EI dosing, non CO2 methods, test kits, you name it.

[Tobias Coring]

Hi Tom,

i have tried EI for a long time but was not completely successful. They plants grew so so…
I ask because after testing a lot other dosing regimes EI was still the best for my tank and i want to switch back to a slighlty modified EI dosing.

I have plenty of light over my tank (4x39w T5-HO) but I’m not using it for the full length of the photoperiod. (10 hours 2x39w + additional 3-5 hours the other 2x39w).

I know that you always expect CO2 to be deficient, when the other nutrients are kept in a good range. But my CO2 is top notch. I use direct misting and my pH is dropping from 7.7 to 6,2-6,5. My KH4 Drop Checker shows a nice green/bright green and the plants are pearling like mad.

My main question is considering the micronutrients… I’ve used a german fertilizer named Ferrdrakon. The composition is very close to TMG. The result was not satisfying and I’ve switched to TMG without any gain. At the end I nearly dosed the double\triple amount to cure my very pale leaves.

I know that you are no friend of inhibitions or something like that. But could it be something with Boron or is there maybe any problem with calcium or potassium or even magnesium? I’ve read nearly all those discussions on APC, the aquatic plants mailing list, every thread on your forum and on theplantedtank but a generel solution could not be found in most of those discussions. Some could solve their problems and others still struggle. You for example had no problems with high potassium values, but some have the same deficient plants like me with higher potassium (for example nearly white zosterifolia).
Could some elements from the trace fertilizer build up (even with 50% water change) and prohibit good and fast growth under some conditions? For example… if I add 0,05 ppm boron to my tank, every plant is going to be stunted after about 4-6 days.
My deficiencies look exactly like a shortage of iron, magnesium or even on some plants like calcium. I’ve added all those elements in excess without success .
After all i know that the method do not fail but i fail and i want to know why . Macros could not be the problem and micros should be in a good range too. But is a generel excess of micros working like the macro excess? With terrestrial plants you have to be careful when applying fertilizer directly on the leaves, to prevent burning.
I also know that you dropped nearly a full bottle flourish in one of your tanks and nothing bad happened. But flourish contains for example no strong chelates. Could a build up of chealtes prevent the good growth or are the plants with alot light not able to uptake enough of the nutrients. (I know that you can't generalize my problems)


This was my dosing regime:

½ tsp KNO3 (3x times a week)
1/8 tsp KH2PO4 (3xtimes a week)
occasionally 1/8 tsp K2SO4
10 ml TMG 3x per week
(after some problems with pale leaves additional 13% EDTA iron up to a a ppm of 1.0-2.0 iron)

1/2 tsp MgSO4x7H2O after Waterchange
1 tsp CaSO4 after Waterchange (started dosing this after the pale leaves)

KH=4, GH=7

tap water has: KH 4, GH 6, calcium=32-36 ppm, magnesium 6-10 ppm. After the problems continued i bought a RO unit and switched to 100% RO water. (KH and GH have been altered to match the tap levels)

Could a specific traceelement be deficient? Just adding more TMG for example made nothing better. At what levels can we expect to much fertilizer in our tank?

Some pictures to give you a clue about those problems in the past .

Weiß

• Tobias Coring
• 9 August 2007

Rota

• Tobias Coring
• 10 Oktober 2007

I don't expect a real solution... just some more informations to understand those complexes. Feel free to give some references for literature. I can get most books in the library of my university.

Thanks alot in advance,
Tobi

---

Übersetzung:

Hi Tom.

Ich habe lange nach dem EI gedüngt, war damit jedoch nicht total erfolgreich. Die Pflanzen wuchsen mal besser mal schlechter…
Ich frage nun nach, da nach vielen Versuchen mit anderen Düngemethoden der EI dennoch das beste für mein Becken darstellt und ich nun auch wieder mit einer leicht abgewandelten EI Methode düngen werde.

Ich habe einiges an Licht über meinem Becken (4x39w T5-HO), jedoch nutze ich diese nicht für die gesamte Länge der Photoperiode (10 Stunden 2x39w und zusätzlich 3-5 Stunden den weiteren Leuchtbalken mit 2x39w)

Ich weiß, dass du immer von einem CO2 Mangel ausgehst, so lange die anderen Nährstoffe auf ausreichenden Werten gehalten werden. Mein CO2 Gehalt ist jedoch Spitze. Ich nutze eine direkte CO2 Benebelung der Pflanzen, die meinen pH Wert von 7.7 auf 6,2-6,5 drückt. Mein KH4 CO2 Dauertest zeigt ein schönes grün bis hellgrün.

Meine eigentliche Frage bezieht sich auf die Mikronährstoffe. Ich habe zunächst einen deutschen Dünger namens Ferrdrakon genutzt. Deren Zusammensetzung ist dem Tropica Mastergrow (Tropica Pflanzennahrung) sehr ähnlich. Die Ergebnisse damit waren aber nicht zufriedenstellend und somit wechselte ich auf TMG, ohne jedoch damit bessere Erfolge zu erzielen. Gegen Ende habe ich das doppelte manchmal sogar das dreifache der empfohlenen Dosierung verabreicht, um meine sehr blassen Blätter wieder in Schwung zu bekommen.

Ich weiß, dass du kein Freund von Nährstoffblockierungen oder dergleichen bist. Könnte es dennoch irgendetwas mit Bor zutun haben oder besteht vielleicht ein Problem mit Calcium oder Kalium oder vielleicht sogar Magnesium?
Ich habe wohl beinahe alle Diskussionen über dieses Thema bei APC, the aquatic mailing list, in deinem Forum und bei theplantedtank gelesen, jedoch konnte in keinem Thema eine generelle Lösung bezüglich der Probleme gefunden werden. Einige haben ihre Probleme vielleicht gelöst, jedoch haben ebenso viele weiterhin mit diesen zu kämpfen. Du hast zum Beispiel keinerlei Probleme mit sehr hohen Kaliumwerten gehabt, andere dagegen haben ähnliche Mangelerscheinungen wie ich mit hohen Kaliumwerten. (zum Beispiel sehr weiße H. zosterifolia).
Können sich vielleicht einige Elemente aus dem Volldünger anhäufen? (selbst bei 50% Wasserwechsel pro Woche) und damit guten und schnellen Wuchs verhindern?
Wenn ich zum Beispiel meinem Becken 0,05 mg/l Bor hinzufüge bekomme ich einen kompletten Wuchsstop nach ca. 4-6 Tagen.

Meine Mangelerscheinungen sehen wie ein Mangel an Eisen oder Magnesium aus, einige Pflanzen sehen auch nach einem Calciummangel aus. Ich habe alle diese Elemente in sehr üppiger Form zugedüngt, ohne Erfolg.
Nach allem weiß ich, dass nicht die Düngemthode versagt, sondern natürlich ich bei der Anwendung, aber ich will natürlich wissen wieso?! . Die Makronährstoffe sollten ausreichend vorhanden sein, ebenso die Mikronährstoffe. Ist aber ein Überschuss an Mikronährstoffen genauso praktikabel wie ein Überschuss an Makronährstoffen? Bei terrestrischen Pflanzen muss man ja ebenfalls recht vorsichtig bei der Blattdüngung sein, da die Pflanzen sonst schnell „verbrennen“ können.
Ich weiß auch, dass du beinahe eine ganze Flasche seachem flourish (Volldünger) in eines deiner Becken geschüttet hattest, ohne das dabei irgendwelche Nachteile entstanden sind.
Flourish enthält aber keine starken Chelate. Könnte eine Ansammlung an Chelaten den guten Wuchs hindern oder können Pflanzen in einigen Becken mit sehr viel Licht nicht genügend Nährstoffe aufnehmen? (ich weiß, dass man in diesem Bezug mein Problem nicht generalisieren kann)

Dies war meine Düngeroutine:

½ tsp KNO3 (3x pro Woche)
1/8 tsp KH2PO4 (3xt pro Woche)
gelegentlich 1/8 tsp K2SO4
10 ml TMG 3x pro Woche
(nach ein paar Problemen mit blassen Blättern zusätzlich 13% EDTA Eisen bis zu einem Wert von 1.0 – 2.0 mg/l)

1/2 tsp MgSO4x7H2O nach dem Wasserwechsel
1 tsp CaSO4 nach dem Wasserwechsel (dies wurde erst angefangen zu dosieren, als die hellen Blätter auftraten)

KH=4, GH=7

Das Leitungswasser hat: KH 4, GH 6, calcium=32-36 mg/l, magnesium 6-10 mg/l

Könnte vielleicht ein bestimmtes Spurenelement fehlen? Nur die TMG Dosis zu erhöhen brachte beispielsweise keinen Vorteil. Ab welchen Werten kann man von zuviel Dünger im Aquarium sprechen?

Einige Bilder um dir ein Bild von den Mangelsymptomen in der Vergangenheit zu verschaffen:



Ich erwarte keine wirkliche Lösung des Problems… lediglich ein paar weiter Informationen, um die Vorgänge besser zu verstehen. Über ein paar Literaturquellen würde ich mich ebenfalls freuen, da ich sehr viele Bücher hier in der Universität bekommen kann.

Vielen dank im voraus,
Tobi

 

[Tom Barr]

Tobi et al,

I would suggest the modified PMDD with PO4.
This is where the link is for this:

This was around long before PPS, and the dosing amounts are rather, well they are, pretty much the same as PMDD.

Here's an example:

http://www.barrreport.com/estimative-in ... osing.html

You can easily reduce the mls added to suit.

Unlike Edward, I know how to isolate and test for things well.
You need to provide non limiting factors if you want to test for a dependent variable, this is basic science. So we need to add non limiting levels for N, P, K, Fe, etc if we want to test for CO2 optimal levels, and optimal non limiting CO2, P, K, etc etc for NO3.

Problem is, many aquarist cannot nor have the mastery to do this and have such control.

A method might by shear luck allow them some "tenuous balance", however, as we can see for the examples I've provided as well as many other folks over long time frames, EI does clearly work, as dose PMDD, PPS etc and ADA and non CO2 as well as many other methods.

As these methods clearly "work"
, it is not the fault of the method itself, rather, we can find examples of hobbyists, quite a few in fact that fail at each of these methods. There are many reason possible they fail.

But...........it's not the methods fault.
It's our fault we fail. :idea:

We often will blame the method, not ourselves.
So we should go back and master the method/s, and not assume so much when we do so.
This "human nature" aspect will get us into trouble, cause us to believe in the myths and not allows us to figure things out well. Do not believe everything you think.

Once you master one method, move on and try to master the one's you failed at and understand why each one works relative to the other.

Trying to understand why all the methods work and why...........is a goal I had many years ago.
I can explain why each works and why there is little algae in virtually any tank, and with any method, that includes marine systems as well.

Why?

Plants grow for pretty much the same reasons, so do algae, they just grow at different rates and adapt to different environments, so do we and most organisms for that matter.

Now, about the issue you are having.
Claus and I spoke many years ago about dosing TMG.
He complained that most of the planted aquariums(but not mine) in the USA back then had very micro deficient plants.

Many used the suggested dosing amounts on the label on the bottle.
That is fine for lower light, sparsely plants tanks without CO2.

The suggestions/directions are conservative on SeaChem, TMG and most brands.
I suggest no less than 5mls per 70 liters of aquarium 3-4x a week.
So per 70-80 liters of tank, dosing 15-25mls a week should be done.

So if you like daily dosing, 15-25mls/7 days = 2-4 mls a day.
If you look back at some of the dosing suggestions, they are pretty rich for traces.
If the tap water is hard(KH), then you will likely require higher dosages of Traces.

Your drive to understand why there was failure is good.
As long as you do not assume too much. :idea:

Be very careful there.

The passion to learn and understand is why I keep learning about plants.
Yes, you learn by making mistakes, some people get frustrated and quit.

I am far more tenacious than many people.
If you see me debate an issue, you'll see that.
If you see about a court battle several years ago, you'll see me being very tenacious there.

I do not claim to be the smartest guy, but I do not give up.
That is my redeeming quality, I go back at it again and try a new angle, a new idea etc.


=========================
The burning does not occur at the lower concentrations in submersed plants. Nor does excess blocking/inhibiting etc. the upper ranges for PO4, K are extremely high, well over 100ppm. Even for the most sensitive plants. Same with NO3.
Fe? I guess maybe 5-10ppm perhaps.
GH? Above 20-25 degrees.

CO2? The fish's limits relative to O2.

Current is a huge issue, good current was mentioned in the Dupla book back in the 1980's but many have gone to less flow.

One old argument was the left over chelates re bound the traces, but that's rubbish.

We have labeled Fe etc with radio isotopes and then measured the tissue inside the plant.
ETDA works well at lower KH/pH's, the DTPA used by Tropica is pretty good for most moderately hard tap water.

While you may focus a bit on the other metals, namely Fe is the one that needs the chelator.
Fe gluconate is weak(good for lower KH's)
Fe DTPA is strong and good for higher KH
Fe ETDA is decent for lower soft water KH

I use and have developed 3 others for marine systems, and Fw planted systems, one is 100% bioavailable to the plants, the other is well suited for marine systems, one is a mixture of several weak, medium and strong chelators.

This targets every type of tap water/tank water etc.

Plants all grow for the same reason.
Clean the tank good.
Do large water changes with good tap or know the parameters of the tap water you use.
If it is high in PO4, NO3, you may not need to add any.
Just K+, Mg, Ca, Traces etc.

Getting the nutrients right is relatively easy. You just provide non limiting conditions.
The CO2 and light is another matter.
They are harder to measure and account for.

Patience and keeping up on things is yet another issue.
You might be better suited to dose daily for your habits.
EI has never been about dosing 3x a week, that;'s just a suggestion, you can divide the week amounts by 7 and dose dry or in a liquid.
It's really up to you.
Likewise, doing weekly water changes just makes sure nothing gets beyond 2x the weekly dose if you change 50%. I can easily go 3-4 weeks without any water changes or longer.

If you are doing the CO2 mist, then that's fairly safe in the path where the CO2 rich water hits and flows.

Try dosing daily for a bit. Tweak the CO2 a bit, see what it does in the am, midday and evening.
Watch the plants well, see if they are pearling well.
If the nutrients and flow are good, and filter is cleaned etc, water changes etc, then you have isolated most things other than CO2, light is not going to change much other than your pre set times.

So slowly add a touch more CO2, and then also........wait for things to settle and get going, the growth should take off in a few days and keep accelerating.

If not, go back and recheck things again.
I do not know how many times I thought something was nutrients when it was CO2, or the filter, or flow etc.



Regards,
Tom Barr

---

Ãœbersetzung:

Tobi und andere,

ich würde einen modifiziertes PMDD mit PO4 vorschlagen.

Dies war lange Zeit vor dem PPS und dessen Dosierung ist beinahe, wenn nicht sogar genauso wie die vom PMDD.

Hier ist ein kleines Beispiel für PMDD+Po4 Dosierung:

http://www.barrreport.com/estimative-in ... osing.html

Man kann hierbei sehr einfach die ml reduzieren, bis man die optimale Dosierung für sein Becken gefunden hat.

Gegenüber Edward verstehe ich es wie man Dinge isoliert und danach testet. Zunächst werden unlimitierte Rahmenbedingungen geschaffen, um für eine abhängige Variable zu testen. Dies ist einfache Wissenschaft. Wir müssen somit nicht limitierte Werte für N, P, K, Fe usw. schaffen, wenn wir für die optimalen CO2 Werte testen wollen oder z.B. nicht limitiertes CO2, P, K, usw. wenn wir für NO3 Tests machen wollen.

Das Problem liegt hierbei, dass viele Aquarianer weder das Können noch die Möglichkeit haben diese Tests mit der nötigen Präzision auszuführen.

Eine Methode mag dem einen durch bloßes Glück eine „dünne Balance“ im Becken schaffen, wie wir auch schon durch Beispiele die ich geliefert habe sehen konnten, ebenso wie es viele Beispiele von anderen Aquarianern gibt, die zeigen, dass es viele Methoden gibt die über eine lange Zeit funktionieren. EI funktioniert definitiv, genauso wie PMDD, PPS, usw. und auch ADA, nicht CO2 Becken und viele andere Methoden.

Da diese Methoden alle „funktionieren“, ist nicht die Methode falsch, sondern der Aquarianer hat Probleme bei der Umsetzung dieser. Es gibt viele Ursachen wieso so etwas nicht funktionieren kann.

Jedoch ist es niemals Schuld der Methode. Es ist immer unsere eigene Schuld.

Wir beschuldigen dann schnell die Methode selbst und nicht uns. Deshalb sollten wir uns erneut auch an solchen Methoden versuchen und nicht so schnell irgendwelche Annahmen machen. Dieser Aspekt unserer „menschlichen Natur“ lässt hier die Probleme aufkommen, da wir eher schnell an Mythen glauben, anstatt den Dingen wirklich auf den Grund zu gehen. Glaube nicht immer alles was du denkst.

Sobald du eine Methode perfektioniert hast kannst du zu den Methoden zurückkehren, die nicht funktioniert haben, und verstehen wieso sie damals nicht richtig liefen.

Der Versuch alle Methoden und deren Ablauf zu verstehen war mein Ziel vor vielen Jahren.
Ich kann daher gut erklären wieso die einzelnen Methoden funktionieren und wieso dadurch keine Algen verursacht werden, dies gilt auch für Meerwasseraquarien.

Wieso?
Pflanzen wachsen aus den selben Gründen wie auch Algen, letztere wachsen lediglich in unterschiedlicher Geschwindigkeit und können sich gut an unterschiedliche Bedingungen anpassen. Dies können wir ebenfalls und viele andere Organismen auch.

Nun bezüglich deines Problems.
Claus und ich haben vor einigen Jahren über die Dosierung von TMG gesprochen. Er bemängelte, dass die meisten Pflanzenaquarien in den USA damals starke Mikronährstoffmängel aufwiesen (meins fiel nicht darunter).

Viele nutzten die empfohlene Dosieranleitung auf der Packung. Diese ist jedoch für weniger Licht, weniger Pflanzen und ohne CO2 ausgelegt.

Die Düngeempfehlungen von vielen Herstellen wie z.B. SeaChem, TMG und vielen anderen Marken sind somit sehr konservativ.
Ich schlage deshalb nicht weniger als 5ml pro 70 Liter Wasser 3-4x pro Woche vor.
Ein Becken mit 70-80 Liter sollte somit mit einer Dosierung von 15-25ml gut funktionieren.

Wenn man tägliche Dosierung bevorzugt kann man die Dosierung (15-25/7) auf die einzelnen Tage verteilen und somit täglich 2-4ml verabreichen.
Wenn man hartes Leitungswasser hat (hohe KH), muss man ggf. mehr Volldünger hinzufügen.

Es ist gut, dass du versuchst die Fehler zu verstehen. Jedoch sollte man vorsichtig damit sein zu viel anzunehmen.

Die Hingabe zu lernen und zu verstehen treibt mich auch weiterhin an mehr über Pflanzen zu erfahren. Natürlich lernt man auch über Fehler die man begeht, einige Personen frustriert sowas nur und sie geben auf.

Ich bin in dem Bezug sehr viel hartnäckiger als viele andere Leute.
Wenn ich über etwas diskutiere wirst du schnell meine Hartnäckigkeit erkennen.
Ich war aber auch bei einem Justizstreit vor einigen Jahren sehr beharrlich.

Ich behaupte nicht, dass ich der Intelligenteste bin, jedoch gebe ich nicht auf.
Das ist primär meine herausragende Eigenschaft. Ich begebe mich immer wieder an eine Sache, probiere sie von unterschiedlichen Seiten zu betrachten und neue Ideen zu bekommen usw.

=========================
Das “verbrennenâ€

 

[Tobias Coring]

Hi Tom,

thanks for your extensive answer. I think i have found my growth problems. The shop i've bought KNO3 sold me some "nitrite curing salt". I was dosing this for months .

After switching to KNO3 normal growth began after 2-3 days.

Best Regards,
Tobi

 

[Tom Barr]

Wow,
That's crazy stuff to add
Lucky the plants and fish did not die!

As you can see, there are many things that we overlook and need to consider
Glad no losses and that growth returned in 2-3 days.
Do some water changes!
Get that stuff out of the tank!

Do not feel bad, 15 years ago I added K2SO4, thinking it was KNO3, I just got some from a friend etc and got them mixed up.

regards,
tom Barr


Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Alex_W]

Hi Tom,

I registered to this forum just to get this question answered (although i think, as an interested Fish-keeper i'll stay longer ;-))...

I'm a scientist too, and i use the unit ppm different from how you do:

i always considered the only meaning of the unit as parts per million (parts), but you seem to use it in the sense of mg/kg. At least in Chucks calculator it is used this way, and that makes a huge difference. For example, if you calculate what concentration the addition of 1 gramm of KNO3 to one liter of water yields, chucks calculator claims 613 ppm. Thats, from my point of view, wrong. its 613 mg KNO3/kg water, but just ~180 parts of NO3 per 1 million parts of H2O.

Therefore id like to know if this is a mistake, or if the unit ppm is usually used in the meaning of mg/kg amongst biologists?

Thanks in advance, best regards
Alex

 

[Tom Barr]

Hi Alex,

I'm not sure where the idea that I use mg/kg.
However, I use ppm's in water as milligrams/liter.
I do no think I've stated otherwise.

Most folks assume that mg/l = ppm.

I think of it terms of mg/liter, not parts or atoms.

To do that, I prefer millimolar concentrations which is what I believe you are getting at.
I personally prefer "millimolar", it tends to be used more so than ppm's, at least in science.

So it's not a "mistake", it's just a different unit is all.
One that most aquarist are familiar with.

If you do the conversion of millimoles from mg/l, you get the same results as you mention

Regards,
Tom Barr

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Alex_W]

Hi Tom,

thanks for the explanation. it seem that engineers just use the unit ppm differently. one part means for me one atom, or molecule. But knowing now that you use it for milligram per liter (or kg, for water based solutions there is luckily no significant difference) i can now calculate my fertilisation based on your findings.

Thanks once more, best regards
Alex

 

[Mario K]

Hello Tom.

I want to note, that waterplants from hard water use HCO3- as a carbon source, so they don´t need to fertilize with CO2.

Don´t underestimate the action from bacteria. In natural waters most CO2 comes from bacteria work. It depends from organic mass in the sediment. So if you use a soil with a amount of organic substance in your aquarium, you can get a lot of CO2!

Plants can save nutriens in her vacuoles, even more than they need. So how can you explain this positive effects on plants with a constant high fertilisation? What happens if you leave out the fertilisation for a while?

Is it meaningful to take a look how to cultivat algae to learn to combat them? I have read that algae use NO3- same effective as higher plants. And higher plants mostly prefer NH4+ to NO3-. Your algae-NH4+ hypothesis is interesting. I hope you find out more. Please make some tests.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read D.Wahlstad and prefer to use soil in a aquarium.

What do you say to this set-up:

PO4 and FE given only from the ground (all mico nutriens too)

K, NO3, Ca, Mg etc. given by water

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Tom Barr]

Hi Tom,

thanks for the explanation. it seem that engineers just use the unit ppm differently. one part means for me one atom, or molecule. But knowing now that you use it for milligram per liter (or kg, for water based solutions there is luckily no significant difference) i can now calculate my fertilisation based on your findings.

Thanks once more, best regards
Alex

Well, it really depends on the field and what question is being asked.

The Redfield Ratio is often discussed in aquatic biology but it's an atomic ratio, not one based on mass.

1:16 P: N is a ratio of atoms, not weights.

Yet folks make this mistake and then even told, they keep making the same mistake

If you use mass, then the ratio becomes 1: 7.2.
Which is about what EI and most ratios by mass are found in aquatic plants.

If you look up the definition for ppm and mg/l they should be the same for nutrients/water parameters.

Still, "millimolar" works well.

regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Tom Barr]

Hello Tom.

I want to note, that waterplants from hard water use HCO3- as a carbon source, so they don´t need to fertilize with CO2.

So what happens when the HCO3 is all gone?

We have never "needed" to fertilize with CO2 gas.
It just increases the rates of growth 10-25X or so.
We use it to increase the growth, not so much because it's needed.

If a "balanced tank" is our real goal, then a non CO2 approach is better.
We might not want to spend the $ and time etc to garden so much and allow the tank to grow slower.

It really gets down to an issue of rate of growth.
I am a strong proponent of non CO2 planted aquariums.
Have been for 30 years.

Don´t underestimate the action from bacteria. In natural waters most CO2 comes from bacteria work. It depends from organic mass in the sediment. So if you use a soil with a amount of organic substance in your aquarium, you can get a lot of CO2!

So ask your self where all the CO2 from bacteria comes from first?
You need ample amounts of O2 to supply a high rate of CO2, like having more fish to supply the CO2, the argument is even better using fish as they respire and add CO2 much faster than bacteria.

But in both cases, fish and bacteria, far far too little to really cause a larger impact on plant growth relative to Gas tank CO2.

Can you see differences in tanks due to CO2 production alone from high fish population vs no fish?
I cannot.

While in large natural systems, we can say that the high ratio of bacteria to a relatively small submersed plant species can add a lot of CO2, or in stratified waters from sediment bacteria, not in our tanks we cannot.

you need equal O2 to supply the CO2, which means a lot of O2 is required.
and given that 7ppm or less is the typical amount and we need about 4-6ppm for good fish health, you just are not going to get a lot out of it.

Rather than dealing with that, plants just slow their rate of growth down to match the most limiting factor.

Plants can save nutriens in her vacuoles, even more than they need. So how can you explain this positive effects on plants with a constant high fertilisation? What happens if you leave out the fertilisation for a while?

Plants as far as nutrients are fine if they are Carbon limited(dissolved inorganic carbon, HCO3/CO2 etc), they are not nutrient limited in these cases.

Comparing CO2 to non CO2 method is all about growth rates. they are at least an order of magnitude larger with CO2.

So you need to add enough nutrients to match.
Does not matter where the nutrients are either(water column or the sediment or both locations)
Aquatic plants are opportunistic, they will go after nutrients wherever they are and they can get to them.

If you stop adding ferts, you will have a peroid where the plants use up their reserves.
After which, they start slowing their growth due to the most limiting factor or set of factors.

Same deal with adding less light or no CO2.

Is it meaningful to take a look how to cultivat algae to learn to combat them?

Yes, if you want to consider the questions about what causes them to grow in the first place rather than observation alone, Observations are not manipulative tests.

Would you learn about an pest to better control it?
To see if you can predict and induce it's growth?

Then you know a lot more than mere observation alone.
That is the power in experimental design. You can learn and understand far more.

I have read that algae use NO3- same effective as higher plants.

Well, for both adult algae and plants, I'd say this is true.
Spores and seeds?
No, I've had a rough time even at very high light and CO2 and NO3 levels to induce any species of Freshwater algae.

150ppm of NO3 could not induce anything after 3 weeks, 75ppm for 4 months did not either.
Light: 3 watt/gal, about 200 micromol, and 5.5 watt or 450 micromol of light.
Pretty high.

If you are going to see a system become destabilized and algae induced, it will be at the higher end of light intensity.

And higher plants mostly prefer NH4+ to NO3-. Your algae-NH4+ hypothesis is interesting. I hope you find out more. Please make some tests.

Well, at higher light values, the algae spores, much like germinating seeds in the warm spring rains, germinate and grow.

At lower light values, much less so.
We also see far fewer algae issues with folks using less light vs high light.
We can add NH4 and see and test this.

However, we must be careful we are not just doing fishless cycling with our filters.........adding NH4 will grow more bacteria which just convert most of the NH4 to NO3 rapidly.

But what is really getting to the plants is mostly NO3.........
So we certainly need to control for this issue, and most plant hobbyists do not do that!

We can remove the filter, or grow plants in isolation,(eg Riccia in bare bottom tanks). But this does not match our tanks well either.

Some folks reported better algae control using NH4 additions but was it due to the plants or the better filter bacteria?

You could argue either way.

You can measure "who gets what" however.
Using stable isotopes of N15H4 labeled NH4, we can measure how much plants take up and how much bacteria and algae take up over time and how much N15O3 is produced via bacterial oxidation.

I'm not sure any one has done this experiment, but I've been wanting to for about 9 years now

I use 14 Carbon for seeing where various carbon parts of herbicides go, but not so much ecology of N cycling, but I know how to do it. I just do not have time or the funding to do so, Ole and Troels lament about similar things

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I read D.Wahlstad and prefer to use soil in a aquarium.
What do you say to this set-up:

PO4 and FE given only from the ground (all mico nutriens too)

K, NO3, Ca, Mg etc. given by water
--------------------------------------------------------------

She is trying to match natural systems, this is observational.
That is not to say a lot/a great deal cannot be learned, you just learn a lot more through manipulative experiments which are very practical in aquariums, but not for lakes or rivers etc.
You can test ideas etc and see how much your model can explain and put a statistical number to that.

Ole showed that nutrient rich streams are common in Europe and that lush plant growth is common in such streams. Cedergreen and Madsen have as well.

Just because the natural systems show a pattern, does not imply that is best for agriculture or horticulture(what we do).

Are cattle, pigs, corn, wheat, Hops all best grown in their natural environment or with enriched systems and are managed?

Who are we kidding?
This is horticulture, not recreating a natural lake or wetland.

Are the same systems Diana speaks of similar with respect to the main inouts of energy, light?
No, not even remotely close.
What about Plant density?
No, not even close.

How about where there are natural systems with a wide range of P, N valves etc, shallow systems like ours, warmer tropical temperatures, and high plant denisties occur?

Yes, the algae show no patterns in such systems!
None!

Here's a good paper done on some PO4 and N and aquatic plants and algae dominance:

http://fishweb.ifas.ufl.edu/Faculty%20P ... 2004LR.pdf

The technical side:

http://fishweb.ifas.ufl.edu/Faculty%20P ... ophyte.pdf

Look at figure 3.
There's no correlation at all for any of those measured parameters.

For P and for N.

This blast any argument that suggested that algae is induced by P or N when tropical aquatic plants are included and when sampling is correctly done.
They used 319 lakes in this study.
That's far more than any study I've ever read on algae and aquatic submersed plants.
I went to UF and did my research at this same lab
Adding further to such research, between Cedergreen and Madsen as well as the Hoyer, Crisman, Bachmann at UF, I think the old and the recent evidence has supported my own observations and manipulative test since I argued against PMDD theory and Dupla's claims.

Cedergreen's paper:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/ab ... 02.00802.x

If you look at Diana's graph for NH4 vs NO3, look at the concentration of NH4 required to have a higher rate of uptake, it must be above 0.5ppm of NH4, a level that's fair toxic to fish and shrimp over long periods.

However, at less than 0.5ppm, the rate of uptake for NO3 is actually higher, this graph actually supports that NO3 is preferred under aquarium conditions, not some sterile lab test using one plant species. The Reverse of what she was trying to suggest.

We do not have aquariums in test tubes nor in cold frozen northern lakes. Applying research is not easy, hobbyists often get tricked without considering how to apply the information.



Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Mario K]

Hello Tom.

Thank you for your time, you spend for me and for your large and informative answer.

I can´t agree with your assertion about bacteria builded CO2 in all parts. The dependency on O2 pertains only for aerobic bacteria but not for facultative aerobic or anaerobic bacteria.
And while I used soil from a park, my tank has a big population of different bacteria species. I think bacteria are the only destruents in a tank who mineralize the animalic and herbal waste and, similar to natural waters, the biggest natural CO2 source.


Maybe I know a simply test for everyone that can show NH4 as a grow factor for algae spores:
Two tanks or glasses with same conditions. One with and one without NH4 (from hartshorn).
We can see algae earlier in the tank with NH4, if your thesis is right.

What do you think? Does it working?

Nevertheless you give me a lot of tips I will follow.

If have still two questions:
Do you found any correlation between pH-value and algae grow?

Do you know some information about algae grow dependence on redox-value?


Greetings fom the land of poets and thinkers
Mario

 

[Tom Barr]

I can´t agree with your assertion about bacteria builded CO2 in all parts. The dependency on O2 pertains only for aerobic bacteria but not for facultative aerobic or anaerobic bacteria.

Well, you still need a source of O2 to reduce the carbon, anaerobic means no or else extremely low O2.

Have you considered the rates at which anaerobic bacteria produce CO2?
If the reduction is strong enough, anaerobic bacteria will reduce CO2 to CH4.

This is not a fast process and requires a source of O2 still, all that's down there is a reduced carbon source and no O2. They need O2 to make the CO2, otherwise they reduce Fe, Mn and S to get the electrons. Reduction to H2S is a bad case. Most aquariums only reduce to Fe and Mn, maybe some NO3 reduction to N2, but few aquairst like H2S

You can see banding in the microbes, you first have the aerobes, then at about 300mv or a little less, some NO3 reduction, then Fe and Mn reduction at 100-250 mv or so, and then below 100 or so, you get mostly Sulfur reduction.

In wetlands, the amount of CO2 given off is high, but it's primarily due to the upper layers with some access to O2.

The research and most any treatment wetland text shows this.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Y1XFb9 ... dQpk&hl=en


Look at figure 5.3 and 5.4, anything below the II level will not produce CO2.

There is no O2 to be had down there, which is why the metabolism rates at 18X slower, and why the bacteria must use other acceptors than O2 to get energy from reduced carbon.

It's only that upper thin layer that makes the CO2.
Below 320 mv, not much is left.

And while I used soil from a park, my tank has a big population of different bacteria species. I think bacteria are the only destruents in a tank who mineralize the animalic and herbal waste and, similar to natural waters, the biggest natural CO2 source.

Take a sediment sample or some fish waste and place it under a scope, you should find dozens of different critters and aquatic invertebrates. It's not just bacteria doing the work, there's several trophic levels at work there.

Maybe I know a simply test for everyone that can show NH4 as a grow factor for algae spores:
Two tanks or glasses with same conditions. One with and one without NH4 (from hartshorn).
We can see algae earlier in the tank with NH4, if your thesis is right.

Actually it's dependent on light and CO2 as well.
The more light, the more likely you will get algae in the treatment tank.

I was never able to induce algae using NH4Cl in the lower light tank, also, I was never able to induce algae in the high light tank using NO3.

Algae spores need more than one signal.
Being pulled up from the sediment, similar to a spring rain runoff, might tell some species that it's a good time to grow. Other perhaps high light + NH4, some might respond to changes in CO2.

All these environmental impacts are signs of change and nutrients are likely in abundance and that competition is low => A good time to grow and germinate.

Nevertheless you give me a lot of tips I will follow.
If have still two questions:
Do you found any correlation between pH-value and algae grow?
Do you know some information about algae grow dependence on redox-value?
Greetings fom the land of poets and thinkers
Mario

Since we add CO2 to many aquariums these days, no real correlations between pH and algae.
But generally, higher pH= less CO2 if you go past about 7.4 with very hard water.
Many plants are hard water adapted to use KH, which does buffer pH rather high.

But our systems are not natural, they have their own ecology of their own, created artifical systems, but they still have their own ecology. Like Landscape ecology or Agricultural ecology, or restoration/creation ecology.

We are creating something that is not natural but trying to use components of nature to provide a function for our own desires.

This is true for landscapes, gardens, food production and for aesthetically pleasing submersed planted aquariums.

But I suppose one could argue, that in general, you will find more algae dominated systems at a higher pH than at lower pH's. But I have seen higher pH's, say 7.2 but with 30ppm of CO2 and lots of plants. And I've seen systems with a pH of 4.7 and no plants and bad algae covering everything.

I think we need to be careful to not simplify things too much

I think most fresh water algae are very poorly studies in terms of physiology.
Redox is much more a sediment issue. At lower Redox sediment values, you can have leaching into the water column of PO4 and Fe, then an algae bloom.

But.........there's a lot more light(5-20X more) than we have in our tanks.
When you have such leaching also, you have a large upwelling of NH4 from the sediments as well.

So there's everything available for algae spores, they are in the right place, with the right nutrients and lots of light and relatively low CO2(they do not care, they have very very low CO2 demand per unit mass versus a plant, plants need far more carbon).

Give that book link a read, it will help a great deal to understand sediments and soil based fertilization methods and theory.

I suggest folks use rich sediments along with EI, that way the plants have access to nutrients in both location, if you happen to forget to dose the water column, you have a back up from the sediment.

Basically aquatic plants are opportunistic, they will take nutrients from either location.
So adding nutrients to both locations will be "synergistic". The combination complements the other and sediment rich fertilizer is easier over time. Adding water column ferts allows longer life out of the sediment sources of nutrients.

Since I know what does not cause algae, I can add whatever I want in the water column.

The issue is not either sediments fettrs or water column ferts, that is too polar of an idea, rather, using the benefits of both methods.

That is what a wise person might chose.
And we see evidence for this in natural systems in Europe, Asia, North and South America. Little research has been done in Africa. Bob Hecky is a good person to talk to about that region though.

Regards,
Tom Barr