There are many places nature CO2 rich water eminates from, they are called springs

Pierre water etc?

I'm sure many are familiar with soda water?

Such rivers exists in Florida, many! Same with sections of the Mato Grosso, packed with fish, turtles etc.

Shallow lakes have no issues remaining clear and algae free for the most part, the water is gin clear as long as they have about 30-50% coverage by the plants.

This is common knowledge to Limnologist that work on tropical and subtropical lakes, cough cough cough!

But old dated reference Limnology from the 1970's that was very boased towards northern lakes, of which few folks keep biotypes of, cough cough cough!

Let's bring you folks up to date by about 30 years:

Read this guy, he's been around and was at the lab I worked at for the MS:

Roger W. Bachmann

Daniel E. Canfield Jr.

Karl E. Havens

FAS Faculty Directory

Now that group of folks and the funding for aquatic sciences and the amount of folks specifically targeting aquatic plants we actually keep and grow is enormous, far more than all the references ever supported by any aquatic plant book ever written to date.

The area of research is also specific. It examplifies the best natural conditions that one might find an aquarium tropical plant and applied research.

A lake in Demark or Minnesota that freezes every year, is very deep, has only cold water species, large turn over events 2x a year is hardly applicable to a shallow tropical planted tank don't you think?
Plants grow much faster and cycle faster at warm temps, and grow very slow at cold temps.

Springs Exploration: Wakulla Springs Interactive Feature

There are about 90+ to chose from BTW:
Welcome to Florida Springs Map & Guide

The Mato Grosso and Tx springs also host enormous amounts of optically clear waters full of plants without algae, the visibilty in the Rainbow river exceeds 200ft.

Hardly algae ridden...............

Regards,
Tom Barr

Oh ders more:

Hi Tom,

We have similar lakes in Australia.Ewens Ponds. These are in the state of South Australia. It's more cold water not tropical like your photos in Florida.

Thanks so much for posting those articles. There is so much in them that, for me anyway, they will require more than one reading over more than one day.

Dr. Bachmann's article concluded that there was little or no relationship in the Florida ponds studied between water column nutrient levels and aquatic plant biomass. He theorized that the plants obtained most of their nutrients from the soil in which they grew.

I wonder if there is a similar study of ponds that were dominated by plants that obtained their nutrients from the water column, like hyacinth and myriophyllum. I bet the conclusions would have been different. Right?

Bill

No, they would and do certainly dominate, due to light competition.

Note, the water column nutrients are often rich and with or without submersed rooted plants, it does not matter as long as the plants can get the nutrients from somewhere for a given growth rate/light intensity.

Such articles do require you to read them a few times even if you are an expert.



I get these arm chair aquarist clowns that want to argue about secondary references that was in a text written back in the 1970's and the research was liklely even older. Topping that off, they want to argue these massive applied differences in northern lakes to our systems.

And I am the "closed minded" guy and "likely am wrong" and "we do not yet know everything" and all the other BS lines I've heard in response.

Question is, why have these same hacks not shown and researched anything new in the last 30 years ???

Poppycock.

But with ponds, the same relationships that apply to Planted tanks and lakes in Florida, also apply, and they apply to both CO2 and non CO2 methods.

Something many have trouble with understanding(similarities between CO2 and non CO2 methods). I know the reasons why and how, but educating others on this issue is tougher.

If you apply the same method to ponds, adding 30-50% coverage whether it's submersed or floating does not matter. You will end up with the same outcome provided there are ample nutrients for the plants, water column or substrate, these nutrients can be high or low and still no algae, but as long as the nutrients do not run out long enough to make an apical meristem unhappy, we are safe.

Which is pretty flexible really.
And explains the observations well that we see in natural systems with and without CO2, floating and submersed growth forms, aquariums, ponds etc.

I've never met a pond I could not and have not been able to rectify and make gin clear.

It's pretty easy actually.
Curiously, talking to the experts at the IFAS lab there where these folks all work, the "so called" blasphemy I support for planted aquariums is looked upon, like" Oh sure, that makes sense and that's what I'd expect " and off down the hall they go

No debate, just preaching to the choir there.
Not just one or two of them, 15 profs all experts in the specific fields.

Now I came to the same conclusion in the aquarium planted area, and they did as well, the likely hood I am wrong is now much much lower.
They started seeing this with the first paper back in 1984 or so.

Regards,
Tom Barr

Very good information. Thanks Tom.

Well, it's a core issue for many folks in the hobby.
Take your time and read the main papers that interest you, they are all downloadable, go through and give them a good read.

Think about these references and revalency to our systems.


Regards,
Tom Barr

so your saying with co2 you don't get algae

haha I am just messing with you, I appreciate all the hard work you have done for the hobby!