Since I work with bugs (microbes, viruses etc.), my botany is rudimantery. However, if I have to take this hobby seriously, I have to read about plant physiology which I will in due course of time. Nonetheless, great discussion. Please tell me more about fertilizer dosing as you mentioned above. I have a 10 gallon tank stocked with Java fern, Java fern lace, Rotala rotundifolia, Ludwigia repens, Pearlgrass, and some dwarf hairgrass. Since I admire plants more than fish, I have only 3 Neon tetras and 3 ghost shrimps.

Well, you can pick up a text book, but the issue is then how to apply all that to our specific area of interest.
That's quite another matter.
I had a lot of issues looking things up and then trying to locate and apply these things to our specific application. I know what to look for and where these days, back then I did not.

There's very little done in the research in this context, aquatic horticulture of submersed plants for ornamental growth inside our homes.

I try to synthesize the practical stuff, add enough science to allow for some more learning/stretching of the mind and leave some room for folks to look at the broader picture hopefully.

No one writes anything about aquatic plants like that, just some of the same old mumbo anyone can pull off any plant site. Nothing new or interesting ideas about how to test for/resolve questions, new areas that might warrant more attention and play a larger role than we might have considered.

Just getting aquarist to question the accuracy of those 5$ cheapo test kits and to calibrate them is a huge task. Most assume those are accurate and infallible.

For the 10 gallon tank:

I'd add
1/8 teaspoon KNO3 3x a week
1/32nd(about a BB's worth) of KH2PO4 3x a week
GH booster, about 1/4 teaspoon after the water change
3 mls 3x a week of a trace mix like Tropica Master Grow(TMG)
Weekly 50-60% water change etc.

That it.

I'd buy some Amano shrimp(4-6).
These will do better for algae etc.
Most find them more interesting than the Ghost shrimp.

Since you like the microbes, you will find this article on nitrifying bacteria illuminating.

This one is particularly good and shows even old stuff that most aquarist even 1 decade later still cling too.

Tim is good at this and has a good job in his field with Aquaria Inc.
I also went to UCSB like Tim but did an BS in Aquatic Biology.

http://www.marineland.com/science/pe...s/Hovanec1.pdf

http://www.marineland.com/science/pe.../AEM_Dec01.pdf

http://www.marineland.com/science/pe.../McDevitt4.pdf

And this one points out some of the major issues with the myths most aquarist still to this day assume about Nitrogen filter bacteria:

http://www.marineland.com/science/pe...s/hovanec2.pdf

All about bacteria and somewhat and ecological molecular approach to bacteria.
Should be easy reading for you, after doing plant molecular work for a year, it makes a lot more sense today

But I also heard Tim speak at a club meeting on this topic and he made it very understandable for the lay aquarist. Most of them wondered off amazed and somewhat disconcerted about their long views being shattered to small little pieces. Tim did good work, saw it, went after it and was easily able to say something meaningful to the hobby that advanced the knowledge a good deal on the basic fundamental things.

You might also consider reading the BarrReport news letters(there's 25-almost 26. about 10 pages each) which are sort of general review papers on each topic.

Give them a read and see.
No rush, they will take time but they are good reading and you will learn a lot from it.

Regards,
Tom Barr

I dont get your argument about phenol red. As I understand, KH is defined as the carbonate hardness of the water. Scientifically, however, it is the buffering capacity of carbonate/bicarbonate buffer. Now ideally, we should use a pH indicator in a solution that closely mimics the buffering capacity of the aquarium for wich a change in the pH is being tested. So if the buffering capacity (or KH) of the tank is 4, we should use the indicator in a solution having the same KH that is 4. Upon the exposure of a pH altering agent (CO2 in this case), the dye will change its color. If we use lets say 20 dKH solution, you are essentially using a solution of a different ionic strength. Since the ionic strength of the 20 KH solution is 4 times as high as that of 4 dKH, more concentration of a pH altering agent will be required to see a change in the color. I may be wrong, but I think it should work like that.

Absolutely right. That is why I have joined these forums to learn from the years of experience of people like you.


I am thrilled to learn that you actually go through the scientific literature. Let me go through these papers, I'll discuss with you. No wonder, I expect a UC Davis graduate to be like this.

The notion about the Phenol red vs bromo blue is really one based on the KH/pH range you want to use.

I think it's best we just pick the bromo blue range.
That is the most common and the best narrow range for our purposes.
But one could use another pH indicator if they are so inclined.


Yes, I do go through many papers to do the articles.
I cite things, they are hardly up to the level of an independent peer reviewed paper mind you, it'd be tough to write at that level every month and have a job and go to school full time 1 year away from a PhD.
I would not suggest it to anyone.

But they are far better and put many of the pieces together in a decent model. Later, some one else will put more of the pieces together in a more cohesive manner.

Still, it does lay a good foundation to work from.

There is an aquatic microbiology sub forum section here as well.
I tend to post various papers for folks to mull through on there and elsewhere here.

Then I try and draw from those and figure out if it helps and we can use it or not.
About all we can do really and test ourselves here and there.

Regards,
Tom Barr

Just wanted to update. The plants are doing very well now. Following Tom's advice as described in few posts above, I increased the fertilizer (CO2 is ~ 30ppm). Though algal bloom is also noticed but just brown and could easily be removed by regular wipes. Water change was not of much help in this regard. Few isolated but tougher green spots of algae also appear time to time but well under control.

By the way, I have bought Tetra Algae Control. I has Poly[(oxyethylene(dimethylimino)Ethylene(Dimethylimino) Ethylene Dichloride] as its active ingredient. They suggest to use 1ml/12 gallon water. However they are asking not to use in new aquarium (less than 3 monts old) and the one with shrimps etc. Any suggestions? I am considering this because last night, upon a close inspection, I observed green threads in bunches on some plants as well as on my drift wood. Though I have cleaned it manually, It is bound to re-appear. I have also reduce some decor (lava rock) as I though it was interfering with proper water flow.

I'm intrigued by the discussion in this forum, and have found myself more 'homework' to do after looking at those links!

If I may, I'd like to bring up the question that prompted me to look at this thread: Is pearling a continuous process?

That is, given that the water column contains all the nutrients and CO2 that plants need to achieve their maximum uptake rate, would we expect the tank to begin pearling about 2 or 3 hours into the photoperiod and continue on until the lights turn off?

If some plants grow faster and therefore pearl more than others, such as riccia, then lets assume the majority of the plants in the tank are fast growing plants such as Ludwigia repens, Heteranthera zosterifolia, Hemianthus micranthemoides, Hygrophila difformis, and Hygrophila corymbosa.

The reason I ask this is because I only see pearling in the last 3 or 4 hours of my 10 hour photoperiod.

Thanks-
DM

since a period of stability, my plants pearl nicely after 1 hour of the lights going on, but it wasnt always the case.. for the first month or so of EI, it was only the last 3-4 hours.. it took a while for everything to get used to the higher co2/nutrients etc. That might not be the reason for your plants not pearling until later of course, but its something to think about.

Well, big long chemical name, but you can tell right away, it's just a strong oxidizer...........

Like peroxide, bleach, permangnate etc........these all kill algae and are dose dependent as well.

Chlorine oxides.........

You will never hear me suggest an algae killer other than perhaps Excel, but it helps plants growth via CO2 decomposition, rather than as a algae control, and since CO2 is a big issue with algae...........this is direct and indirect.

So do not use the Tetra stuff.
You are desperate and that is why such/those products sell.

Instead, focus on CO2, pruning, water changes.
Reduce the light intensity.
Less light= less algae growth, less nutrient demand.

Make sure the CO2 is in good shape the entire lighting cycle(not just one discrete point), by the sounds of the algae, that is the issue here.

If you get desperate, use Excel at 5mls per 10 gal each day.
A 3 day blackout with water changes each day + Excel will kill about any algae and be safe for all plants/shrimp.

But you should alway focus on plant growth.
Not doing that is why folks have algae.

Cleaning well after moving things around etc is also very important, always do large water changes thereafter.

Keep things clean etc and stay on top of things, then it'll be easy once things gte going well.

Algae means you have slacked off on some routine/maintenance etc, so you do some extra work and whip things back into shape.

Algae killers always market themselves as a silver bullet.
There are no silver bullets other than good plant biomass/growth and matching the growth/nutrients with the lighting.

In general, all algae killers also have a fitness penalty against the plants as well as the algae. So plants do not like them either and it hurts their growth......which is why you had algae to begin with. So they do not correct the root problem.
Recall the old adage: correlation does not = causation.
Algae killers and the entire theory relies on that for sales.
Personally, I'd rather work with cause, otherwise you'd become dependent on algae killers and constantly have issues, but clearly I know of no successful plant folks that use algae killers as a routine.

If you need to beat back algae while you correct the issues, you should correct those issues first and foremost.

Then when you prune, clean, do a blackout, add Excel etc, you get the most out of the work. Otherwise you are wasting your time and effort.

Regards,
Tom Barr

Well, some folks will see more pearling than others if the CO2/nutrients are the same and the plants species/biomass are the same as well.

Can you guess why?
What else besides CO2/nutrients cause plant growth?

Lighting.........

More light=> more growth= more CO2 demand= more NO3 demand/uptake/nutrients etc

So with high light versus low light, which tank would pearl sooner and more intensely?

The process of pearling is rate dependent, it is NOT, I repeat, NOT dependent on O2 saturation (Above 100% ambient O2 levels) in the tank's water.
With fast growth, you have a large amount of O2 production inside the plant, this O2 is released via the stomata, lacunae etc and if the rate is high enough, O2 bubbles you can see are formed.

If the rate is slow, then the bubbles are not visible/are readily dissolved into the water. Note, this is not really dependent on the tank's O2 level, you can and do get pearling at less than 100% O2.

Less obviously will be dissolved in a tank with less O2, due to concentration differences, but you can easily have 150% O2 levels(well above 100%) and still have the gas going into solution.

Saturation does not imply as much gas as the water can hold, it is only relative to the ambient conditions which is about 7-8ppm for most tanks. Water can hold a fair amount more O2 that 7-8ppm.......with or without pearling.

Regards,
Tom Barr