atmospheric co2

[blairgerman]

Watching a @George Farmer video and wanna make sure i understand... Said about emersed growth, the plant can uptake co2 better from atmosphere than from the water column. Google says .04% co2 in air. I keep ~30 mg/l co2 in water. I'm only asking so I can learn, and questions like this really help me understand. Can a plant uptake co2 better from the air than from the water?

Thanks guys, i've been less active here due to moving, unsure how I'm gonna get ~500 shrimp out of 3 tanks and drain them to move lol, so very distracted. Thanks for all your time guys.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Watching a @George Farmer video and wanna make sure i understand... Said about emersed growth, the plant can uptake co2 better from atmosphere than from the water column. Google says .04% co2 in air. I keep ~30 mg/l co2 in water. I'm only asking so I can learn, and questions like this really help me understand. Can a plant uptake co2 better from the air than from the water....

So you need to convert the 0.04 percent atmospheric CO2 into mg/L, and mg/L and ppm are equivalent*. <"Global Monitoring Laboratory - Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases">

This means that we have about 420 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere and over 10x as much as you are adding. This is described as the <"aerial advantage"> by <"Diana Walstad">.

*Why they are equivalent is that you have 1000 (10^3) milligrams in a gram and 1000 (10^3) grams in a kilogram 10^3 and 10^3 = 10^6 and 1 x 10^6 is a million 1,000,000.

Cheers Darrel

 

[blairgerman]

ha, thats amazing, thank you! im gonna have trouble achieving 420ppm co2 in water, but i bet people have tried 😉 (i'm in early recovery from co2 dependence disorder) Thanks Darrel !!

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

ha, thats amazing, thank you! im gonna have trouble achieving 420ppm co2 in water, but i bet people have tried 😉 (i'm in early recovery from co2 dependence disorder) Thanks Darrel !!

The aerial advantage was the main reason for using a floating plant for the "Duckweed Index".

Once you've taken CO2 (and light) out of the equation, that only leaves the mineral nutrients.

You can divide the mineral nutrients into those that are mobile within the plant (the majority) and those that aren't mobile, the minority.

Because deficiency of non-mobile nutrients effects new leaves, and occur as soon as that nutrient is deficient, they are both diagnosable and almost always iron (Fe) related.

Cheers Darrel

 

[Hufsa]

and almost always iron (Fe) related.

U wot m8?!

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

U wot m8?!

That's why I said "almost". @Hufsa had <"manganese (Mn) deficiency">, as a result of their incredibly pure tap water in the far frozen north.

Cheers Darrel

 

[Hufsa]

I still feel like almost always is too strong of a statement.
Im not the only one who tried increasing iron and didnt see any improvement, and I doubt ill be the last.
@xZaiox comes to mind
I think we may be too quick to point the finger at iron in general. Yes its problematic, but not the only one that can be 😊

 

[Andy Pierce]

ha, thats amazing, thank you! im gonna have trouble achieving 420ppm co2 in water, but i bet people have tried 😉 (i'm in early recovery from co2 dependence disorder) Thanks Darrel !!

Actually, since the solubility of CO2 in water around room temperature is 1500 ppm this is totally doable. The usual method is to go with a pressurised vessel where between 3000 and 7000 ppm is routinely possible. You have to really want it though...

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Actually, since the solubility of CO2 in water around room temperature is 1500 ppm this is totally doable. The usual method is to go with a pressurised vessel where between 3000 and 7000 ppm is routinely possible. You have to really want it though...

We have <"a thread.....">.

Cheers Darrel

 

[MichaelJ]

U wot m8?!

Had to look this up: “Wot M8 is just text slang for ' You what mate?' - a confrontational phrase apparently…

Get off Facebook @Hufsa ❤️

Cheers,
Michael

 

[John q]

I think we may be too quick to point the finger at iron in general.

We could always suggest co2, that's the other 99% 😆

 

[blairgerman]

Hi all,

The aerial advantage was the main reason for using a floating plant for the "Duckweed Index".

Once you've taken CO2 (and light) out of the equation, that only leaves the mineral nutrients.

You can divide the mineral nutrients into those that are mobile within the plant (the majority) and those that aren't mobile, the minority.

Because deficiency of non-mobile nutrients effects new leaves, and occur as soon as that nutrient is deficient, they are both diagnosable and almost always iron (Fe) related.

Cheers Darrel

Well, I've really been wanting to do amazon frogbit for this reason, I totally understand the rationale so co2 is not a factor and i can really read deficiencies. My only hesitation is about adding another maintenance task to my routine, skimming and disposing of floaters. As for iron, I believe i'm at 1ppm from dtpa and gluc. I haven't updated my journal cuz i'm overwhelmed by the move but i finally summarized all parameters using @GreggZ 's table... so here's that and a pic for current status. My primary annoyance currnelty is mosses, all my xmas moss melted, but I am dealing with a .5 ppm ammonia level in my tap water recently and i think that's a factor, i'm using prime and hydroxymethane, but tank water tests with .2 after w/c for about 4hrs till it's converted form is filtered out, i think this is hurting the xmas moss I had, i dunno.