Does excess P encourage hair algae?

[Franks]

I know it's all a balance (fert/Co2/lighting) but I recently had some shop advice from a very knowledgeable sounding worker who kept a planted tank. He said our local water contains so much P and that by dosing a full NPK and Micro that this will boost P by such an amount that hair algae is generally promoted. He then told me thats why I have it (without me telling him!)

He went on to say my options to gain full control are to cut out dosing P or run RO water and use a full fert and as a last resort, stock the tank full of plants in such a way that they mop up this excess.

I cant find anything on the net to support this excess P and hair algae evidence though. Does it sound plausible?

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

 

[Easternlethal]

All algae use the same nutrients as plants. Even co2. But plants compete against algae and inhibit their growth in a variety of ways (not only by using up the nutrients). So a high P environment can have lots of algae and no plants or lots of plants and no algae. Of course if plants are losing the battle against P, people try to cut all nutrients from the water column to give plants an advantage through the substrate / roots.

However plants and algae need all nutrients so cutting one out successfully will mean they will also be unable to utilise the others.

 

[ian_m]

Due to dosing pump failure I ended up with 350ppm nitrate and 80ppm phosphate for a while. No effect on fish and absolutely no algae.

Generally adding more phosphate will reduce algae.

Never ever rely on your water report to alter your dosing, we see time after time people who invent their own dosing scheme based on their water report having plant nutrient issues and if plants suffer algae gets a foot hold.

 

[rebel]

I don't we can be sure either way. If you dose EI and have excellent co2 then no. Otherwise who knows.

Concentrate on growing plants.

Hair algae, I use algaexit and shrimp.

Then back to more enjoyable aspect of growing plants.

 

[Franks]

I guess. So long as there is no deficiency but he was adamant that a big excess promotes hair algae. I have the tiniest amount so it raised an eyebrow.

I'm currently in a 'take all advice onboarding' approach since I'm a week into tuning my Co2 gas in. PH meter has just arrived and tank is filled with plants. Zero substrate space left!

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

But plants compete against algae and inhibit their growth in a variety of ways (not only by using up the nutrients). So a high P environment can have lots of algae and no plants or lots of plants and no algae.

I like a lot of plants, and I don't tend to have much filamentous algae.

It is certainly true in natural waters that elevated levels of PO4--- tend to cause algal blooms, and we are talking about <"very low levels of PO4---">.

but he was adamant that a big excess promotes hair algae. I have the tiniest amount so it raised an eyebrow.

I don't know the answer, but the thing you have to remember is that physiologically green algae are very similar to higher plants.

From: <"The Tree of Life:Green Plants">

Green plants as defined here includes a broad assemblage of photosynthetic organisms that all contain chlorophylls a and b, store their photosynthetic products as starch inside the double-membrane-bounded chloroplasts in which it is produced, and have cell walls made of cellulose (Raven et al., 1992). In this group are several thousand species of what are classically considered green algae, plus several hundred thousand land plants.

Because of this I can't see how conditions that favour the growth of the plants we want, don't also favour the growth of the plants we don't want.

cheers Darrel

 

[zozo]

I do not do any EI and use tropica ferts and or easy life profito and various tabs.. In my high tech i see green filamentous algae grow only on the glass i have to clean once a week, but no longer on the plants. 6 months ago this still was different and had several algae issues also hair algae on plants.. In my latest low tech i still have hair algae growing on the plants this tank is about 9 months old now and not all of the plants are fully established..

Experiencing algae come and go with the exact same fert regime i have no other guess than it is probably the plants establishment in health and or maturity preventing algae from getting a foothold on its leaves.. The times i had algae issues on plant leaves in my high tech i also experienced plants not realy doing great and holding back in growth. In the low tech i experience some what the same at the time, the plants which are the youngest and not yet established have the most hair algae on its leaves. First i had to battle off and wait out the diatom outbreak, then came the BBA, so did cut back the light and BBA fortunately is on it's detour again and now i see hair algae appearing instead.

Their probably (more obviously) is a correlation between fert availabilty and algae and if the plant is incapable of utilizing these ferts into good growth and health algae growth will probably excellerate and attack plants in trouble. For example still under developed rootsystem could be the cause of stagnation in the plants transportation abilities and there for not utilizing the ferts in the water column. So not taking up ferts but also not transporting antibodies back to protect them against algae attack. Something like that.

There are articles enough to find from very experienced planted tank keepers stating very high P load but no algae.. Because they have very good establihed and healthy plants growing. Algae is always around, but not on the plants if all is healthy..

 

[Easternlethal]

Because of this I can't see how conditions that favour the growth of the plants we want, don't also favour the growth of the plants we don't want.

cheers Darrel

A favourable environment is one thing but how plants take advantage of it is another.

It's actually a gross generalisation to say all plants are physiologically the same. This is a hobby myth. Plants are different, having evolved different root systems, stem, leaf composition etc. over millions of years to compete against each other.

In a way, saying all plants have chlorophyll so there's no telling is a bit like saying all animals on earth have arms and legs so they should all thrive.

If It can rephrase the point a bit, it's that it's still an open question as to whether it's possible to set up an aquarium to favour the physiological attributes of a group of plants vs another.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Plants are different, having evolved different root systems, stem, leaf composition etc. over millions of years to compete against each other.

Point taken, photosynthetic organisms occur in all habits where liquid water and light are available. I originally trained as a botanist, and the diversity of plant life, and the <"niches it exploits">, is just over-whelming.

It's actually a gross generalisation to say all plants are physiologically the same. This is a hobby myth.

If we just look at photosynthesis it isn't. I can tell you that unequivocally.

If you look specifically at the green plants <"Viridiplantae">, they all belong to the <"same clade"> and have a common ancestor, and all have the same basic physiology.

In a way, saying all plants have chlorophyll so there's no telling is a bit like saying all animals on earth have arms and legs so they should all thrive.

No, it is important at a much more fundamental level than that, photosynthetic organisms are <"autotrophs"> and, again we know from conserved DNA that photosynthesis <"only evolved once">.

cheers Darrel

 

[Easternlethal]

Photosynthesis, respiration, reproduction, life, death are biological processes and don't really contribute to or explain how plants and algae compete. Physiology is what does.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Photosynthesis, respiration, reproduction, life, death are biological processes and don't really contribute to or explain how plants and algae compete. Physiology is what does.

Yes that is exactly it.

All the green plants have the same basic physiology, which they got from their common ancestor. If you look at their requirements for <"nutrients">, and their basic photosystems they are the same. Evolution (via natural selection) has moulded this basic tool kit to allow green plants (often in <"mutualistic"> or symbiotic relations) to exploit all environments with liquid water and light, but it can't change the tool kit.

<"Fundamental processes"> such as photosynthesis, respiration, plant nutrition, plant hormone functions, tropisms, nastic movements, photoperiodism, photomorphogenesis, circadian rhythms, environmental stress physiology, seed germination, dormancy and stomata function and transpiration, both parts of plant water relations, are studied by plant physiologists.

When we supply abundant PAR and nutrients they can be utilised by all green plants. We need to provide conditions where the plants we want are favoured, not the ones we don't.

cheers Darrel

 

[rebel]

I agree, hair algae is a difficult beast to beat at times. It's far too close to being a plant which we are trying to grow.

For the OP, it would be easy to check whether P causes hair algae. You need a few tanks with identical equipment, accurate calibrated measurement devices and some lab grade chemicals with known titrations etc. Ideally though, get some advice from a plant guy (say Botanist and chemist) to make sure your experiments are valid. Finally you need independent replication of your tests by other groups. I would love to see all that data!

 

[hard determinist]

When we supply abundant PAR and nutrients they can be utilised by all green plants.

I don't agree on this. Some plant species are abviously adapted to special conditions, and don't evolved any physiological mechanisms to survive in other conditions. A good example of this is Rotala wallichii. On the other hand, you have many plant species that can successfully adapt to broad range of conditons, because they have evolved many physiological mechanisms to survive in these conditions. These are the ones we call "invasive", as they can survive neerly everywhere. A good example of this is Rotala rotundifolia. Both species are closely related, yet their demands are diametrically different. One plant will fail in most environments, while the other will be OK under most conditions. Under all conditions there is water, light, and nutrients. Explain this.

 

[zozo]

I have it in my tank, tho it's latent but it's definitely there.. And if for example take some clean looking moss out off my tank, put it in distilled water or tap water (doesn't make a difference) on the window sil.. It only takes a few weeks and i have a nice wig of hair algae growing in there. Light??

 

[Easternlethal]

Hi all,Yes that is exactly it.

All the green plants have the same basic physiology, which they got from their common ancestor. If you look at their requirements for <"nutrients">, and their basic photosystems they are the same. Evolution (via natural selection) has moulded this basic tool kit to allow green plants (often in <"mutualistic"> or symbiotic relations) to exploit all environments with liquid water and light, but it can't change the tool kit. When we supply abundant PAR and nutrients they can be utilised by all green plants. We need to provide conditions where the plants we want are favoured, not the ones we don't.

cheers Darrel

Let me give you an example.Some floating phytoplankton can outcompete rooted macrophytes because they are not limited to propagating by runners or shoots and have no need to make physiological features like cuticles. This means they can multiply faster but, being non rooted are subject to water movement. This is why we recommend having flow in the aquarium, because plants with root systems are not subject to water movement as much.

So understanding photosynthesis or just focusing on the parts of a plant that is used for photosynthesis doesn't really help. Macrophytes do a lot more than just photosynthesize.

Take a look at my other post which contains some more detailed articles about competition.
http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/...ake-restoration-techniques.41747/#post-449302

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

hair algae is a difficult beast to beat at times. It's far too close to being a plant which we are trying to grow.

That is what I'm saying.

Some plant species are abviously adapted to special conditions, and don't evolved any physiological mechanisms to survive in other conditions. A good example of this is Rotala wallichii. On the other hand, you have many plant species that can successfully adapt to broad range of conditons, because they have evolved many physiological mechanisms to survive in these conditions.

I agree, natural selection has adapted plants to survive in all sorts of really hostile conditions and they often have very limited survivor-ship away from those conditions.

You can see the effects of this with global warming where <"alpine plants are retreating uphill"> as competition from less specialized plants becomes more important.

These are the ones we call "invasive", as they can survive neerly everywhere. A good example of this is Rotala rotundifolia. Both species are closely related, yet their demands are diametrically different. One plant will fail in most environments, while the other will be OK under most conditions. Under all conditions there is water, light, and nutrients.

That is right, plants that are easy to grow (or potentially invasive) have a wide ecological amplitude, and can take advantage of a range of conditions.

Plants that are adapted to nutrient poor condition may be extremely efficient at scavenging scarce resources in nutrient depleted soils, but poor competitors in more normal conditions. An example of this would be plants (and their associated symbionts) in the Protaceae, from SW Australia, South Africa etc which will poison themselves in soils with more than trace amounts of phosphorus <"Phosphorus toxicity in the Proteaceae: A problem in post-agricultural lands">.

Some floating phytoplankton can outcompete rooted macrophytes because they are not limited to propagating by runners or shoots and have no need to make physiological features like cuticles. This means they can multiply faster but, being non rooted are subject to water movement

Which takes us back to the OP's question, aquatic invasive plants can come from any part of the <"Viridiplantae">, it isn't whether they are "algae" or macrophytes that matters, it is whether they can utilise the nutrients (including light and CO2) that are supplied to them.

If you grew a Tomato and a Cymbidium orchid along gradients of nutrients and light, you would find that at low light and low nutrients the Tomato fails to grow and may well die, while the orchid will grow slowly, as you increase parameters the tomato will begin to show enhanced growth, and at least initially the Orchid will as well, but as parameters increase the orchid will begin to show light and fertilizer damage, before expiring.

The same isn't true for the tomato, it will carry on growing vigorously at many times the nutrient loading that killed the orchid.

If this was an aquatic situation, your "orchid" could be a plant like Lobelia dortmanna or Chara species, and your "tomato" Chlorella or <"Typha latifolia">.

There is a good summary of algae from oligotrophic and eutrophic conditions on the Lenntech web site <"General effects of eutrophication">.

cheers Darrel.

 

[hard determinist]

Natural selection has adapted plants to survive in all sorts of really hostile conditions and they often have very limited survivor-ship away from those conditions ... Plants that are easy to grow (or potentially invasive) have a wide ecological amplitude, and can take advantage of a range of conditions. Plants that are adapted to nutrient poor condition may be extremely efficient at scavenging scarce resources in nutrient depleted soils, but poor competitors in more normal conditions.

I think that this is very important piece of knowledge, that is being very much overlooked among hobbyists. It seems that even among aquarium plants there are some species that are adapted to nutrient poor conditions, but lack some physiological mechanisms that would protect them from being poisoned by too much nutrients. Thus, when we try to grow these plants in EI fertilized tanks they do poorly, and it's obviously not any CO2 issue. In some cases the growth rate may be boosted (by higher nutrient levels), but their overall shape is poor and shows many kinds of deformations.

 

[rebel]

I think that this is very important piece of knowledge, that is being very much overlooked among hobbyists. It seems that even among aquarium plants there are some species that are adapted to nutrient poor conditions, but lack some physiological mechanisms that would protect them from being poisoned by too much nutrients. Thus, when we try to grow these plants in EI fertilized tanks they do poorly, and it's obviously not any CO2 issue. In some cases the growth rate may be boosted (by higher nutrient levels), but their overall shape is poor and shows many kinds of deformations.

The problem is that there seems to exeptions to this idea. For example Tom and his UG.....

 

[hard determinist]

The problem is that there seems to exeptions to this idea. For example Tom and his UG.....

What exceptions are you speaking about? Did you do any controlled experiments to prove your point? Or Tom?

 

[roadmaster]

Believe many of the aquatic plant's we grow or attempt to grow submerged ,aren't found completely submerged in nature except maybe during the rainy season.
This may be why some plant's grow better than other's independent of dosing schemes.
Light energy,CO2 or lack thereof,temperatures,along with nutrient's must all favor a particular plant for it to perform well No?