• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

Ca deficiency?

kilnakorr

Member
Joined
16 Mar 2020
Messages
208
Location
Denmark
Hi

Was wondering if I'm looking at some Ca deficiency, or uptake issue.
What puzzles me is the water here is pretty hard. Last test from water supply says '127 mg/L' Ca.
Also, I haven't had this issue before.
Tank is roughly 3 months old, dosing EI.

Attached pictures:
20200603_203943.jpg

20200603_203954.jpg
 
Was wondering if I'm looking at some Ca deficiency, or uptake issue.
What puzzles me is the water here is pretty hard. Last test from water supply says '127 mg/L' Ca.
This is exactly why it would be best to abandon the Ca deficiency idea.
Ca deficiencies are almost a myth as the plant does not not need much of this micronutrient at all.

This is a CO2 deficiency. I can only speculate that the reason it has not reared it's ugly head previously is because the total plant mass in the tank was much lower, so that the demand for CO2 was lower. More plant mass now means a higher CO2 demand.

Cheers,
 
This is exactly why it would be best to abandon the Ca deficiency idea.
I was also pretty sure it couldn't be Ca.
I'm also quite sure it isn't CO2. I run pretty high CO2 with a more yellow than green drop checker. Any higher and inhabitants will be in danger.
Flow is also quite good. Running a full length spray bar along with a powerhead and everything moves gently. The two pictures are from opposite ends in the tank, and also the only two plants having 'issues'.
Another stem of same plant without the issue:
20200604_081321.jpg

A little less red as it got less light. The othe stems where cut and replanted last sunday - problem was there before cutting.

Question is. How do I test your theory about insufficient CO2? I can't up the CO2 and flow is good (using large inline reactor, so distribution isn't an issue).
 
So the stem receiving less light doesn’t have the problem?

To my mind that supports Clive’s assertion that it’s insufficient CO₂ - for the amount of light.

If you can’t increase CO₂ then the only thing you can do is reduce CO₂ demand, by reducing your light intensity. That‘s what I’d be trying.
 
So the stem receiving less light doesn’t have the problem?

To my mind that supports Clive’s assertion that it’s insufficient CO₂ - for the amount of light.

If you can’t increase CO₂ then the only thing you can do is reduce CO₂ demand, by reducing your light intensity. That‘s what I’d be trying.
That does make sense. However, I don't believe I have high light. Difficult to be sure without PAR readings, but visually it isn't bright and only running 6 hrs a day.
If it is lack of CO2, I should see improvement in the replanted stems and see same issue forming in the none cut stems.
But with 'none' hight light, high CO2 and good flow how can I have CO2 issues?
I'm not saying it can't be CO2 related, but I doubt it.
 
Hi @kilnakorr if your buds are deformed/burned it's very likely Ca deficiency/blockage and it doesn't matter if you have Ca in the water or not, what matters is if it's available for the plants, especially for those which seem to be more sensitive to certain levels of Ca in the water (as they are coming from waters/rivers with completely different hardness/chemistry than the others).


https://www.plagron.com/en/grow-topics/calcium-deficiency

A calcium deficiency leads to various growth disorders, like deformed buds and leaves.
What is the (possible) cause?
The levels of potassium or magnesium in the soil are too high.

Darrel has explained it here:

https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/magnesium-in-tap-water.58134/page-3
When you have a lot of Ca++ ions the next “taxi” on the rank is much more likely to be a Ca++ ion, rather than a Mg++ ion, which is why people have talked about the Ca:Mg ratio, rather than just ppm values.

The only difference is that you'll need to swap Mg ion mentioned by Darrel with Ca, and Ca ion with any other ions which may block Ca uptake/availability (and these will be very likely Mg and/or K).
 
it's very likely Ca deficiency/blockage and it doesn't matter if you have Ca in the water or not,
I was thinking same thing. Just as good CO2 levels doesn't mean CO2 is right if flow isn't tuned in also.

Thanks for the link to the other thread. Although It seems odd the problem suddenly started without any new things in my routine you never know (maybe the soil used to absorb Ca and now it's saturated?).
I'll try do the math and see if adjusting Mg and K to that 7:1:10 ratio mentioned will have any effect. Sadly, I have no K ferts around:confused:
 
Well, some quick math shows I have less than optimal Mg and K. I found a Ca:Mg:K ratio advise from the other thread to be 2:1:0,5.
Mine should be (from the Ca in tapwater) - 127:63,5:31,75.
I have - 127:13,6:7,2

I have a lot less Mg and K than advised, so Ca uptake shouldn't be an issue. It would make a lot more sense if I saw Mg or K deficiencies.
 
Hi @kilnakorr if your buds are deformed/burned it's very likely Ca deficiency/blockage and it doesn't matter if you have Ca in the water or not, what matters is if it's available for the plants, especially for those which seem to be more sensitive to certain levels of Ca in the water (as they are coming from waters/rivers with completely different hardness/chemistry than the others).


https://www.plagron.com/en/grow-topics/calcium-deficiency
Sorry, but this has nothing to do with aquatic plants. One cannot unilaterally apply causal factors or relate symptoms in terrestrial plants to aquatic plants. A few symptoms are similar but there is a limit to the number and type of symptoms that can be applied.

I was thinking same thing. Just as good CO2 levels doesn't mean CO2 is right if flow isn't tuned in also.
Correct. The first step is to reduce the CO2 demand by temporarily reducing the light intensity, especially at the beginning of the photoperiod. Reducing the light will reduce the CO2 demand.

Cheers,
 
Well, some quick math shows I have less than optimal Mg and K. I found a Ca:Mg:K ratio advise from the other thread to be 2:1:0,5.
Mine should be (from the Ca in tapwater) - 127:63,5:31,75.
I have - 127:13,6:7,2

I have a lot less Mg and K than advised, so Ca uptake shouldn't be an issue. It would make a lot more sense if I saw Mg or K deficiencies.
Focusing on ratios is another path that leads nowhere. The idea of using ratios to analyze plant health came from someone ascribing the Redfield Ratio to plants. Again, in land plants ionic ratios in the soil may be relevant, however, aquatic plants morphology differs significantly due to the difference in the foliar uptake mechanism. The aquatic plant itself will determine the correct uptake of various ions based on growth demand and other environmental factors. Sure, it is possible to dump enough ions in the water column to override the plants mechanism, but those levels are far beyond what we typically dose.

The concept of EI is therefore to dose enough of everything so that the quantity of available nutrients is considered by the plant to be "unlimited" and that allows the plant to determine the type and amounts of ions are taken , which are rejected and the rate at which the transfers occur.

If you are dosing EI levels of nutrients then the water column has enough and a bit of Epsom Salts can easily address Mg.
If your sediment is Aquasoil or equivalent product then the sediment has more than enough nutrition - and there is no way to control the ratios of ions in that location.

Cheers,
 
Sorry, but this has nothing to do with aquatic plants. One cannot unilaterally apply causal factors or relate symptoms in terrestrial plants to aquatic plants. A few symptoms are similar but there is a limit to the number and type of symptoms that can be applied.
Can you shed more light on this subject? Any scientific evidence or explanation we could all benefit from?


The aquatic plant itself will determine the correct uptake of various ions based on growth demand and other environmental factors.

Do you mean that aquatic plants can selectively choose what amount and which ions they need? I'd love to know about this subject a littler bit more, if possible.
 
Can you shed more light on this subject? Any scientific evidence or explanation we could all benefit from?
Well, this is a difficult question to answer definitively. Scientific journals do not address nutrient deficiency in aquatic plants because the journals will only address issues that are within the context of natural environments. Quite to the contrary, scientist attempt to determine the causal factors and results of eutrophication of natural systems.

If you search the web for aquatic plant deficiency symptoms what you will find is that because there is no scientific data available, the authors simply copy the data from farming guides or other terrestrial gardening documents. Case in point; that Plagron site you referenced above? Have you not wondered why every article on deficiency only ever shows an image of a farm or garden plant? Never an image of an aquatic plant. Has it never occurred to you that the physiology of an aquatic

So this creates an illusion when someone searches because all they will find is a repeat of what the author copied and relabeled.

On the other hand, we here at UKAPS as well as Tom Barr have experimented with nutrient deficiency and resolved many cases and we have determined, with a fair degree of accuracy, which causal factors are associated with which syndromes. Since there is very little scientific documentation we rely on our experience over the past decade or so.

Do you mean that aquatic plants can selectively choose what amount and which ions they need? I'd love to know about this subject a littler bit more, if possible.
Yes, this is nothing new. They use the same basic mechanism that is internal and which is also available to land plants, but merely extend the scheme to the outer membrane of the leaf. This is simply a set of "tunnels" through which the selected ion travels from outer to inner. These are called "ion channels" and this is the fundamental mechanism by which leaves and roots uptake and transport nutrients and water, both from external sources as well as internally to individual cells. The channels are selective based on their electronegativity and how that matches the charge of the ion in question.

Here is an internal snapshot of the scheme (this is of a land plant):
Here you can see the representation of inside a vacuole (light blue area)which can store fluid which may contain nutrients and other ions.
You can see that the brightly colored objects which represent specific channels embedded in the membrane of the vacuole.
The specifi ions are attracted to and travel down the appropriate channel. There is also an electric charge on the inside of the cytoplasm. if the cytoplasm has it's limit of that ion then the charge builds up and produces a potential in the opposite direction, limiting the rate at which the ion can flow from the vacuole to the cytoplasm.

There are all kinds of channels based on which genes that plant has to produce them, again, based on their environment.

Here is a discussion regarding the ability of a certain type of sea grass to resist the toxicity of Sodium in sea water by using ion channels to attract ions and to build up an electric charge to prevent the penetration of Sodium (Na+):
https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1016/S0014-5793(97)00786-2

Here is a study of the ion transport mechanism using Egeria densa.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s002329900136

channels.jpeg


Cheers,
 
Thanks for the detailed reply @ceg4048.
I'm still puzzled at what has happened. New side shoots has appeared, with healthy leaves, on one species. The other still looks a bit wrong, but only some stems.

Not a major isdue at all, just curious.
 
Back
Top