Excess of K, Na, Ca, Mg... fact or myth?

[plantbrain]

I've got a mass of L acurata right now in the 120 Gallon:

Sounds like it might be more the KH, rather than anything directly with K+.

Some aquatic plants may have evolved to grow in low KH systems, but I think that, not the K+, is what is at play there.
KH and pH really affects the transport systems in plant cells, mos spe3cies seem to be able to handle wide ranges, but this may not be the case for a few species.

Still, if all you have are 2-3 species, that's not much to generalize and most plant species clearly do not have such issues.
If you remove the KH down to say 3........then will you still see this? I doubt it.
So even there, you have dependency on other things than K+.
If you are going to limit something/apply Liebig...... PO4 would be the wisest nutrient.
Plants are far more tolerant of limiting P than any other nutrients.


L acurata does VERY well at high K+ and KH. I lived in Santa Barbara when I did this tank:
KH= 11 in this tank and GH = 24

 

[plantbrain]

Oh yea, the K+ is relatively the same 30-40ppm. Plants are actually as touchy healthier in the harder water. Can you guess why?

There's no other shading or plants to compete with for light/CO2 really other than Lobelia which is not that aggressive.
I also used the temporary limiting NO3 trick for 3 days to accent the red color.

The 120 gallon uses no such NO3 limiting trick.

So if I can do it without issues and have a high K+ and KH, why not you?
I do not use magic

I do not have a R. macrandra high KH example however. But I got one of the Ludwigia.

 

[plantbrain]

Here's the plant without the NO3 limitation

 

[NatureBoy]

Thanks again Tom, all roads are pointing to Leibig and the supporting CO2 level.

I'm guessing that the only consequential difference between the thriving arcuata in your High K+ High Kh tank (which is great to see!) and my Low K+ High Kh tank (that I've seen suffer when I add more K+) is the CO2 concentration. When I add more K+ I probably trigger a boom in growth that cannot be supported with the now limited CO2 level in my tank. The plants that suffer first will invariably be those that are fast growers, need large amounts of dissolved CO2, can't use carbonates...and function better at a lower Ph?. Invariably plants like R Macranda, L Arcuata etc...

I'm guessing your CO2 injection rate supports the highest rates of plant growth and mine doesn't!

Going back to thread topic then..."excess of K, etc...fact or myth", I'd say increasing K (or any limiting nutrient) can bring about CO2 deficiency issues if you don't make sure your CO2 levels will be able to cope with the explosive growth...seems a fair conclusion to me, as it doesn't point the finger at K per se! The question then is "what level of CO2 can I inject without harming fauna?" .... and then "what method of injection is best?" and on and on....

 

[gmartins]

thanks for your explanations Clive and Tom.

Going back to thread topic then..."excess of K, etc...fact or myth", I'd say increasing K (or any limiting nutrient) can bring about CO2 deficiency issues if you don't make sure your CO2 levels will be able to cope with the explosive growth...seems a fair conclusion to me, as it doesn't point the finger at K per se! The question then is "what level of CO2 can I inject without harming fauna?" .... and then "what method of injection is best?" and on and on....

Lowering the light would solve all your problems if that is in fact your problem. Less light, less demand for CO2 and ferts... No limitation!

 

[zanguli-ya-zamba]

GUYS thank you very much for that wonderful debate !!! I love when a discussion take this route !!!
NatureBoy nice tank !! With beautiful reds in there.
Thanks natureboy Clive and Tom !!

Best regards
Zanguli


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NatureBoy]

GUYS thank you very much for that wonderful debate !!! I love when a discussion take this route !!!
NatureBoy nice tank !! With beautiful reds in there.
Thanks natureboy Clive and Tom !!

Best regards
Zanguli


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

many thanks Zanguli for your comments, I've enjoyed reading your threads too, particularly your adventures into the African wildlife...keep up your trials with local plants too, that's really cool!

 

[gmartins]

Thanks natureboy Clive and Tom !!

And to me too for putting for discussion a good question, no?

Just kidding

 

[zanguli-ya-zamba]

Sorry mate lol
Thank to bring out such interesting question that bring is to that sweet conversation mate !!!


Cheers

 

[parotet]

I discovered this thread today.... Mates, this is incredible! Thanks for your interesting contributions. This is the reason why I am mad about planted tanks

Jordi

 

[Oldguy]

Well, I mean there are some major differences between a terrestrial versus aquatic environment (which shouldn't be Earth shattering news). The K+ ion is not integrated into organic structures in a plant. For example, Nitrogen is embedded into amino acids, enzymes and proteins. Carbon is embedded into the structure of membranes, tissues and carbohydrates. Phosphorous is embedded into DNA, ATP and so forth. But K+ lives within the "bloodstream" of the plant. It is not combined into molecules, but exists in a soluble form in the cytoplasm of cells and in other liquids. K+ has so many functions, but some of those functions are the electrochemical properties which are similar to salinity. So in a terrestrial plant the movement of K+ into and out of fluids has an effect on cell turgidity, so these plants can suffer symptoms similar to "salt stress" or Sodium (Na+) toxicity. In an aquatic environment though this is not a big deal because K+ can move out of the tissues and leech back into the water column by simple osmosis. K+ is probably THE most mobile of the nutrients, so it is much more easily regulated in aquatics than in terrestrials.

You know, a lot of people complain about K+ stress causing symptoms manifest in Ca++ blocking, but this is rubbish because they misdiagnose. One of the symptoms of terrestrial plants Ca++ shortage is stunted leaf tips, or curled leaves, but in submersed plants this same symptom is actually caused by poor CO2. So their analysis is a combination of poor diagnosis plus misapplied information.

Besides, I've tried many times to do a K+ overdose and I'm not able to verify it at all. Of course I haven't tried it on every plant, so I can't say unilaterally, but in the 100 or so popular varieties I have grown I haven't seen any signs of toxicity while deliberately pushing the K+ toxicity envelope.

Say no more from Oldguy.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

I discovered this thread today.... Mates, this is incredible! Thanks for your interesting contributions.

Yes, it is an interesting thread.

I just don't know enough about plant physiology, I've never tried EI, I don't use CO2, I only grow easy plants etc, so I can't really pass any informed comment on the contents.

It will be interesting to see what @_Maq_ thinks about it, in light of their own experiments.

cheers Darrel

 

[Oldguy]

Yes, it is an interesting thread.

I think for many people it is a Mg shortage. Often difficult to extract this analysis from the water supply companies. Mg can be low in UK tap water as you have posted else where on this forum.
At the risk of starting a Hare running, can plants be stressed and produce ethylene and then cannot stop producing ethylene, so that there will be leaf disintegration that the plant cannot stop.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

I think for many people it is a Mg shortage.

Often difficult to extract from the water supply companies. Mg can be low in UK tap water.

Yes I'm sure you are right. It is one of the big differences between our hard tap water and the water from the <"central USA">, <"S. Europe">, Droitwich etc. <"Magnesium in tap water">.

There is no requirement to report magnesium (Mg) levels , so most <"water companies don't">. I'm going to guess <"that ~3 - 10 (ppm) mg / L magnesium"> is about right for most of us, probably lower where you have <"soft water from reservoirs"> etc.

Limestone will always contain a minimal amount of magnesium, purely because magnesium is one of the more abundant elements in sea water and limestones are (<"almost always">) a <"marine deposit">. Where you get more magnesium it is due to "dolomitization" where <"evaporite minerals have formed"> and the magnesium has partially replaced the calcium.

I think magnesium (Mg) deficiency is what you can see in @_Maq_'s experimental thread <"Targeting Potassium"> and there is some further discussion with @Ria95 <"Targeting Potassium">.

Usually the <"competing cation"> would be calcium (Ca++) , purely <"because there is a lot of it"> (~120 ppm) in water from limestone aquifers.

cheers Darrel

 

[_Maq_]

in a terrestrial plant the movement of K+ into and out of fluids has an effect on cell turgidity, so these plants can suffer symptoms similar to "salt stress" or Sodium (Na+) toxicity. In an aquatic environment though this is not a big deal because K+ can move out of the tissues and leech back into the water column by simple osmosis.

wrong

a lot of people complain about K+ stress causing symptoms manifest in Ca++ blocking, but this is rubbish because they misdiagnose. One of the symptoms of terrestrial plants Ca++ shortage is stunted leaf tips, or curled leaves, but in submersed plants this same symptom is actually caused by poor CO2

wrong

 

[DudeFromPantanal]

Why major formulas have so much K in them so…? If K could compete with intake of other cations and ions, does they do this high loads of K in their formulas because they want to “suppress” chemically other things that may be present in user water or may be accumulate in the mid or long run in a small system like aquariuns (metals, etc)? This makes any sense?… Because I really don’t found a technical and sound enough explanation in these planted tanks foruns about why these K “excess” in formulas and regimes (in the hobby, or in hydroponics, etc.). ADA for example is “lean” but also delivers a sucker punch of K in the system. So if this will start heightening in the water saturation/TDS for example… this is not much of contribution to a more comercial-user-friendly maintenance routine, right (more water changes)? Just thinking out loud. Ignore my ignorance and be constructive, plse.

 

[MichaelJ]

Why major formulas have so much K in them so…? If K could compete with intake of other cations and ions, does they do this high loads of K in their formulas because they want to “suppress” chemically other things that may be present in user water or may be accumulate in the mid or long run in a small system like aquariuns (metals, etc)? This makes any sense?… Because I really don’t found a technical and sound enough explanation in these planted tanks foruns about why these K “excess” in formulas and regimes (in the hobby, or in hydroponics, etc.). ADA for example is “lean” but also delivers a sucker punch of K in the system. So if this will start heightening in the water saturation/TDS for example… this is not much of contribution to a more comercial-user-friendly maintenance routine, right (more water changes)? Just thinking out loud. Ignore my ignorance and be constructive, plse.

Not all major formulas provide an excess of K - in my low tech super lean tank I dose Tropica specialized targeting 1 ppm of N after each 35% WC every two weeks- with that I’m getting less than 1 ppm of K. Healthy plants, zero algae.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[DudeFromPantanal]

Not all major formulas provide an excess of K - in my low tech super lean tank I dose Tropica specialized targeting 1 ppm of N after each 35% WC every two weeks- with that I’m getting less than 1 ppm of K. Healthy plants, zero algae.

Cheers,
Michael

Hi Mr. Michael… well 1ppm N you mean 1ppm N03 or 1ppm N (4,42NO3)? In 2 weeks is 14 days (0,32ppm daily mean if NO3) right?… I dont get the K ratio in your case though, it is from Marchner ratios?

 

[Happi]

Seachem Flourish Nitrogen:
"The beginner dose raises nitrogen by the same degree that 1 mg/L nitrate would. This dose is sufficient to provide approximately 4 g of growth (dry) or about 20 g (hydrated) over a 1 month period (assuming all other necessary nutrients are provided). For increased growth use proportionately more."

If accurate, you should be able to judge the needed amount of potassium, which should be less than Nitrogen. Tropica seems to consider these factors when they made their products such as Tropica Specialised where K is much lower than N.

I strongly believe Tropica to be more accurate, they also grow aquatic plant in their nurseries, unlike some of the other brand name.

Far as dosing excessive/ nutrients interaction and their effects goes? it is well documented for testerrial plant and soil. There is not much data or research done on aquatic plants, but there is a data available for water parameters where aquatic plant originate from. Far as excess K goes, I have grown plants under both, but they definitely grew better when nutrients were more balanced. Substrate with high cec minimize or reduce some of these issues by obsorbing + charges.

Not all plants are affected equally, some will do quite well, while some will struggle, in some cases people manage to grow difficult plants while they struggle to grow simple easy plants. These are some of the symptoms that something is unbalanced related to nutrients. The nutrients availability is another issue that is also equally important.

But I can surely tell you that, not all issues are CO2 related

 

[MichaelJ]

Hi Mr. Michael… well 1ppm N you mean 1ppm N03 or 1ppm N (4,42NO3)? In 2 weeks is 14 days (0,32ppm daily mean if NO3) right?… I dont get the K ratio in your case though, it is from Marchner ratios?

1 ppm of Nitrogen from NH4NO3 every two weeks. For this particular 150 L tanks that’s 12 ml of Tropica specialized. With that I get about 0.8 ppm of potassium. Been dosing that for a long time now. Marshner yes. (Close to at least).

Cheers,
Michael