneSalt-tolerant glycophyte
Salicornia bigelovii Torr. [33]AmaranthaceaePickleweed, sea-beansObligate halophyte
Salicornia europaea L. [34]AmaranthaceaeMarsh samphireObligate halophyte
Salicornia fructicosa (L.) L. [35]AmaranthaceaeCommon glasswortObligate halophyte
Salicornia ramosissima J. Woods [36]AmaranthaceaePurple glasswortFacultative halophyte
Salsola soda L. [37]AmaranthaceaeAgrettiSalt-tolerant glycophyte
Tetragonia tetragonioides (Pall.) Kuntze [25]AmaranthaceaeNew Zealand spinachFacultative halophyte
Table
Table 2. Tree of attributes, assigned weights, and evaluation scale used in the present study.
Table 2. Tree of attributes, assigned weights, and evaluation scale used in the present study.
Criteria and IndicatorsWeights (%)Evaluation Scale
0 Plant species selection Excellent, Good, Medium, Poor, Unacceptable
1 Potential yield45Low, Medium, High
1.1 Annual yield33Low, Medium, High
1.2 Salinity tolerance and its impact on yield67Low, Medium, High
2 Seed availability in Italy and surrounding countries14Low, Medium, High
2.1 Source of seed27Low, High
2.2 Cost of seed per unit45Low, High
2.3 Availability of genetically selected strains27Low, High
3 Level of knowledge available11Low, Medium, High
3.1. Availability of biological/botanical features50Low, High
3.2. Availability of protocols for hydroponic cultivations50Low, High
4 Economic importance of the species30Low, Medium, High
4.1 Potential use of the species27Low, Medium, High
4.1.1 Species used as human food25Low, High
4.1.2 Species with pharmaceutical and cosmetic use75Low, High
4.2 Economic value of the species30Low, Medium, High
4.3 Nutritional characteristics of the species21Low, Medium, High
4.3.1 Protein content and amino acid profile50Low, High
4.3.2 Energy content50Low, High
4.4 Nutraceutical characteristics21Low, Medium, High
4.4.1 Vitamin content75Low, High
4.4.2 Mineral content25Low, High
Bold letters indicate aggregated criteria or sub-criteria; grey highlighted rows indicate criteria.
Table
Table 3. Annual yield of the considered plant species under optimal growing conditions.
Table 3. Annual yield of the considered plant species under optimal growing conditions.
Plant SpeciesAnnual Yield (kg m−2) *Optimal Salinity (g L−1)
A. tripolium L.18.3 [38]2.9–4.7 b [38,39]
A. hortensis L.60.1 [39]4.4–9.4 b [39]
B. vulgaris var. cicla L.9.6 [26]–10.5 [40]≈0–5.0 [26]
B. vulgaris ssp. maritima (L.) Arcang11.6 [40]–40.2 [41]7.3–14.6 b [42]
C. officinalis L.26.4 [28]0–2.9 b [43]
C. maritimum L.3.1 [44]5.8 b [44]
D. tenuifolia (L.) DC.36.9 [43]0–2.9 b [43]
I. crithmoides L.43.7 [31]6.3 c [31]
P. oleracea L.57.9 [45]1.6 b–6.3 b [46]
S. bigelovii Torr.27.9 [47]11.7 [47]
S. europaea L.25.3 [48]16.5–24.7 [48]
S. fructicosa (L.) L.9.8 [48]8.25–24.7 [48]
S. ramosissima J. Woods0.20 [49]0–3.4 b [49]
S. soda L.6.4 [50]4.5–8.9 c [50]
T. tetragonioides (Pall.) Kuntze4.2 [51]0.4–25.1 b [51]
* Yield was calculated on the basis of the production per each cultivation cycle and the number of cultivation cycles per year reported in the literature. b Calculated from NaCl concentrations. c Calculated from the value of electrical conductivity reported by Boyd [52] (multiplying the value of the electrical conductivity expressed in µS cm−1 × 0.00063).
Table
Table 4. Selected strains, price, and seed companies that sell the seeds of the considered plant species.
Table 4. Selected strains, price, and seed companies that sell the seeds of the considered plant species.
Plant SpeciesSeed CompanyStrainsPrice (EUR per 1000 Seeds)
A. tripolium L.Alsa Garden, 136 [53]
Pennard plants5.58 [54]
A. hortensis L.Alsa Garden, 171.6 [53]–89.2 [54]
Pennard plants
B. vulgaris var. cicla L.SAIS SpaVerde a costa larga argentata2.00 [55]
Candida2.00 [55]
Sibilla2.00 [55]
Barese2.00 [55]
Bright Yellow9.40 [55]
Bright Lights9.40 [55]
Rubarb chard2.00 [55]
SemencoopLusiana [56]
Barese [56]
Liscia verde da taglio [56]
Bright yellow [56]
Rubhard chard [56]
Rondinella [56]
B. vulgaris ssp. maritima (L.) ArcangPennard plants 34.3 [54]
C. officinalis L. B & T World Seeds 6.4 [57]
C. maritimum L. Alsa Garden, 220 [53]
D. tenuifolia (L.) DC. SAIS SpaGiuditta15.5 [55]
Olivia16.6 [55]
RB sementiWinner0.52 [58]
Florence0.22 [58]
Enza ZadenJolizia [59]
Letizia [59]
Prudenzia F1 [59]
Tanazia [59]
Tricia [59]
Semencoop [56]
I. crithmoidesB & T World Seeds 56.9 [57]
P. oleracea L. Alsa Garden 33 [53]
S. bigelovii Torr. B & T World Seeds [57]
S. europaea L. Alsa Garden 7.90 [53]
T. tetragonioides (Pall.) Kuntze Pennard plants 111.5 [54]
S. soda L.Alsa Garden, 165.2 [53]
Pennard plants–74.3 [54]
Table
Table 5. Nutraceutical characteristics and main commercial use of the considered plant species.
Table 5. Nutraceutical characteristics and main commercial use of the considered plant species.
Plant SpeciesNutraceutical CharacteristicsEdible PartCommercial Use
A. tripolium L. [38,60]Source of minerals.LeavesFresh alone or mixed in salads and cooked (e.g., boiled), and ornamental.
A. hortensis L. [25,61]Source of Vitamin C and saponins. Source of calcium, potassium, copper, and manganese. Source of vitamin C.LeavesFresh alone or mixed in salads and cooked (e.g., boiled), animal fodder, herbal medicine, and ornamental.
B. vulgaris var. cicla; L. [62]Source magnesium, calcium, and phosphorus. source of vitamins A, E, B3, B5, and B9.LeavesFresh alone or mixed in salads and cooked (e.g., boiled) and modern pharmacology.
B. vulgaris ssp. maritima (L.) Arcang [63]Source of vitamin E.LeavesFresh alone or mixed in salads and cooked.
C. officinalis L. [43,64]Source of vitamin C.LeavesFresh alone or mixed in salads, herbal medicine.
C. maritimum L. [29,44]Source of vitamin A, B2, C and potassium.LeavesFresh alone or mixed in salads and cooked (e.g., boiled), herbal medicine.
D. tenuifolia (L.) DC. [43]Source of vitamin C. Significant concentration of mineralsLeavesFresh alone or mixed in salads.
I. crithmoides L. [65]Source of minerals.LeavesFresh alone or mixed in salads and cooked (e.g., boiled), and animal fodder, ornamental, herbal medicine.
P. oleracea L. [32,66]Source of potassium and magnesium. Source of vitamin A, vitamin C.LeavesFresh mixed in salads, herbal medicine and used in modern pharmacology.
S. bigelovii Torr. [33]Source of vitamins A and C, and minerals.ShootsOilseed production, fresh food, animal fodder and herbal medicine.
S. europaea L. [34]Source of vitamin C, carotenoids, and mineral elementsShootsFresh alone or mixed in salad and cooked (e.g., boiled).
S. fructicosa (L.) L. [45]Source of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidant compoundsShootsFresh alone or mixed in salad and cooked (e.g., boiled).
S. ramosissima J. Woods [36]Source of lipophilic phytochemicals, antioxidants, and nutrients as fiber magnesium, potassium, calcium, and iron.ShootsFresh alone or mixed in salads and cooked (e.g., boiled) and substitute of salt, herbal medicine.
S. soda L. [53,67]Source of calcium and iron. Source of vitamin A, C and K.Leaves and stemProcessed food, herbal medicine and used in modern pharmacology.
T. tetragonioides (Pall.) Kuntze [25]Source of minerals such as iron and calcium. Source of vitamin C.LeavesFresh alone or mixed in salads, herbal medicine, and modern pharmacology.
Table
Table 6. Protein content of the considered plant species.
Table 6. Protein content of the considered plant species.
SpeciesProtein Content (g 100 g−1 FW)
A. tripolium L.0.9–2.1 b [68]
A. hortensis L.17.0 [69]
B. vulgaris var. cicla1.1 [70]
B. vulgaris ssp. maritima (L.) Arcang3.4 a [71]
C. officinalis L.4.2 [72]
C. maritimum L.1.6 [29]
D. tenuifolia (L.) DC.2.4 b [73]
I. crithmoides L.2.4 b [31]
P. oleracea L.1.5–3.0 [74]
S. bigelovii Torr.1.5 [33]
S. europaea L.3.1 a [75]
S. fructicosa (L.) L.0.3–0.4 [48]
S. ramosissima J. Woods0.8 b [76]
S. soda L.1.8 [70]
T. tetragonioides (Pall.) Kuntze3.09 [77]
a Calculated from organic nitrogen concentration. b Calculated from the protein value expressed in dry weight.
Table
Table 7. Selling price of the considered plant species.
Table 7. Selling price of the considered plant species.
SpeciesPrice (Euro kg−1)Product
A. tripolium L.n.d.Fresh leaves
A. hortensis L.7.5 [78]Fresh leaves
B. vulgaris var. cicla L.1.0–1.5 [79]Fresh leaves
B. vulgaris ssp. maritima (L.) Arcang0.6–0.8 [79]Fresh leaves
C. officinalis L.10.3 [80]Dry leaves
C. maritimum L.0.7–1.3 [79]Fresh shoots
D. tenuifolia (L.) DC.14.9 [81]Fresh leaves
I. crithmoides L.1.9–2.2 [79]Fresh leaves
P. oleracea L.0.3 [82]Fresh leaves
S. bigelovii Torr.6 [34]Fresh shoots
S. europaea L.
S. fructicosa (L.) L.
S. ramosissima J. Woods
S. soda L.4–4.5 [83]Fresh stem and leaves
T. tetragonioides (Pall.) Kuntze24 [84]Fresh leaves
Table
Table 8. Assigned scores and results of the considered plant species (with % of relevance of each indicator) and sensitivity analysis for criteria, for the lower salinity (10 g L−1) scenario.
Table 8. Assigned scores and results of the considered plant species (with % of relevance of each indicator) and sensitivity analysis for criteria, for the lower salinity (10 g L−1) scenario.
Criteria and IndicatorsWeight (%)A. tripoliumA. hortensis.B. vulgaris var ciclaB. vulgaris spp. maritimaC. officinalisC. maritimumD. tenuifoliaI. crithmoidesP. oleraceaS. bigeloviiS. europaea.S. fructicosaS. ramosissimaS. soda.T. tetragonoides
1. Potential yield45MHMHLMMMMHHMMMM
1.1. Annual yield33HHMHM (+)LH (−)HHM (−)ML (+)LL (+)L (+)
1.2. Salinity tolerance and its impact on yield67M (+)H (−)M (+)H (−)L (+)M (−)LM (−)MH (−)HHM (−)HH
2. Seed availability in Italy and surrounding countries14LLHLLLHLLLLLLLL
2.1. Source of seed27LLHLLLHLHLLLLHL
2.2. Cost of seed per unit45LLHLLLHLLLLLLL (+)L
2.3. Availability of genetically selected strains27LLHLLLHLLLLLLLL
3. Level of knowledge available11MMHMLMHLHMHLMLL
3.1. Availability of biological/botanical features50HHHH (−)LH-HLH (−)H (−)HLHLL
3.2. Availability of protocols for hydroponic cultivations50LLHLLLHLH (−)LHLL (+)LL
4. Economic importance of the species30MHMMMMLMHMHHHHH
4.1. Potential use of the species27MMHMMMMMHMMMMHH
4.1.1. Species with pharmaceutical and cosmetic use25LLHLLLLLH (−)LLLLHH
4.1.2. Species used as human food75HHHHHHGHH (−)HHHHHH
4.2. Economic value of the species30HHL (+)LHLLMLHHHHHL
4.3. Nutritional characteristicsof the species21MHMHHMMMHLHMMLH
4.3.1. Protein and amino acids content50HHL (+)HHLLLH (−)LHLLLH
4.3.2. Energy content50LHHHHHHHH (−)LHHHLH
4.4. Nutraceutical characteristics21MMHHLHLMHHHHHHH
4.4.1. Vitamin content75LLHHLH (−)LL (−)H (−)HHHHHH
4.4.2. Mineral content25HHHLLLLHHHHHHHH
Plant species selection MGMGPMMMGGGMMMM
Bold letters indicate aggregated criteria or sub-criteria; grey highlighted rows indicate criteria; symbols means that a ‘plus/minus 1’ change in the indicator’s score affects the ‘Plant species selection’ value positively (+) or negatively (−); H: High, M: Medium, and L: Low for criteria score; G: Good, M: Medium, P: Poor, and U: Unacceptable.
Table
Table 9. Assigned scores and results of the considered plant species (with % of relevance of each indicator) and sensitivity analysis for criteria, for the higher salinity (35 g L−1) scenario.
Table 9. Assigned scores and results of the considered plant species (with % of relevance of each indicator) and sensitivity analysis for criteria, for the higher salinity (35 g L−1) scenario.
Criteria and IndicatorsWeight (%)A. tripoliumA. hortensis.B. vulgaris var ciclaB. vulgaris spp. maritimaC. officinalisC. maritimumD. tenuifoliaI. crithmoidesP. oleraceaS. bigeloviiS. europaea.S. fructicosaS. ramosissimaS. soda.T. tetragonoides
1. Potential yield45MMLMLLMMMMHMLLM
1.1. Annual yield33H (−)H (−)MHM (+)LH (−)H (−)H (−)MML (+)LLL
1.2. Salinity tolerance and its impact on yield67LLLM (+)L (+)L (+)LLLM (±)HHL (+)L (+)M (−)
2. Seed availability in Italy and surrounding countries14LLHLLLHLLLLLLLL
2.1. Source of seed27LLHLLLHLHLLLLHL
2.2. Cost of seed per unit45LLH (−)LLLHLLLLLLL (+)L
2.3. Availability of genetically selected strains27LLHLLLHLLLLLLLL
3. Level of knowledge available11MMHMLMHLHMHLMLL
3.1. Availability of biological/botanical features50HHH (−)HLHHL (+)H (−)HHLHLL
3.2. Availability of protocols for hydroponic cultivations50LL (+)H (−)LLLHL (+)H (−)LHLL (+)LL
4. Economic importance of the species30MHMMMMLMHMHHHHH
4.1. Potential use of the species27MMHMMMMMHMMMMHH
4.1.1. Species with pharmaceutical and cosmetic use25LLHLLLLLH (−)LLLLHH
4.1.2. Species used as human food75HHHHHHGHH (−)HHHHHH
4.2. Economic value of the species30HHLLHLLMLHHHHHL
4.3. Nutritional characteristics of the species21MHMHHMMMHLHMMLH
4.3.1. Protein and amino acids content50HHLHHLLLH (−)LHLLLH
4.3.2. Energy content50LHHHHHHHH (−)LHHHLH
4.4. Nutraceutical characteristics21MMHHLHLMHHHHHHH
4.4.1. Vitamin content75LLHHLH (−)LLH (−)HHHHHH
4.4.2. Mineral content25HHHLLLLHHHHHHHH
Plant species selection MMMMPPMMGMGMPPM
Bold letters indicate aggregated criteria or sub-criteria; grey highlighted rows indicate criteria; symbols means that a ‘plus/minus 1’ change in the indicator’s score affects the ‘Plant species selection’ value positively (+) or negatively (−); H: High, M: medium, and L: Low for criteria score; G: Good, M: Medium, P: Poor, and U: Unacceptable.
Table
Table 10. Final score for the considered plant species in two scenarios using DEXi method.
Table 10. Final score for the considered plant species in two scenarios using DEXi method.
SpeciesScenario
Low Salinity (10 g L−1)High Salinity (35 g L−1)
A. tripolium L.MediumMedium
A. hortensis L.GoodMedium
B. vulgaris var. cicla L.MediumMedium
B. vulgaris ssp. maritima (L.) ArcangGoodMedium
C. officinalis L.PoorPoor
C. maritimum L.MediumPoor
D. tenuifolia (L.) DC.MediumMedium
I. crithmoides L.MediumMedium
P. oleracea L.GoodGood
S. bigelovii Torr.GoodMedium
S. europaea L.GoodGood
S. fructicosa (L.) L.MediumMedium
S. ramosissima J. WoodsMediumPoor
S. soda L.MediumPoor
T. tetragonoides (Pall.) KuntzeMediumMedium
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Puccinelli, M.; Fierro-Sañudo, J.F.; Bibbiani, C.; Fronte, B.; Maibam, C.; Dubois, T.; Pardossi, A.; Incrocci, L.; Rossi, L. Multi-Criteria DEXi Analysis for the Selection of Crop Species for Saltwater Aquaponics. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 703. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8080703

AMA Style

Puccinelli M, Fierro-Sañudo JF, Bibbiani C, Fronte B, Maibam C, Dubois T, Pardossi A, Incrocci L, Rossi L. Multi-Criteria DEXi Analysis for the Selection of Crop Species for Saltwater Aquaponics. Horticulturae. 2022; 8(8):703. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8080703

Chicago/Turabian Style

Puccinelli, Martina, Juan Francisco Fierro-Sañudo, Carlo Bibbiani, Baldassare Fronte, Chingoileima Maibam, Theo Dubois, Alberto Pardossi, Luca Incrocci, and Lorenzo Rossi. 2022. "Multi-Criteria DEXi Analysis for the Selection of Crop Species for Saltwater Aquaponics" Horticulturae 8, no. 8: 703. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8080703

APA Style

Puccinelli, M., Fierro-Sañudo, J. F., Bibbiani, C., Fronte, B., Maibam, C., Dubois, T., Pardossi, A., Incrocci, L., & Rossi, L. (2022). Multi-Criteria DEXi Analysis for the Selection of Crop Species for Saltwater Aquaponics. Horticulturae, 8(8), 703. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8080703

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop