The Algae Breakout

[essabee]

As a young boy going through the phase of life when “who did it” novels became a craze, I discovered that the best clue was the style of the author. Later in life when I meet with issues to resolve about life, I always pay attention to Nature as She is the author of The Book of Life – and the questions about ‘The Algae Breakout’ is a chapter in that book.

If there is a niche, Nature’s style is that there are organisms to fill it. As plants evolved much later than algae so there must be some algae which do well in every particular spectrum of light that plants can grow in. The conclusion must be that mere choice of light spectrum will never control algae.

If we limit the question to “Is there a light spectrum which gives plant an advantage over the algae?” The answer to that question must presuppose that there existed a niche where algae did not do well. We know Nature started with organisms which had wider fields of adaptation before the advent of more specialized organisms with narrower fields of adaptation. Algae are earlier in the field of adaptations and plants are but recent newcomers. I must therefore conclude that answer to that limited question must be given in the negative.

So we are now left with the hidden question – How to get an alga free planted tank? I believe that although you are looking at planted tank where the plants don’t show any algae on them, the algae like weeds under the forest canopy still are there in the tank; waiting for the opportunity when they can take advantage of a favorable niche.

What then is keeping them at bay? Allelopathy? I too am no holocaust denier, but I do not believe that allelopathy has the ability to completely control all algae or that all plants have the same level of ability to use it against the algae. Here my belief is again based on the great variation and resistances that Nature has instilled into all her organisms. Here we should also remember that most of the plants that we grow in our aquariums are not truly aquatic plants but swamp plants that grow emerged for longer periods of their life cycle. Such plants will evolve their allelopathy, if any, against other such plant species and not much against algae. Such plants would depend more on their emerged growth to shake off algae and Nature does not select any special ability which does not effect the survival of the specie. Yes there are some aquatic plants which grow nearly always submerged, and I would expect these to have some sort of ability to free themselves from algae.

If it is not allelopathy then is it CO2? The answer would be an empathetic –No. There are too many examples of non-CO2 enriched, algae free, planted tanks to even seek the answer from Mother Nature. Then we do must look into these tanks for a common factor that would disclose why they are algae free. Most of these aquariums have low to medium lights, are clean either with settled detritus or well filtered, unfertilized the plants depending upon fish excreta, and good healthy but slow growth of plants. That observation looks like the end result we are seeking but not the answer. What then is the answer?

To the answer appears not be singular but a group of factors all joined together to form a variable balance which induces an alga free planted tank. The first and foremost factor in the entire equation is to have healthy growing plants. It is often seen that with dry-starts you tend to have less algae issues. The plants being already established get into growing mode quickly and the balance is easier to achieve. Planting a new tank densely with healthy potted plants used to the tank conditions also results in fewer algae issues again because of the same cause. One of the ways a submerged plant avoids algae on its leaves is by growth. Newer leaves tend to shadow the older ones before algae can establish themselves on the older leaf thus cutting off light that the algae needs. Healthy growing plants alone will not be sufficient unless the nutrient in the water column is insufficient to gather more plant mass than the sum of the growth rate of the plants.

The available nutrient should be sufficient to keep the plants growing at a rate which is in balance with light factor. If the light is sufficient for faster plant growth and the nutrients available does not allow the plants to grow at that rate, even with low nutrients in the water column you will end up with algae issue (especially BGA). Conversely – although the plant growth is in balance with the light factor and you have a nutrient concentration building up then the sum of the growth rate of your plants will be less that the total plant mass growth rate that the tank allows and you will end up with algae problem. Here I must also remind you of imbalance interse the different components of the plant nutrients must be avoided. Certain nutrients at certain levels and also nutrient in a particular form can act as accelerator for certain algae and must be avoided.

I believe just like the weeds under the forest canopy, algae exists and follows a marginal life cycle even in what we accept as a algae free planted tank. When the condition for any or all the specie of algae to thrive appears you will have an algae bloom either generally or of some particular specie which can take advantage of that particular condition. This bloom will continue till the plants and your management does not restore the balance which kept the algae at bay.

CO2 held by most hobbyists as the Gabriel against the satanic algae – where does CO2 come into this equation? It does when you raise the light factor and require higher plant growth to offset the higher plant mass growth rate. Both adding fertilisers and CO2 will become necessary with higher lights to achieve the balance. Fast growing plants with their older leaves with imperceptible algae growth regularly trimmed and removed is what I think is the condition of my high lit planted aquarium.

Now let us take it from the other side – a new setup. At this stage you will have high nutrients and plants going through a dormant waiting period (some call it time to overcome shock of translocation) while they decide what type of growth fits its new environment. This situation is just ideal for an algae takeover breakout.

There are only 2 ways to avoid this situation and both require immense patience. There is also a third way which does not need patience but which needs a lot of hard work to be done over the coming 2 months, and that too without assurance of success. Almost all new to plant hobbyist follow this method. They will take the best plant substrate they can afford, and as much light as their budgets allow and then set up their aquarium within hours and add all the plants they have managed to acquire; some of them would add fishes too at this stage or within a week. Now starts the long uneven war with algae. Some are lucky to win but most succumb and leave the planted tank alone.

The 2 assured ways to win the war is (1) the dry start system and (2) the settle the plants system. In the dry start system you do most of the planting in dry substrate with your carpet plants and keep the substrate just wet under the tank lights till the plants start to cover the area you want to carpet. When that is achieved you raise the water level as little as possible to add you next lowest plants; and then wait for them to start growing. Now raise the water level a little higher and add your next plants and so on and so on till you have a filled aquarium.

All this while you were monitoring the nutrient levels in your aquarium, remember to keep the NPK in a ratio of 10:1:5; and also see to it that N ppm is not above 5 for low lighted tanks, above 10 for medium lighted tanks, above 15 for high lighted tanks, above 20 for highlighted with CO2 tanks. This is a must with both the assured methods.


In the settle the plants system, this is what I personally follow, I take a big bowl (several if necessary) and place some substrate material in it, fill up the bowl to ¾ with water and float my plants on the surface so that they just cover most of the surface of the water and do not lie one on top of another. I then put the bowl inside my aquarium and give it the light and CO2 condition it is going to face in my tank. I will wait till the plants show root growth. It is at this stage when I will set up my aquarium and plant it.

[Navanod]

Wall of text...but I shall try to digest it...

[TyroneGenade]

I did some math using the data presented in Diana Walstad's book using Elodea
occidentalis as a model organism and the fact that she removed about 20 g of plant material (dry weight) per month. Based on this, and a minimal concentrations of NPK needed for growth, the ratio comes to 28:1:5. Based on this, I have developed a fertilizer for my tanks which are all filled with soft water, so I have to add Ca and Mg as well. I will be experimenting with this.

Because phosphate accumulates fast in fish tanks with fish that need to be fed and phosphate is mostly taken up by the roots (rather than the leaves) I left the phosphate out of my fertilizer so it is essentially a NK mix of 28:5 with some Ca, Mg and SO4^2-.

To deal with my algae woes I have now switched to mostly cool white lighting which lacks the peak in the blue spectrum which is responsible for the photoreduction of Fe3+ to Fe2+ which is water soluble and which the algae need to thrive. I have also begun filtering out all dissolved organics which can chelate Fe and make it available to algae. All the Fe in my tank should, in a few days, be in the substrate far away from the algae. If this approach works I will be very happy.

I think that it is phosphate and soluble Fe which is the cause of algae out breaks. I will be testing my hypothesis and let you know.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[essabee]

Tyrone, what promotes algae also promotes plants. You will find that removing iron and phosphate from your tanks will affect your plants adversely. Much better trick is to keep the tank balanced. Make water changes to reduce the level of the nutrient which has gone high and then balance it by supplying only those nutrients which are relatively low. This will allow optimum plant growth and keep algae at bay.

[Plantbrain]

[COLOR=#333333][FONT=Arial]If there is a niche, Nature’s style is that there are organisms to fill it. As plants evolved much later than algae so there must be some algae which do well in every particular spectrum of light that plants can grow in.

Severla large assumptions and the applied concept is on an aquarium, not........a natural system ecology. Aquariums are unique and have their own ecology.

Agriculture is the same.

While the plants we eat come from nature, they have been modified and the habitat has been also dramatically modified, thus present a new type of Ecology. If we simply took only wild rice we found in nature, it would be impossible to support most of the people in the world.

Same for landscaping plants, weed control etc.

The conclusion must be that mere choice of light spectrum will never control algae.

I agree for aquariums, intensity is much more a factor, but for deeper phytoplankton and seasonal changes in natural systems, they are subtle, but still significant in some systems.

How to get an alga free planted tank? I believe that although you are looking at planted tank where the plants don’t show any algae on them, the algae like weeds under the forest canopy still are there in the tank; waiting for the opportunity when they can take advantage of a favorable niche.

Well, as long as the Forest is doing well, has enough nutrients, rain etc, nothing wipes out and cuts the forest down, the weeds will not do so well

Allelopathy? I too am no holocaust denier, but I do not believe that allelopathy has the ability to completely control all algae or that all plants have the same level of ability to use it against the algae.

Never heard it put that way before, but I do agree


I think if you consider the types of plants where allelopathy has been shown, often drier deserts, grasslands , bunch grasses etc, not these super fast growing conditions where resources are not limiting like swamps/wetlands, these plants are among the fastest growing plants in the world.

They do not need allelopathy, they just cover and grow faster than the other plants that might try and colonize. A subtle change or start might cause one to beat out another that has nothing to do with allelopathy.

I'd say that allelopathic secondary chemical production would be a disadvantage for aquatic plants, since it takes resources away from growth and allocates them to chemical defense but the chemicals get washed away in the water

These chemicals can have other benefits such as not being tasty and deterring herbivores.

If it is not allelopathy then is it CO2? The answer would be an empathetic –No. There are too many examples of non-CO2 enriched, algae free, planted tanks to even seek the answer from Mother Nature.

There are also examples of high light CO2 enriched systems both in nature and in aquariums that are also algae free. CO2 stability, much liek stable weather for crop production, rather than high low extremes, favor the Forest and the aquatic plant.

It takes time for plant to adapt to a given supply of carbon.
Algae do not have this same issue. They are almost never carbon limited.

It's not just a question of high or low, rather how stable it is and also how the other things like nutrients and light intensity relate to the big picture, there's no single smoking gun here.

It's a combination of factors that are important and stability.

The available nutrient should be sufficient to keep the plants growing at a rate which is in balance with light factor. If the light is sufficient for faster plant growth and the nutrients available does not allow the plants to grow at that rate, even with low nutrients in the water column you will end up with algae issue (especially BGA). Conversely – although the plant growth is in balance with the light factor and you have a nutrient concentration building up then the sum of the growth rate of your plants will be less that the total plant mass growth rate that the tank allows and you will end up with algae problem. Here I must also remind you of imbalance interse the different components of the plant nutrients must be avoided. Certain nutrients at certain levels and also nutrient in a particular form can act as accelerator for certain algae and must be avoided.

Well, it's like I often state:

Light drives => CO2 demand => which drives nutrient demand.
Light and nutrients are part5 of this, but CO2 is critical as well, it's not just adding it, but keeping it stable and allowing enough time for the plants to adapt to that ppm of CO2. Carbon is central to growth for plants.

Both adding fertilisers and CO2 will become necessary with higher lights to achieve the balance.

NO!

You just went of the deep end there.
You had a good understanding up to this point.

Ask yourself why.

I can easily do and often suggest low light , CO2 enriched and nutrient enriched aquariums. Why? I get the maximum growth out of very last bit of light energy. I have high light use efficiency. This allows me to grow any plant and have it look great without much management.

CO2 is easier to provide since demand is driven by light, and the same is true for nutrients, I get far more wiggle room this way.

There is and never was a requirement for high light when adding CO2/nutrients for enhancing plant growth.
Tropica came to this same conclusion(see their web site under CO2 and Riccia), as did ADA and myself and others, all independently. Problem is, hobbyists think more light = better.

Light is much easier to control and is the most stable of all the parameters. So if you can adjust, change that, then you master the other 2 much easier.

[/quote]
Fast growing plants with their older leaves with imperceptible algae growth regularly trimmed and removed is what I think is the condition of my high lit planted aquarium.[/quote]

I have slow growing plants without algae though

This situation is just ideal for an algae takeover breakout.

Yes, so rather than thinking about plants, why might algae grow if they are always present, what causes them to go from a dormant stage to a bloom stage? What causes them to induce their germination?

This is much different than what most hobbyists view about algae.
Even fewer try to actively grow algae.

The 2 assured ways to win the war is (1) the dry start system and (2) the settle the plants system. In the dry start system you do most of the planting in dry substrate with your carpet plants and keep the substrate just wet under the tank lights till the plants start to cover the area you want to carpet. When that is achieved you raise the water level as little as possible to add you next lowest plants; and then wait for them to start growing. Now raise the water level a little higher and add your next plants and so on and so on till you have a filled aquarium.

Or do not go cheap on the plants to start with, make sure you start with lower light and do more water changes and are able to manage CO2 effectively. Patience is something lacking in the hobby also.

DSM does not save anyone from an algae bloom later on if they cannot manage CO2, dosing, basics of aquarium care.

remember to keep the NPK in a ratio of 10:1:5; and also see to it that N ppm is not above 5 for low lighted tanks, above 10 for medium lighted tanks, above 15 for high lighted tanks, above 20 for highlighted with CO2 tanks. This is a must with both the assured methods.

No it's not.

Ratios do NOT matter, not here nor in hydroponics nor in agriculture as long as wide extremes are avoided. It also depends on what life stage the plant is in.

I keep ratios from 3:1:10, to 25:1:50, to 30:1:4

Plants are fine.
I tend to keep a high P ratio. Not sure why, just have.
Works for me just fine.

Light and measuring that, good management of CO2, those are the keys to algae issues and good plant growth, nutrients are very easy otherwise.

I have low light tanks with 30ppm of NO3, never an issue.
I have high light tanks with 10ppm of NO3 sometimes.

I do not find much correlation with nutrient ppm's etc.
Never did.

But I have enough experience to know this and have falsified dozens on claims to the contrary over the years.

It is at this stage when I will set up my aquarium and plant it.

That should work fine.

You have got 98% of of it and are on the right path, take heart the comments above and think about them. They are meant to guide you, not a personal criticism.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[Shadow]

There is and never was a requirement for high light when adding CO2/nutrients for enhancing plant growth. Tropica came to this same conclusion(see their web site under CO2 and Riccia), as did ADA and myself and others, all independently. Problem is, hobbyists think more light = better.

In my opinion is not that more light = better, is more like how much light require for specific plant species to be able to grow well (creeping plant grow low not tall). Which is very difficult to conclude.

I was trying to gather light data for glosso when come across a particular hobbyist who were able to grow nice creeping glosso with only 18W. Then I realize that all my data so far are rubish. I did not consider the surrounding light, not that I have a equipment to do so.

Conclusion... what the heck, just put whatever light I can fit on top . So far with EI, I have yet to see algae outbreak, hopefully never . It safe me from headache figuring out how much light I should put on top.

[TyroneGenade]

Tyrone, what promotes algae also promotes plants. You will find that removing iron and phosphate from your tanks will affect your plants adversely.

Rooted plants extract cations (Ca, Mg, Fe) and P (as phosphate) from the substrate. Algae have to get them from the water column. By removing Fe and P from the water column only the plants will have access to these elements which are trapped in the substrate. As with most things location matters.

The spectra of the lighting also matters. Water filters out red light but allows blue to penetrate. Blue light causes phororeduction of Fe (Fe3+ --> Fe2+) and so makes it available to plants which need Fe in the water column. By limiting the blue light you then limit photoreduction of Fe. Also, as the sun peaks in the yellow and green spectrum and the red is filtered out by the water many aquarium plants (particularly the red ones) have evolved chlorophyl to absorb green and yellow light. In Walstads book she presents data showing that a combination of cool white (yellow + green) and full spectrum generates the most photosynthesis in Elodea. Next in line was the combination of 2 cool whites. Lights which peaked in the red and blue (such as Grolux) had far less photosynthetic activity than the cool whites and cool white combinations.

By manipulating the lighting and nutrient source you can advantage plants and disadvantage algae.

[Plantbrain]

Rooted plants extract cations (Ca, Mg, Fe) and P (as phosphate) from the substrate. Algae have to get them from the water column. By removing Fe and P from the water column only the plants will have access to these elements which are trapped in the substrate. As with most things location matters.

A resounding No!
This is simply not true, nor have you nor anyone who has ever made such claims shown this. Algae are not limited in aquariums due to location.
They grow in the leanest of aquariums quite well, fish give off plenty of nutrients for algae alone, plants also act like pipes in the sediment and leach these same nutrients into the water column , this is a well know fact demonstrated in numerous studies. Algae: you need to show that algae are in fact limited by nutrients, or a specific set of nutrients.

To do that, you must determine their compensation critical nutrient points.
For many species this has already been done.

Plants also do not get their Ca/Mg/K from sediments typically in natural systems, perhaps P, and Fe, but not..these other 3.
However, this does not matter.

Even cutting off the roots, plants had the same relative rate of growth when there was ample nutrients in the water column. Algae is a separate question with respect to nutrients. They can live on about 100X less than most plants before limitation of growth occurs.

If you do not know how much it takes to limit algae that infest aquariums, then you cannot say anything about what is going on, you nor the folks that say this have ever demonstrated that algae are indeed truly limited.

It is a bad guess at best.

EI shows it cannot possibly be true. In non CO2 planted tanks, a simple measurement of various aquariums also shows a wide range of NO3, often moderate, P, which is often very high and ppm's far far beyond limiting levels.

I'd chose a different reason and not guess

The spectra of the lighting also matters. Water filters out red light but allows blue to penetrate.

Not much in 1 meter or less it doesn't.
Amano and a few others have tanks deeper than 1 meter(I've scaped a few this size) but very few hobbyists do.

Blue light causes phororeduction of Fe (Fe3+ --> Fe2+) and so makes it available to plants which need Fe in the water column. By limiting the blue light you then limit photoreduction of Fe.

This does not matter in any aquarium at all. We use chelated forms of Fe, they are more alkalinity/KH or pH if you do not add CO2 dependent, not light, the energy from most aquarium lights is not strong enough to break the bonding either. With chelated forms, we can use stronger chelates that last longer also and require more energy to break the bond/ligand.
In natural systems where plants live in a much varied condition, deeper, murky water, no one dosing nutrients, or manipulating things, no chelators other than tannins in the water......then this has some application.

But not here.
No one has shown that.

In Walstads book she presents data showing that a combination of cool white (yellow + green) and full spectrum generates the most photosynthesis in Elodea. Next in line was the combination of 2 cool whites. Lights which peaked in the red and blue (such as Grolux) had far less photosynthetic activity than the cool whites and cool white combinations.
By manipulating the lighting and nutrient source you can advantage plants and disadvantage algae.

Rather, by using less light intensity, regardless of spectrum or plant species, you limit growth and this is true for both algae which tend to have a higher light requirement for high rates of noxious growth than plants.

Folks have many types of light bulbs and many have been very successful with virtually every sort of color temp/spectrum.

Can you name some bulbs that do not grow plants well? Atinics are about the only ones, they look bad to our eyes, but they still do grow plants. Not as well as say full spectrum or cool whites, but higher rates of growth are ahrdly the goal with lights.

Most hobbyists want nice looking colors and decent(not the highest rates) growth.

I agree with using sediment ferts in combination with the water column.
Sediments work well because they offer an easy long term back up if the hobbyists forgets to add ferts to the water, and dosing the water provides a longer term supply that can be monitored easily and takes the demand off the sediment. Additionally, there is no transport for any nutrient if the water column + sediment is dosed.

Explain this aquarium with ADA AS + EI dosing:



Explain this one that is a non CO2 tank and has never seen a single water change:


Both has lots of water column nutrients and very different depths/lighting types and intensity. If you use watts/gal, not PAR, you might think some rather strange things and speculate, but that's all you can say if you never measure the observations specific to these tanks.

It does not imply or show cause.


Regards,
Tom Barr

[Plantbrain]

In my opinion is not that more light = better, is more like how much light require for specific plant species to be able to grow well (creeping plant grow low not tall). Which is very difficult to conclude.

I was trying to gather light data for glosso when come across a particular hobbyist who were able to grow nice creeping glosso with only 18W. Then I realize that all my data so far are rubish. I did not consider the surrounding light, not that I have a equipment to do so.

Conclusion... what the heck, just put whatever light I can fit on top . So far with EI, I have yet to see algae outbreak, hopefully never . It safe me from headache figuring out how much light I should put on top.

I've measured about 25 micromoles for good healthy growth of Gloss.
That's the lowest average I've found over the area that it was growing well.
HC, Tennellus and others, about 30-40 is a lower end range where you maintain very nice horticultural results/nice looking plants.

This is not much light.

Runners will try and explore new places and often run into much lower levels than this, but the average for the area needs consider since a plant can allocate resources from a high light region(or CO2 if it makes it to the surface) to look for nutrients and new habitat.

Crypts do this very well.

Regards,
Tom mBarr

[TyroneGenade]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the reply. I can offer some evidence for Ca uptake from roots. I transplanted my Hygrophila stricta a 2 weeks ago from a spot where I had added some beach sand. Prior to this it had lovely flat broad leaves. All the leaves which developed after the transplant were folded and wrinkled---Ca deficiency. This week I started dosing with small quantities of Ca (along with N, K, Mg and S) and the new leaves are nice and flat again. (Also, the long leaf Hygro and polysperma are also producing healthy looking leaves again.) Ca in the substrate seems to be important when there is little Ca in the water column but I can't be 100%. This is far from a controlled study.

My thinking is very much along the lines of essabee: in nature the water column is virtually devoid of nutrients, but this is made up for by a constant low concentrations. This is what I'm trying to do. I'm only adding enough nutrients for a day or two. The plants are very efficient at taking these up---particularly K---and will take up far in excess of what they need. From what I understand, algae can do this as well except when it comes to K. Now that I'm adding K I see the long-leaf Hygro (and even the Crypt crispatula) are pearling. I hope this will give them the advantage over the algae and deplete the nutrients. On the other hand, now that I am trying to limit the Fe in the water column I see that my Riccia and Java fern is pearling less (though the Riccia pearling less is probably more because of switching to cool white from Grolux). I seem to have shifted the photosynthetic upper-hand from the floating plants (of which I consider algae a member) to the rooted plants. So far so good.

(Edit: to determine if the Hygro pearling is because of light spectrum or macro nutrient supply I will switch back to Grolux+Aquastar this weekend.)

There have been several studies showing that P, more than N, is the nutrient that most limits algae growth (assuming everything else is in excess) hence my desire to get this down. By itself, reducing P isn't going to do much as you point out, so I'm also targeting Fe. Most of the hair algae is suspended off the substrate so it is dependent on water column Fe for growth. A few weeks ago I did a water change and dosed with trace elements (mostly chelated Fe) and observed an explosion of hair algae! Therefore my desire to strip the water column of Fe. There should be enough Fe in the substrate for the plants (though I am going to strategically stick some iron nails or screws into the substrate to make sure). Same for P (in the form of Ca and Mg phosphate). I don't mind if they leach some of the P and Fe into the water column, as long as they use most of what is available. That they have "free" access to what is in the substrate means they have the advantage over the algae which has to rely on the plants to pump the nutrient to them.

In a week or two I will manually remove as much hair algae as I can and then watch and wait to see how fast it grows back and gauge if my plan is working.

My woes are probably the consequence of low K and Ca more than an excess of Fe or P but unless I can get the Fe and P down, adding K will not help the plants gain an advantage at using the available nutrients. The algae are just too efficient at using the available nutrients.

FYI, if you see here there is a chart showing that by 0.3 m 50% of the red spectrum is lost through the water column. My tank is 45 cm deep. Yellow light penetrates much better, losing only about 10% after 1 m. Sadly, algae just love yellow light...

I've done some digging and indeed, Fe photoreduction occurs maximally at 280-315 nm (UVB) which means it is inconsequential in fishtanks. Never the less, the plants look happy under the Cool Whites and don't want to upset the experiment for now.

Thanks for the info, Tom. I will ponder the matter a lot more.

[Plantbrain]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the reply. I can offer some evidence for Ca uptake from roots. I transplanted my Hygrophila stricta a 2 weeks ago from a spot where I had added some beach sand. Prior to this it had lovely flat broad leaves. All the leaves which developed after the transplant were folded and wrinkled---Ca deficiency.

That does not imply a thing regarding Ca deficient.
Absolutely nothing in the results suggest that is in fact the case.
It could be, but the results have not demonstrated it one way or another, this is conjecture plain and simple.

Could it be when you did the changes, the CO2 is different? You also transplanted, there's no control there at all.
Could be a few things, nothing to do with Calcium.

I've never seen a definite Ca++ deficient aquatic plant.
I and others where we live have lower Ca++ level that most of the folks in Japan, SG and most places, the sierra snow melt, pure granite geology water supply have virtually no Ca or Mg or KH.

Mg I have seen, but not Ca.

Many enjoy using that, but stunted tip is a classic CO2 issue.
It has little to do with Ca/K+ etc as many myth makers seem to suggest without basis.

All you have to do is add a known amount of Ca++ and it would correct the problem, but those that claim Ca++ is the issue, never resolve the tip issues by additions I've long noted.........

I've also never been able induce Ca tip stunting even with 2-3ppm of Ca++ or little less.

So it's just not nearly as likely as say......CO2/transplanting stress etc.
Maybe it was a shortage of NO3.........

Who knows, but the evidence you present does not support the speculation.

[quote]
This week I started dosing with small quantities of Ca (along with N, K, Mg and S) and the new leaves are nice and flat again. (Also, the long leaf Hygro and polysperma are also producing healthy looking leaves again.) Ca in the substrate seems to be important when there is little Ca in the water column but I can't be 100%. This is far from a controlled study.
[quote]

Well was it N? K? Mg? Something else not considered?
Cannot say.

My thinking is very much along the lines of essabee: in nature the water column is virtually devoid of nutrients, but this is made up for by a constant low concentrations. This is what I'm trying to do.

Err............why? Farmers and landscapers don't do this. It's impractical and hard to do nor is it required.

Just because that is what is found in some, not all, natural systems, does not imply that is what is best for an aquarium or a plant, or a fish.

We would not be able to grow most any crop without changing things far from the natural state, fish are all breed by people in a very different state than nature.

I'm only adding enough nutrients for a day or two. The plants are very efficient at taking these up---particularly K---and will take up far in excess of what they need.

So what?
Why the extreme micromanagement of nutrients?
I'd focus on the bigger picture, things that really matter like CO2, light intensity, measure and focus on those, then nutrients are much simpler and easier.

You are wasting time/labor on nutrients, not on the larger picture.
At higher concentrations, plants, spend less energy on uptake, this is a fact and can be found across the board for most organisms.

If you have algae, reducing light, focusing more on CO2 and current will solve most folk's issues, good consistent dosing takes care of the rest and is easy to do, sediments and water column both can be used without issues.

From what I understand, algae can do this as well except when it comes to K.

Algae are never limited in a planted tank, for CO2 or nutrients if you have fish and sediments etc or dose anything.
They are 10-100X or more able to live on less than plants.

Now that I'm adding K I see the long-leaf Hygro (and even the Crypt crispatula) are pearling. I hope this will give them the advantage over the algae and deplete the nutrients. On the other hand, now that I am trying to limit the Fe in the water column I see that my Riccia and Java fern is pearling less (though the Riccia pearling less is probably more because of switching to cool white from Grolux). I seem to have shifted the photosynthetic upper-hand from the floating plants (of which I consider algae a member) to the rooted plants. So far so good.

(Edit: to determine if the Hygro pearling is because of light spectrum or macro nutrient supply I will switch back to Grolux+Aquastar this weekend.)

So where you adding K+ before? NO3? etc?
That alone would show the changes you saw, but....for very different reasons than you think.

There have been several studies showing that P, more than N, is the nutrient that most limits algae growth (assuming everything else is in excess) hence my desire to get this down.

No, not in the presence of aquatic plants there's not
This paper addresses N and P over 319 lakes WHERE AQUATIC PLANTS ARE ACTUALLY PRESENT.

Far more lakes than any study you or others have been able to show for comparative purposes where aquatic plants are also present.

There's no correlation between algae and nutrient trophic states.
None.

http://fishweb.ifas.ufl.edu/Faculty%...macrophyte.pdf

Instead of just saying there are studies......I actually gave you one to read.
Read it and see what you think.

By itself, reducing P isn't going to do much as you point out, so I'm also targeting Fe.

So by doing 12 different things at once, you believe you can say anything about cause/s?

[quote]
Most of the hair algae is suspended off the substrate so it is dependent on water column Fe for growth. A few weeks ago I did a water change and dosed with trace elements (mostly chelated Fe) and observed an explosion of hair algae!
[quote]

I dose 1ppm 3x a week of Fe and I do not ever get any correlation between hair algae(any algae for that matter) and Fe dosing.

Here's my tank yesterday:

Therefore my desire to strip the water column of Fe. There should be enough Fe in the substrate for the plants (though I am going to strategically stick some iron nails or screws into the substrate to make sure). Same for P (in the form of Ca and Mg phosphate). I don't mind if they leach some of the P and Fe into the water column, as long as they use most of what is available.

Then you will not limit the algae one bit.

That they have "free" access to what is in the substrate means they have the advantage over the algae which has to rely on the plants to pump the nutrient to them.

How can you say that it will leach but then not matter here?
This makes no sense at all.

In a week or two I will manually remove as much hair algae as I can and then watch and wait to see how fast it grows back and gauge if my plan is working.

My woes are probably the consequence of low K and Ca more than an excess of Fe or P but unless I can get the Fe and P down, adding K will not help the plants gain an advantage at using the available nutrients. The algae are just too efficient at using the available nutrients.

Now you are thinking better/wiser.
Focus on plants, not algae.

That is the "cure", also supported by Bachmann et al's research.
Plant's define the system where they have good access to nutrients, lean or rich

FYI, if you see here there is a chart showing that by 0.3 m 50% of the red spectrum is lost through the water column. My tank is 45 cm deep. Yellow light penetrates much better, losing only about 10% after 1 m. Sadly, algae just love yellow light...

I do not think there's any issue with depth and light and algae.
It's much more a function of intensity, not wavelength filtering.

I have done many tanks at 60cm, 70cm, and 120 cm depths, never seen any evidence of an issue, both algae and plants can change and modify their light harvesting and adapt to various light qualities.

This is well known.

I've done some digging and indeed, Fe photoreduction occurs maximally at 280-315 nm (UVB) which means it is inconsequential in fishtanks. Never the less, the plants look happy under the Cool Whites and don't want to upset the experiment for now.

Thanks for the info, Tom. I will ponder the matter a lot more.

I'd suggest focusing much more of just general nutrient dosing, make sure there's enough, no limitation for the plants, and then work on CO2 tweaking really carefully and closely, and use less, not more, light. Light should be the limiting factor for growth, it is...after all, the easiest most stable p[arameter and where all growth starts, including algae and affects the uptake of all down stream CO2/nutrients.

So less light = less CO2 demand => nutrient demand.
If you think holistically, and simply add enough nutrients in both locations for plants, then CO2 is about all that is left if you have a good light system.

Less light will = less algae growth, algae are not CO2 or nutrient limited.
Once you see this point, it will make the issue much more simple, more a skill to work on light and CO2, and less fiddling with various nutrients.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[TyroneGenade]

Thanks again for the reply. I was adding KNO3 previously to no effect (to 20 ppm per week). I had tried adding Ca and Mg as coral chips in the filter but that was useless. I am now adding less N and K than I was previously and a lot more Ca and Mg. Sadly, I never got the chance to change the lights this past weekend...

I have had to deal with Ca deficiency many times thanks to poor substrates and very soft water. Generally, the low levels are sufficient until we add the iron-chelate. Then, suddenly, we get massive holes in the new leaves and other leaf deformities. In our super soft water the plants have to exchange what little Ca there is for the Fe held by the chelating agent. A friend has spent a long time developing a 2 part fertilizer for our soft water. The first is a Ca/Mg hardening mix and the other the micronutrients. Obviously this hasn't worked well for me, but my problem is the algae which is already thriving in the tank.

I learnt in my plant physiology lectures (see Taiz & Zeiger) many moons ago that the roots of plants take up cations (like Ca, Mg, Zn, Fe etc...) by the secretion of H+ which dissolved the alkaline salts they are apart of and the electrochemical gradient created by the secretion of H+ drew the cations across into the roots. The vast majority of our aquarium plants are bog plants which use their roots like land plants and in the very same way. Root absorption of nutrients is discussed by Jim Kelly here: http://www.hallman.org/plant/soilchem.html . I haven't had time to study it in detail but seems to say more or less the same thing: H+ out, Ca etc... in.

This is a very old post but interesting never the less: http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilizer/roots.html . Sadly Elizabeth Worobel (or is it Dave Huebert?) doesn't give references. My substrate is silica sand (with a little beach sand which is also mostly silca with a few bits of shell grit) so on the whole my tank is Ca and Mg poor. That the fertilizer mix I am adding compensates for K, Ca and Mg may be why the plants are suddenly looking better. A seizable part of the N contribution is ammonium which the leaves can take up without any effort (simply drawn across by the electrochemical gradient) so there is no wait for the NO3 to have to first diffuse into the substrate so the roots can take it up---perhaps this is why such high NO3 concentrations are need for aquarium plant growth? Tom, while I am not 100% convinced about Ca in the substrate being irrelevant (I can't find a single reference about aquatic plants not taking up Ca via the roots while I have found several about them taking up Zn, Sr, Ld, Cd etc... via the roots), I will concede that you are right about Ca, Mg and K being very important in the water column.

I've used this substrate for at least 10 years and for the most part, in the same 4 ft tank. For 2 years there were no plants just fish excrement (Tanganyikans with lots of shell grit worked into the substrate). When the tank was turned into a planted tank the plants thrived and there was no algae at all other than what grows slowly on the glass. I moved several times, never cleaning the substrate... Then I had to break the tank down and divided the substrate between two 3 foot tanks. Hair algae got a foot-hold in one (bad lighting, no CO2). Thought I had gotten rid of it all when I started the 4 foot tank up again but very quickly the stuff was taking over. I guess it just got the leg-up in the new tank. The sand had also had a rinse or three since then, the fish stocking density was low and the tap water is terribly soft. No chance for the plants but a bonanza for the ever efficient algae. In the past I have successfully relied on a high density of fish to supply the nutrients the plants wanted... This time I have very few fish and the substrate is pretty poor by itself.

Thanks for the paper and all the information. Again, I must go rethink many ideas. I agree, getting the plants happy is the main issue. CO2 levels are A-OK as evidenced by the Cabomba which thrives on both sides of the tank (its only the Hygrophila and swords which are showing signs of grief).

[StanChung]

Hi all,
Ahhh-Algae the love story-[My wise friend said love is painful ]

Some guys approach combating algae by googling up the 'right numbers' for ppm's as few have the equipment to measure ppm. [like me at one time]
Some guys get philosophical by blaming the devil. [like me at one time]
Some wing it. [like me now! ]

Algae is everything you said Essabee, hiding in the air, shadows, as spores, as piggybacks on plants/fish poop-it's unavoidable dammit!

I've learnt that if your moss is infected with hair algae, just scoop everything and throw it away if you don't have time or patience to separate every strand and multiply them in another algae free tank!
If you have BBA, wash your filter. Bleach your rocks and equipment.
If have BGA, clean the tank side substrate and do 3 day blackouts to knock it out.

Algae also loves what fishes produce. Whether it's poop or discus 'milk'. [my 'theory'.] Some fish food are also really bad. Don't know if you guys ever noticed.

There is and never was a requirement for high light when adding CO2/nutrients for enhancing plant growth. Tropica came to this same conclusion(see their web site under CO2 and Riccia), as did ADA and myself and others, all independently. Problem is, hobbyists think more light = better.

Agree yet disagree.

So happens one of the tanks I'm doing requires intense lighting, not because I want to court algae but because I want it to grow a certain way. With that, I'm committed to do WC as necessary. Bloody spot algae grows as fast as the plants!

Light to me is more than just a growing tool, it's also a design tool.
High light to make plants grow compact or even droop. 10-12 lighting period to make them creep. Sometimes to make it red. Less to stunt growth. Heck- moving the lights to make them point in a particular direction as well.

Ferts as design concept. You guys ever thought about that? Redder plants, smaller sized, greener etc.

CO2 as algae factor? It's never been a problem till the tank runs out unnoticed.
Just don't blindly turn it up. Luckily I've not gassed anything to death yet but I've noticed more than a dozen do it.

Overall a very good read but 'counting ppm' is like 'pixel peeping' but with so many variables. Beautiful planted tank pictures does make a more compelling argument IMO!

[Plantbrain]

So happens one of the tanks I'm doing requires intense lighting, not because I want to court algae but because I want it to grow a certain way. With that, I'm committed to do WC as necessary. Bloody spot algae grows as fast as the plants!

Well, then if you like high light, then there needs more focus on the downstream management, particularly CO2 and providing good ample O2 for fish with increased CO2.

Some like the higher growth rates of plants, but there is a price associated, a trade off for this higher light. Many aquarist do not favor this, but I have nice high light tanks with stem plants, a PITA to trim often, but I keep one such tank around for old time's sake

Light to me is more than just a growing tool, it's also a design tool.
High light to make plants grow compact or even droop. 10-12 lighting period to make them creep. Sometimes to make it red. Less to stunt growth. Heck- moving the lights to make them point in a particular direction as well.

I have some of the same observations, but I still get nice management without resorting to higher light for design and aesthetic aspects of plants, more good stable CO2 and allowing the plants to maximize the light they do have available. "High light efficiency" basically.

Still light should be viewed like you said, a management tool for a given set of goals, those goals are different for different folks/aquariums etc.

Ferts as design concept. You guys ever thought about that? Redder plants, smaller sized, greener etc.

Same can be said for less light since light drives all downstream uptake, making management of nutrients /ferts much much easier. Why would the tail wag the dog rather than the dog wagging to the tail?

I still get some of the best colors without doing that and using light alone to manage the colors/size as well as ablility to control the rates of growth.

Light is far more stable a parameter than nutrients will ever be, and it also resolves a CO2 dosing issue when we use less, not more and the added benefit of less algae which are not limited by either nutrients or CO2.

So CO2 is better managed with light at the start if you look at the big picture, not just one thing at a time.

You can certainly make PO4 limitation stronger than say CO2 limitation, but then nutrients are no longer independent. Adding PO4 back will make the CO2 limitation stronger. If you add both more CO2 and more PO4, then you have no limitation and much better rates of growth. From there, all one needs to do is simply adjust the light to suit whatever management of growth they desire.

CO2 as algae factor? It's never been a problem till the tank runs out unnoticed. Just don't blindly turn it up. Luckily I've not gassed anything to death yet but I've noticed more than a dozen do it.

Overall a very good read but 'counting ppm' is like 'pixel peeping' but with so many variables. Beautiful planted tank pictures does make a more compelling argument IMO!

Well, a well run aquarium is an opportunity.
These tanks make good aquariums to test and measure.
George's tank in the ADA's contest made an excellent tank to measure the lighting for the ADA fixtures, they where much less than anyone predicted.
About 1/2 the light intensity I and most everyone had predicted.

The tank now has lots of algae, but this was due to not dosing nutrients, and poor CO2. ADA sediment depletes over time, N more than anything else, and poor N=> BGA issues for the tank, followed by poor CO2 later when they switched out the CO2 diffusers and flow routine that led to much lower mixing.

My client's tank is a mix of both nutrients(they do not dose very well during the week) and the rest is just CO2.

But it does run well over time.

Simply reducing light addresses most of the immediate issues, but pinpointing the root issue could be a CO2 or nutrient issue. Where there are issues, reducing light is the first good step since it reduces limiting factors for plants no matter what(CO2/nutrients) and reduces algae.

Given the trade offs, you can manage things with nutrients alone, or CO2 even, but.............for most goals, most folk's abilities to manage, using less light is a much wiser way to manage a planted tank given the other trades offs.

From there(lower light), better CO2 management, nutrient management can be done. (Light)It's much like learning to drive or walk/run. You start slow and low intensity and get comfortable. Later, after experience, you learn to go faster if you so chose.

Many hobbyist just hit the gas as hard as they can, crash their system/s, then give up.

There's a much higher risk for things to go wrong at higher light.
ADA's lighting is much lower intensity that what many predict with good reason, Tropica and myself also suggest low light + good high CO2.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[StanChung]

I don't think anybody can escape from algae. Anybody who gives up just because he has an outbreak isn't passionate enough about planted tanks in the first place.

I think most newbies would fall in the low light category. Most are students/new wage earners with tight budgets but not quite enough for a CO2 system or big bright lights or soil for substrate. I always advise them best to save up for every item before starting.

I do agree CO2 does factor highly in algae outbreaks especially if there's a breakdown of the system where supply is interrupted.
Some guys think stable CO2 means keeping the CO2 bubbling 24/7.
Somebody quoted Tom Barr said CO2 is cheap! It's also a greenhouse gas people!

Light without a doubt is a big factor for all photosynthetic plants/animals. Makes sense to use it wisely or it could all go wrongly quickly.

I do think people dream of maintenance free tanks that look like in the magazines. That remains a dream. It's possible to have WC free tanks for long periods. I've had mine for 8 months- just top up water from evaporation.[2-3 inches every 3 days].
Some styles of tanks require more maintenance from others. Iwagumi rockscapes for example are maintenance intensive.
So maintenance must be part of the equation since we can't flush everything with rainwater like mother nature does.

[Blue Whale]

Guys, yoo-hoo, nature co-exist with algae.

Higher light for me is always about water temperature. Chinese said "Good things little bit will suffice". Mua upcoming new tank will install DIY Solar instead of relying on height itself to correct the temp.

How about the algae, well, I let the algae concentrate on driftwoods, glass wall one just clean them off. After the entire driftwood has been "contaminated" with algae, I will take the wood out, pour boiled water, cooked the algae then put them back for regrowth. The fish are able to withstand the algae whilst the algae grow lesser. Like Tom suggested, modified the nutrients to be balance. So correcting dosing habits would be what I am in for too. I try not to micro-manage too much.

BBA...oh yes...pirates sia. My rule is try to save, cannot save, get rid before it affects the rest of the plant. =P

[TyroneGenade]

I do think people dream of maintenance free tanks that look like in the magazines. That remains a dream.

Been there, done that... I've had a lovely planted tank that went months without a water change or cleaning of the glass (God bless Ancistrus). Fish were happy as can be. Spent many an evening watching the 3 pairs of kribs battle it out over whose fry is whose while the Rainbows dropped in an snatched a few... (Kribs are much better parents than Rams!) I had the Hygrophila pearling. The Crypts were trying to break out the tank... Which makes it all the more infuriating that my tank is now being overridden with hair algae!!!

Can 10W really make such a big difference? That tank is the same tank I have now except that it has 90 W over it instead of 80 W (about 150 W/m2 or 1.3 W/gal, it is a 70 gal tank) or is it just a nutrient deficiency (several BIG rainbows etc... vs some killies and livebearers).

What is clear to me is that if I want the algae to go away I need to make the plants healthy first.

I think the next time I make up my fertilizer I will work some P into it.

This has been a very useful discussion. Tom, you know just the right questions to ask.

[Shadow]

I was borrowing my coleague NO3 test kit from API to measure my office tank. to my surprise it measure 80+ ppm . I thought the test kit spoiled, so I measure the tap water and it was measured 5ppm. So it does work. Amazingly my cerry shrimp and fishe still alive. Also so far there is no algae issue. I did major water change about 80%, and the NO3 level drop to 20 ppm.

I take the test kit home and measure my home tank. It was also measure 80+ ppm. I did 50% water change and measure again. To my horor it still show 80+ ppm , I will do another 50% water change tomorow. Again in this tank fish and shrimps (yamato and chery) are all ok. I have no algae issue in this tank either.

How many ppm of NO3 before it start killing fauna?

by the way, is there any more accurate NO3 test kit in the market? The API color chart only show 0, 5, 10, 20, 40, 80 and 160. No a clue what color in between.

[Blue Whale]

Sera or Aquarium Pharmaceutical Inc ones perhaps, plus minus $10. I went searching my test kits and yips! 2003 price tags. I might have started playing with fish tanks earlier than I have anticipated. =P

[PeterGwee]

Shadow, you need to make standard solutions in the range you wish to detect and than check if the test kit is indeed accurate. Do not assume it to be accurate. Even the $30,000 machine which we use to measure PO4 at work needs calibration via standard solutions to ensure that it does not deviate.

Regards,
Peter Gwee