Leaves on my A.R. are stunted and crinkled looking, please help !

30gallon
2x65 pc lighting on for 9 hours
Eco-complete and flourite mix for substrate
Co2 @30ppm
EI ferts w/50% weekly water change

It helped me and a couple of others to go down in PMDD dosing, particulary NO3 and PO4. When I dose more than 10 ppm NO3 via KNO3 per week (50% wc each week) I get crinkled leaves.

Seems that when some plants have their metabolism going super-fast via high light/high CO2/high nutrients the calcium allocation can't keep up or something.

High lignin plants like A. reineckii and L. glandulosa seems particulary affected by high growth rates, maybe because of this: "The status and the cation exchange capacity of the apoplast are particularly important for Ca uptake, because Ca must move entirely through the apoplast to the xylem. In the apoplast the cation exchange capacity of the cell wall is influenced by the relative concentration of the
cellulose, hemicelluloses, and lignin, which can vary greatly between plant species, and can have an important influence on the absorption of specific
ions."

and this:

"Dicots need more Ca than monocots, which has been attributed to a larger cation
exchange capacity of their cell walls."

I've never had issues with high NO3/PO4 and L granulosua.
I've seen A reineckii much more often, but it's with folks that have high light.
Few folks ever had such issues until they added high light.

Here's the client's tank using EI and less light without issue:



He has never had curling leaves with high PO4 and NO3.

While lowering some folk's tanks with NO3/PO4 has solved their problem, it obviously cannot be the reason "why" the plant does not do well of exhibits those attributes.

That's impossible.

It actually was the reason "why", then adding it in every case would show those symptoms.

That much is clear.

Now if you have tried a few things and cannot get decent growth etc, there is a temptation to suggest it's high PO4/NO3.

However, you alone(or a small group of "me too's") are not the only one's out there growing this plant.

All it takes is one good falsification to disprove the hypothesis put forth.

This client has been using EI for a year. The L granulosus is his favorite red plant.
He has grown massive amounts of it.
I have as well going back over a decade.
A reineckii ever longer.........

I'm not saying what the cause is, I am saying what it cannot possibly be.
There may be secondary issues caused by adding NO3/PO4 that are not present in the above tank's example, eg too much light for a given CO2 level.

There are many red plants that are far pickier than A reineckii, this has always been considered one of the easiest "red" plants around going back 20 years.

The pickier plants also have no issues.
Often, when a plant stunts, it takes a while to recover. Ammannia gracilus etc is like that, but A reineckii rapidly regrows side shoots. I've had really super bushy side shoots from topping. Such growth and responses to pruning/topping is why is was used so much in the past.

Give it some shade, some more CO2 and some patience.
Plants need far more Carbon than they do Ca and Ca is at the site of new growth, the plant is submersed, so there's little need to transport if the plant can take it in through the leaves. I'm not sure that this plant(or a lot of the plant species we keep can indeed do this vs the roots. But the research suggest based on other aquatic plants, that they do.

Even so, a simple test of the hypothesis that EI or higher levels of NO3/PO4 cause problems shows that something else is going on if you have issues.

You cannot suggest that you have answered the cause based on the data.
It just does not support your conclusion.

Regards,
Tom Barr

Another example using EI:

2003 AGA International Aquascaping Contest

Plenty of so called hard to grow red plants.
James had 8 months total in the hobby when he did this tank.
Not bad.......

Regards,
Tom Barr

Low NO3/PO4 seems to be the key for some people that always get this plant curly. You havn't proven why that is by saying that you can grow the plant under some special conditions that noone else knows.

That is like saying noone are having trouble with this plant. High NO3, PO4, CO2 and light is easy - and often a necessetiy to grow the pickier plants (none of the plants in the screenshot you provided).

However under certain conditions this fails with A. reineckii and L. glandulosa for example. Conditions you do not know.

Let's setup a test to see why folks are having trouble instead of saying "100 people can grow this plant so you should too".

My tap and moderate lighting with EI and good CO2 is the premises. I can get this plant to get curly by only changing the PMDD part, so let's find out what is going wrong.

I do not have to prove why someone else has issues, only why the hypothesis put forth is wrong and cannot possibly be true.

I'm not trying to prove what it is, I just proving what it is not.

That way I scratch off one issue as not a cause and not waste the time looking there for a solution. I can also prove PO4 excess does not cause algae, but that does not say what does cause algae.

After you are able to confidently rule out each possible cause, step by step, you often are left with one or two hypothesis that you cannot rule out.

Often, those are the "causes", until you are able to disprove them and find out some alternative cause.

This plant has a very long history in the hobby.
I've seen the curly stunted tips in other folk's tanks.

I have no "special conditions", magic water etc..........even if I did, there's some other limiting condition if your tank if the high NO3/PO4 in mine does not stunt the plant. You cannot argue or ignore that point.

No one can solve every possible issue for every person's tank on the web.
But we can rule things out by testing them.

In order to test anything with plants, you must provide non limiting conditions for the other independent parameters and then vary the dependent parameters. This is basic plant science if you want to test nutrients limiting/ inhibiting excess.

If you want pickier plants at even higher nutrient levels:





This was a weed farm.
EI dosing as well.

I'm not saying folks are not having troubles with this plant, or any plant for that matter....... merely because I can grow it at high NO3/PO4 conditions.
I'm just saying that at high PO4/NO3, that cannot be the direct cause for this plant and for this expression of growth(or lack thereof).


That's what a test is.
I do not think you have the concept to set up the test.
1.You make a hypothesis
2. You set a test that reasonably can disprove that hypothesis.
3. you do the test and see. You do it again, 5-6 times perhaps.
4. You do the test on purpose, not just happenchance observations as you try to improve the growth of your plants.
5. You set up non limiting conditions
6. Make sure things like basic aquarium keeping are addressed, good flow/current, clean filters, heater,
7. Stable acclimated growth before the test starts..........this one is hard for anyone suffering from poor growth, but using a stunted plant to test anything is a bad idea..............

#7 is part of the problem.
You cannot solve much if you cannot grow the plant to start with well.

Even though I can grow it, the person having troubles seems to think I must be wrong in their frustration.

However, they are not thinking clearly.

Neither of which is my fault nor has a hill of beans to do with me

If they really want to learn, then they should use a good method to prove things to themselves and not just believe everything they or others think.
That's why Science works so well.

It's a slower process, but you learn a lot more.

I have several test running now, I do not have the time to test every issue every person might have.

I might get some of this plant again and start growing it, but like the older claims of the past(PO4, K+ inhibitions, trace metal blocking etc etc), I already have a long time's worth of growing experience with this specific species, I have plenty of examples of the plant being grown well under EI.

And not just myself, but dozens of folks with this plant.

The other alternative is that we are all lying, but the conspiracy would be tough to pull off

IME, the folk's tanks that have resolved things and done well simply reduced the light and added more CO2. You can move the plant to rear of the tank etc. Many examples have the plant in the BACK GROUND. People think red plants require high light, this is not true and I can show this in tanks and in the field/natural systems.

If you reduce the NO3/PO4 to a limiting level, that will reduce growth rates. If you add more NO3/PO4, then CO2 can become limiting.

PO4 might be very limiting @ 50ppb, moderately limiting at 200ppb and totally non limiting at 2000ppb.

The degree of limitation is not black and white.
If you add in the rate of dosing such that PO4 is 200ppb, then you will have much less CO2 demand by the the plant vs 2000ppb.

Plants will still grow, perhaps even nicely, but at a reduced growth rate and at a much reduced CO2 demand.

However, this is confounded experiment if you do not have non limiting CO2 for each case of PO4 treatments(as well as other parameters). I think many have non limiting CO2 at say 200ppb, but not at 2000ppb PO4.

That's why they see the lower levels as adequate(at least one possible reason-there may be more/others) and "the cause", it's causing limitation and downregulation of CO2 demand when they add less and upregulation leading to limitation(temporary perhaps, causes some stunting) when they add more. It takes a few days for the plant to reorganize and respond, many aquarist are not that patient nor willing to risk more bad growth just to test things.

Regards,

Tom Barr

Defdac,

I do understand where you are coming from and the skepticism.
In light of that, I am going to do the test in detail for you and other folks.
Even so, in doing this, other folks may still not believe me

However, working with one plant in isolation, should help.
I will make several hypothesis, then try and attempt to disprove each one and provide a photo of a purposely induced deficiency(or lack thereof).

Regards,
Tom Barr

This will be very interesting - worthy of a "special edition" of the newsletter - "The Alternanthera Chronicles"?

Yes Vaughn, at some point you are motivated to actually answer the question yourself and do something about it. Guessing never cut it for me, I question everything, and then attack myself as well later.

Gerloff and Krombholz(yes, Paul K., the same Guy on the APD, but back when he was a young guy!) did many such studies in the 1960's with such nutrients.
Other's have done similar studies since and looked at seasonal difference in nutrient uptake etc. This is research and news has been around for 40 years but aquarist for some reason still go to the myths. Be careful not to believe everything you think. They did not however, look at A reineckii, a very common "red" plant for many back in the 1990's.

I don't believe myself anymore than I believe the earth is flat......., I test it and set up a good experimental design to see.

Then repeat, then try and induce the issue-this step is important at getting at causation......(say stunted tips in A reineckii) with the said hypothesis(say adding progressively more and more NO3, say (5ppm, 10ppm, 20ppm, 80ppm).

I've never been able to do it in the past with a pair of tanks, but I know how to set up a reasonable test to prove that it is/is not due to NO3 dosing.

What test do you have that can disprove the hypothesis or confirm it may be "tentatively" true/possible?

You also have to be able to grow the plant well to have good starting and control conditions. Many do not have that.

Due to this thread, and several others over the last few months, years, I'm going to do this experiment with A reineckii again, it's been 8-9 years now. I want to do a complete test this time.
I did this with Ammannia and K+/Ca++ blocking 5 years ago.

It'll be a few weeks, but It should be fairly easy to prove correct/incorrect, that high NO3 will induce stunting in this plant.

I'll use ADA AS and also plain Sand.

The tanks are small, 3 gal, I have 8 of them so we can do 2 replicates of 4 NO3 concentrations. No fish etc, so I can add lots of CO2 to ensure on limiting CO2, as well as PO4,Ca, Mg, Traces etc. I can also measure light evenly in micromoles.
I have mainly shop lights but can get them to about 150-200micromols since the tanks are shallow.

I can measure Dry weight changes in growth as well between treatments and take photos. I could also see what the N, Fe and P in the tissue is before and after also. That will cost a little.

Takes awhile, but it's not that hard to do.
Few aquarist will bother and thus the myth will live on.........till someone comes along and kills the sucker.

While I do get in disagreements with aquarist, I also do test and show and prove my contentions. I rarely get the same back however. I find that unfortunate, as many can be tested if they discuss the test methods, look up the research that's been done and ask.

There is a great deal of things an average planted aqurist can do if they try.
I detail things out and discuss all this for a reason, hopefully someone will come back and set up the test again for a different plant, or another question and are able to answer it well having had someone before them show a simple method.



Regards,
Tom Barr

Once I have found this paper:
John Skok "Effect of the form of the avalable nitrogen on the calcium deficiency symptoms in the bean plant", and it seems like
kekon’s assumptions in How to balance NPK, Ca, Mg and micros - new experiments partially wrong.

John tested plants with Ca deficiency -Ca and CO(NH2)2 dosing VS. -Ca and NO3 dosing. I allow myself to quote:

«Calcium has been found to be one of the most important mineral elements needed for normal plant growth. In its absence plants exhibit very severe deficiency symptoms.»
«The reason that calcium deficiency has a more severe effect on a plant than the deficiency of almost any other single element is probably in part because calcium has been found to have many functions in growth and development.»
«If minus calcium plants lose their capacity to reduce nitrates and synthesize proteins, they are essentially minus nitrogen as well as minus calcium.»
«(1) Under normal conditions including the presence of calcium, urea is not as good a source of nitrogen as is the nitrate form for growth of the bean plant.
2) In the absence of calcium much better growth is made
by the bean plant with urea than with nitrates.»
«The form of the available nitrogen, however, has a very pronounced effect on the calcium deficiency symptoms. With urea, the calcium deficiency symptoms are much delayed and when they become evident they are very much less severe.»
“...calcium deficient plants have a lowered reductase activity since the calcium deficient plants receiving urea, which is a reduced form of nitrogen, make much better growth than do those receiving nitrates. The calcium-deficiency symptoms of the plants receiving urea, then, are really truer symptoms which can be directly assigned to the lack of calcium. Since other elements, namely potassium, phosphorus, and sulphur, were also found to be necessary for normal reductase activity by ECKERSON (3), it may be entirely possibly that their deficiency symptoms may also be lessened in severity with the use of urea.”

So there is no NO3/PO4 “overdosing” in very soft water.

Plants assimilate NO3 reducing it to NO2, than to NH2 and only than “eat” it up.
When Ca is in deficit plants just can’t assimilate NO3 at needed rates because they have big problems with reducing ability of NO3, so really it is not “overdosing” NO3, but general lack of N !
NH2 (urea, amino acids, guanidine nitrate) cures N deficiency of plants coused by lack of Ca giving them reduced form of nirogen, but again not the couse itself – lack of Ca.

As Tom advises lowering growth rates by lowering light intensity, or as someone may say lowering NO3/PO4 dosing to some degree cures simptoms, but again not the cause itself – lack of Ca/Mg.

So, overdosing of B and underdosing of Cu is not the case with such simptoms?
Lack of Cu at very low GH coused by lack of Ca, and intoxication with Boron is caused by lack of Mg.
Or we still have to dose TMG to fix the issue?
I see that Tom Barr is totally right that TMG helps because it has lowered level of B and elevated levels of Cu, so we can say TMG is “tuned” for soft water and effectively prevents mentioned disorders, while PMDD on Plantex CSM+B is not?

Give to tricky plants a little bit of shade (or shorter lighting peak)
keep GH not less than 4-6 dosing GH booster etc or mixing RO-water with tap water 1:4
give some part of N in amidic form
dose TMG or equal (less B, more Cu) instead of PMDD or equal
....and enjoy very fast growth rates with RO-water without any leaves distortion.


It is my understanding only.
Correct me if I am wrong, please.

naman