• 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

Does anyone know why these leaves are growing warped?

Hi Darrel @dw1305 - my water report can be found here - https://cdn.southeastwater.co.uk/Files/Trosley.pdf it seems like they've combined the hardness measurements?
Nicely detailed water report! Yes, your Ca:Mg ratio is a staggering 20:1 (you still get some Mg though :) ). Alkalinity (CaCO3) levels matches up with what Darrels suspected above about your water being about 18 GH/KH. Quite a bit of Nitrate, but you would only take on 33% (~6 ppm) of that if you go1/3rd Tap 2/3 RO. Moreover, it will make a big dent in your conductivity (~500 uS down to ~165 uS) which will benefit your livestock as well.

Cheers,
Michael
 
Last edited:
I put this down to a fertilizer imbalance or too much fertilizers been accumulated in the water column, I stopped dosing ferts for a few weeks and did a few large water changes
Yes, but the large amounts of ferts could also be part of the issue... especially the proportionality between the individual compounds.
I had considered excess of ferts too, which is why I'm currently dosing Tropica's line of ferts. It seems it's making my problems worse, it hasn't even been a full week yet I've had a big outbreak of algae and worsening of chlorosis. I'll still continue it for another week for a proper assessment, but it's not looking good so far.
Nicely detailed water report! Yes, your Ca:Mg ratio is a staggering 20:1 (you still get some Mg though :) ). Alkalinity (CaCO3) levels matches up with what Darrels suspected above about your water being about 18 GH/KH. Quite a bit of Nitrate, but you would only take on 33% (~6 ppm) of that if you go1/3rd Tap 2/3 RO. Moreover, it will make a big dent in your conductivity (~500 uS down to ~165 uS) which will benefit your livestock as well.
Thanks for the assessment - looks like my water is a lot harder than I had previously thought. My plan moving forward is to continue this lean dosing for another week, after which time I'm 99% sure nothing will change, and then I'll move on to deionised water.

Does anyone have any input on how tolerant harder-water fish should be of this change to softish water? If I'm to take @MichaelJ 's advice above on moving from 18 dGH/dKH to 6 dGH/dKH (I will do this gradually not instantly), then this is a fairly big change. Looking into the requirements of my fish, I think most will be fine, but I'm unsure about my celebes rainbowfish. Most places seem to put their minimum requirements to 10-12 dGH, although I'm not sure if this is overly conservative?
 
Does anyone have any input on how tolerant harder-water fish should be of this change to softish water? If I'm to take @MichaelJ 's advice above on moving from 18 dGH/dKH to 6 dGH/dKH (I will do this gradually not instantly), then this is a fairly big change.
Yes, move slow! if you end up going for 6 GH/KH after your first 50% WC it would be a big drop down to 11 GH/KH, and after the second it would be 8.5 GH/KH. Third: 7.25 GH/KH Forth: 6.6 GH/KH. The first 50% from 18 to 11 is too big of a change, but you can taper it off by initially doing smaller but more frequent changes - say first week two 25% WC's 4 days spread apart.
Looking into the requirements of my fish, I think most will be fine, but I'm unsure about my celebes rainbowfish. Most places seem to put their minimum requirements to 10-12 dGH, although I'm not sure if this is overly conservative?
Well, to my knowledge, Celebes Rainbows are tricky in this respect as they distinctly prefer harder water and slightly above 7 pH... their natural habitats are almost brackish - the main reason I never found them suitable for my tanks (I do love them though). So there is that. Someone with Celebes Rainbows experience will have to advice you on that. Personally, I always consider the needs and wellbeing of my livestock first and plants as a distant second.

Cheers,
Michael
 
Last edited:
Does anyone have any input on how tolerant harder-water fish should be of this change to softish water?
Are you changing the water because the fish are unhappy or the plants? Personally I'd stick with fish happy parameters, and work out why the plants are failing.

For me your issues are predominantly co2 related, if you do have iron deficiencies then dose a bit more. 😉
 
Yes, move slow! if you end up going for 6 GH/KH after your first 50% WC it would be a big drop down to 11 GH/KH, and after the second it would be 8.5 GH/KH. Third: 7.25 GH/KH Forth: 6.6 GH/KH. The first 50% from 18 to 11 is too big of a change, but you can taper it off by initially doing smaller but more frequent changes - say first week two 25% WC's 4 days spread apart.
Fantastic advice, thank you. I will do the initial smaller water changes so that the first leap isn't so big.
Are you changing the water because the fish are unhappy or the plants?
Admittedly the plants, I am definitely tired of seeing such unhealthy growth in the tank, and the maintenance is higher since I'm constantly cleaning up after the bad growth. On the positive, it does seem (from looking up all the species) that my fish should be okay in the new water, with the possible exception of the celebes rainbowfish, I will have to look into this species further.
For me your issues are predominantly co2 related
Could you please expand a bit more on this? What makes you think CO2? Because from what I've read from the likes of @ceg4048 I would agree that it makes sense that CO2 issues would cause structural abnormalities, but I just can't understand how that's possible in my case. If I increase the CO2 further the fish gasp at the surface, I have a 1.5 pH drop with yellow drop checkers and the distribution affects all plant leaves. The CO2 is stable too and at the right level come lights on. I don't know what else I can be missing. :(
if you do have iron deficiencies then dose a bit more. 😉
I've tried upto 1ppm weekly, I guess I could try a bit more? Although I didn't notice any improvements between 0.5 and 1.0ppm
 
Last edited:
What I do know is that the likes of @plantbrain and @ceg4048 can grow plants in hard water, so...
Sure thing... and thats why we both suspect CO2 first hand when these things comes up, and much less fertilizers as long as there is enough of everything...

they've either sold the aquascaping world a big fat lie or....
Well, they didn't, but there are powerful alternatives... and - just as you - I keep my water soft ... :lol:

Cheers,
Michael
 
What I do know is that the likes of @plantbrain and @ceg4048 can grow plants in hard water, so... they've either sold the aquascaping world a big fat lie or....
That's a big shortcut and generalization you are making. You are forgetting they are using most of the time rich substrates and there is no mention how hard that water is and in what proportions. He could inject more CO2 that I don't see his problems going away. You could always claim that the issue is CO2 distribution but then again he is using a CO2 reactor and both his DCs on both sides are showing yellow. Finally, using soft water makes everything much easier and I am sure they will also both tell you that.
Could you please expand a bit more on this? What makes you think CO2? Because from what I've read from the likes of @ceg4048 I would agree that it makes sense that CO2 issues would cause structural abnormalities, but I just can't understand how that's possible in my case. If I increase the CO2 further the fish gasp at the surface, I have a 1.5 pH drop with yellow drop checkers and the distribution affects all plant leaves. The CO2 is stable too and at the right level come lights on. I don't know what else I can be missing. :(
I'll be honest and I do not think one sec your CO2 is the problem nor your level of fertilization. You have shown your PH drop and DCs coloration. I'll stick to my initial assessment and that is your dKH levels and also possibly your dGH levels (Mg not being enough), but primarily your carbonate levels. If you were in a low tech setup things would be easier to handle and you probably would not see what you are seeing.
Nicely detailed water report! Yes, your Ca:Mg ratio is a staggering 20:1 (you still get some Mg though :) )
This right there. Looking at the report, Ca levels are at 100ppm while Mg levels are at around 4-5ppm which is low. I would recommend raising that up to 10ppm.
I've tried upto 1ppm weekly, I guess I could try a bit more? Although I didn't notice any improvements between 0.5 and 1.0ppm
No need. You are already well above in excess. 0.5ppm is already high. What you could try are different chelators or even Fe Gluconate which works well.
 
I'll stick to my initial assessment and that is your dKH levels and also possibly your dGH levels (Mg not being enough), but primarily your carbonate levels.
This is where I'm leaning too. I'll get that dKH down and see what happens.
This right there. Looking at the report, Ca levels are at 100ppm while Mg levels are at around 4-5ppm which is low. I would recommend raising that up to 10ppm.
With EI I have been adding 10ppm extra each month, and for a while I tried 20ppm (for a better ratio), unfortunately it didn't do a thing.
No need. You are already well above in excess. 0.5ppm is already high. What you could try are different chelators or even Fe Gluconate which works well.
I've tried EDTA, DTPA, EDDHA and EDDHSA, I've also tried a combination of 0.2ppm DTPA with 0.5ppm gluconate. Adding the stronger chelators made an improvement over the EDTA, but they never improved growth beyond it's current state. The gluconate unfortunately didn't improve anything either.
 
Not sure how you added Fe gluconate but it needs to be added before lights on and everyday as it does not linger for a long time.
Hmm I wasn't adding it before lights on - I added it about 30-60 mins into the photoperiod when I figured there would be maximum uptake. I also was adding it 3x per week along with the micros, so not everyday. Is there not any concern about precipitation when dosed alongside macros?
 
Hmm I wasn't adding it before lights on - I added it about 30-60 mins into the photoperiod when I figured there would be maximum uptake. I also was adding it 3x per week along with the micros, so not everyday. Is there not any concern about precipitation when dosed alongside macros?
Fe Gluconate usually doesn't last more than an hour in solution. It will then precipitate. It's also photosensitive and will degrade with light hence why it's better to dose it when lights off. As far as I know plant still absorb nutrients even during the dark period. Finally, Fe gluconate is also more suitable when you have softer water. For harder water DTPA Fe and EDDHA Fe are usually better.
Using softer water will make everything much more easy.
 
That's a big shortcut and generalization you are making.
Fair enough, maybe not the best call I've made.

Could you please expand a bit more on this?
I'll try, but should point out I'm no co2 or plant growing guru.

I'm not suggesting you add more gas, you've obviously got a large ph drop already. I just wonder if this gas is reaching all the areas of the tank.
To me the plants that are higher up in the water column seem relatively healthy, that includes the frogbit (in some of the photos.)

Lower down in the tank we can see, or you explain that the plants are dropping their lower leaves, holes are appearing in leaves, some leaf edges are disintegrating and bba is present on some leaf edges.
In my limited experience the above issues are generally related to poor Co2 distribution.

I could be totally off the mark on this one and will accept this might not fix the chlorosis, but I do think spending an hour or two double checking these areas are receiving sufficient flow maybe of benefit.

As stated above I'm no expert, so consume this info with a large pinch of salt. 🫣
 
Fe Gluconate usually doesn't last more than an hour in solution. It will then precipitate. It's also photosensitive and will degrade with light hence why it's better to dose it when lights off. As far as I know plant still absorb nutrients even during the dark period. Finally, Fe gluconate is also more suitable when you have softer water. For harder water DTPA Fe and EDDHA Fe are usually better.
Using softer water will make everything much more easy.
This is an interesting note (about the gluconate) - I will bear it in mind moving forward. I think I'm just going to go with your suggestion of softer water and see what happens, I feel more confident about that idea than continuing down the iron route, I've spent many months trying that so far.
To me the plants that are higher up in the water column seem relatively healthy, that includes the frogbit (in some of the photos.)
I'm a bit confused about the frogbit, because I spoke to Darrel @dw1305 privately and he said the new growth does look a bit pale. I don't have much experience with the plant, so I can't really comment on what it 'should' look like. It doesn't help that it seems to look different in different lights.
I just wonder if this gas is reaching all the areas of the tank.
Lower down in the tank we can see, or you explain that the plants are dropping their lower leaves, holes are appearing in leaves, some leaf edges are disintegrating and bba is present on some leaf edges.
In my limited experience the above issues are generally related to poor Co2 distribution.
This is a valid comment, and is one I have taken into account myself. I actually used to use a standard outtake pipe but swapped to a spray bar after reading many of Clive @ceg4048 's posts. My hygrophilia compacta at the front of the tank displays this loss of lower leaves and pinholes, and yet these very lower leaves that it loses are constantly visibly swaying in the flow, so I would struggle to accept it being flow in that specific plant. I also topped my limnophilia (which loses it's lower leaves), and replanted the cutting at the front of the tank where I can see the lower leaves move in the flow, and it still loses them too.

I'm also otherwise confused about the yellowing / chlorosis - from my understanding I don't think a CO2 deficit causes chlorosis, although I have read many mixed posts on this subject debating it. I can see that a CO2 deficit can cause plants to consume their older leaves, turning them yellow and then necrotic /translucent, but I haven't seen much evidence that it causes chlorosis in new growth that it keeps around.

This is a confusing one :lol: I'm going to go with lowering the dKH and see what happens. I really don't see what else I can do with the CO2.
 
Not sure how you added Fe gluconate but it needs to be added before lights on and everyday as it does not linger for a long time.

Hi @Hanuman, it was always my impression that Fe Gluconate should be added any time after lights on when the plants were susceptible to max uptake as it is very short lived in the water column. The only caveat is that Gluconate (essentially a sugary/glucose organic compound ) may cause bacterial bloom (I’ve certainly experienced that). But otherwise Fe Gluconate might be a good solution.

Cheers,
Michael
 
Last edited:
it was always my impression that Fe Gluconate should be added any time after lights on when the plants were susceptible to max uptake as it is very short lived in the water column.
You could be right and I wont debate this because I am no bio-chemist, but this is what I have read somewhere and what I have done for a long time and my tanks shows no Fe deficiency. It doesn't mean I'm right hough. My micro dosing (which incorporates Fe DTPA and Fe Gluconate @ a ratio of 1 : 2.3) is pumped in my tanks 1 hour prior lights on BUT also 1 hours after CO2 is on. This means water is acidified it could be that this is what keeps the iron in solution before lights fire up. It could also be that Fe Gluconate is totally gone when lights are on and it's the remainder Fe DTPA doing the heavy lifting. No matter the case, Fe Gluconate needs to be dosed daily because of how short lived it is.

1674953208377.png
 
Hi all,
I'm a bit confused about the frogbit, because I spoke to Darrel @dw1305 privately and he said the new growth does look a bit pale. I don't have much experience with the plant, so I can't really comment on what it 'should' look like. It doesn't help that it seems to look different in different lights.
I think the new leaves <"may look a bit pale">?, but not a obviously as the Hygrophila. Have a look at <"Dying plants">.

Looking at the Hygrophila photo on a large monitor, rather than a phone, I think I can see magnesium (Mg) deficiency as well. It is the reticulated pattern (<"interveinal chlorosis">) on the older leaves towards the lower left hand corner. With magnesium deficiency you would get a fairly instant greening when Mg became available again. Deficiencies in mobile nutrient are much more difficult to diagnose because you have a lot more possibilities. The problem (and conversely advantage) with diagnosing all deficiencies is the <"assembly line nature of Liebig's limiting nutrient">, the problem is you have to find it, and the advantage is that when you do plant growth resumes.

hygro1-jpg.200271


cheers Darrel
 
Hi all,
Yes, your Ca:Mg ratio is a staggering 20:1 (you still get some Mg though :) ). Alkalinity (CaCO3) levels matches up with what Darrels suspected
I should have done <"this this bit as well">.

TRoseleyUKAPSdGH.jpg

So your tap water isn't always quite as hard as had I expected. I'm going to guess that it has a small amount of water from a reservoir added, because you have a range of alkalinity values given.

The alkalinity values quoted are:
maximum = 332.00, mean = 260.67 minimum = 222.00, which gives you values of 18.6 dKH, 14.6 dKH & 12.3 dKH respectively. The "18.6 dKH" value is chalk aquifer water and that sample would have given 133 mg / L calcium (Ca) and 18.6 dGH. The conductivity would also have been higher.

The dGH value quoted in the report is the 14.42, and nearly all calcium (Ca). The calculation is 252 / 17.86 and 252 x 40% to give you the calcium value. That one doesn't quite work (101 mg/L), presumably because they were different water samples used for the hardness and calcium calculations.

cheers Darrel
 
Last edited:
Looking at the Hygrophila photo on a large monitor, rather than a phone, I think I can see magnesium (Mg) deficiency as well. It is the reticulated pattern (<"interveinal chlorosis">) on the older leaves towards the lower left hand corner.
Ahh, sorry, this may be a bit of trickery on my end - in the very top-left corner is 'hygrophila siamensis 53b', and in the bottom-left is 'Hygrophila polysperma 'Rosanervig'', the Rosanervig variant is supposed to throw out those white-veined leaves. Interestingly, this 'Rosanervig' variant grows better than the other hygrophilia... a bit pale still but it doesn't have many structural abnormalities.

Thanks for the water hardness calculation Darrel :thumbup:
 
Back
Top