• 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

Holes in leaves

noodlesuk

Member
Joined
21 Jul 2020
Messages
371
Location
Oxfordshire
Hi

I have a relatively new tank 3 months old, only a small 20L. I have Tropoca aquarium soil under gravel. Small internal filter. LED light is on for around 8hrs a day. Plants have been flourishing, but I have recently noticed small holes in the older leaves of the Hygrophila 'Siamensis 53B' &
Bacopa caroliniana. I do have shrimp in the tank and some unwanted bladder snails. Bit I dont think they are the culprits. Have read it could be potassium deficiency? I haven't added any fertiliser as the tank seemed ok and am worried about algae outbreaks. Bad previous experience with hair algae!

Any help appreciated!
 

Attachments

  • 20200721_155315.jpg
    20200721_155315.jpg
    995.8 KB · Views: 415
  • 20200721_155302.jpg
    20200721_155302.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 183
Just add K and watch it. I reckon it will improve.
 
Hi

I have a relatively new tank 3 months old, only a small 20L. I have Tropoca aquarium soil under gravel. Small internal filter. LED light is on for around 8hrs a day. Plants have been flourishing, but I have recently noticed small holes in the older leaves of the Hygrophila 'Siamensis 53B' &
Bacopa caroliniana. I do have shrimp in the tank and some unwanted bladder snails. Bit I dont think they are the culprits. Have read it could be potassium deficiency? I haven't added any fertiliser as the tank seemed ok and am worried about algae outbreaks. Bad previous experience with hair algae!

Any help appreciated!
Hello,
Holes in leaves or any form of translucency is a classic symptom of poor CO2. Potassium will never fix this problem.

Cheers,
 
Last edited:
It would so easy to test what @ceg4048 is saying.

For K: Just add some for 4 weeks without changing anything else.
For CO2:Just reduce light by 25% and observe for 4 weeks. You can ofcourse add CO2 but reducing light is easier.
 
Ah, ok sounds like it could also be C02. A couple of things to try.

Are the liquid C02 supplements any good? In the meantime, I will however try reducing the lighting. Then investigate potassium.

Thanks again for your help.
 
Hello,
Holes in leaves or any form of translucency is a classic symptom of poor CO2. Potassium will never fix this problem.

Cheers,

Hmmm...

this is my bacopa caroliniana kept in the tank with no CO2 but fertilized regularly:

20200723_160334.jpg


this is the off cut from exactly the same plant kept in small tank with no CO2 like the above and absolutely no ferts for at least 3 months - only small water changes using exhausted water coming from the above tank:

20200723_160430.jpg
 
I haven't added any fertiliser as the tank seemed ok and am worried about algae

Plant like nutrients in parts per million and algae can cope with nutrients in parts per billion, so not using fertilizer your just giving the algae the advantage.

When was the last time you cleaned your filer ? if it was a long time ago flow will be much reduced and CO2 will be reduced also

Water Change regime ?

Hmmm...

this is my bacopa caroliniana kept in the tank with no CO2 but fertilized regularly:

View attachment 152428

this is the off cut from exactly the same plant kept in small tank with no CO2 like the above and absolutely no ferts for at least 3 months - only small water changes using exhausted water coming from the above tank:

View attachment 152429

IMO

1. No CO2 is injected - so same
2. Different tank - so water turnover/surface agitation will not be the same so supply of CO2 will be different (FLow is king)
3. No ferts - except what was left from old water from other tank
4. Old water which will have a higher level of DOCs (Dissolved Organic Compounds) - so more chance of algae
5. Top pic is off top part plants and lower pic is off lower part of stems, top off plants get better flow/CO2 however lower part is more likely to related to poor flow (low CO2) as older part of plant and less likely to be nutrient deficient

In a CO2 injected tank the issues are more likely to be CO2 related. Conversely in a non injected tank much less likely to be CO2 related, but doesn't mean it isn't CO2

Too many variables to say 100% what it is
 
Plant like nutrients in parts per million and algae can cope with nutrients in parts per billion, so not using fertilizer your just giving the algae the advantage.

When was the last time you cleaned your filer ? if it was a long time ago flow will be much reduced and CO2 will be reduced also

Water Change regime ?

Thats good to know about the fertiliser, will start that as a regime.

I do 25% weekly water change and filter clean, in tank water, every month.

Should I be doing >25% seems some aquascapers do 30% or more.

I will check flow and clean the filter.
 
20L tank I’d be doing as much as you can, perhaps 70% min. Then fill and do it again.

try it for a few weeks, I think you’ll see a massive change.

remove as much waste as you can.

ideally do it before the lights come on as the new water will contain lots of co2.
 
Ah, ok sounds like it could also be C02. A couple of things to try.

Are the liquid C02 supplements any good?
Yes - for some plants such as stems and carpet plants. Shrimp react poorly to this substance though, so best to be careful. This is an expensive fix if your tank is a CO2 injected tank. It's a better solution to reduce the CO2 demand by reducing the light intensity as mentioned above, and by improving flow/distribution.

Cheers.
 
Hmmm...

this is my bacopa caroliniana kept in the tank with no CO2 but fertilized regularly:

View attachment 152428

this is the off cut from exactly the same plant kept in small tank with no CO2 like the above and absolutely no ferts for at least 3 months - only small water changes using exhausted water coming from the above tank:

View attachment 152429
Hi,
As Zeus mentions, It's very difficult to compare two different tanks. Often, we assume we have control of the environment but more often than not, this is an illusion. Just a degree or two difference in the water can result in differences in CO2 content. Differences in the amount of plant mass (and the types of plants) makes a difference as the plants are competing for the gas.

The important thing to keep in mind is that Carbon builds plant structure, so any failure of structure can only mean a failure in Carbon.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that your first photo shows the bacopa penetrating the surface, but of course this means the plant has access to atmospheric CO2 so I would not expect to see symptoms of a severe CO2 shortfall, but even so, the gas concentration is highest near the surface, so if the second tank has the clipping lower down this would be disadvantageous. Without a CO2 meter it's mostly speculation as to the status of CO2 concentration in any tank.

Another factor which folks gloss over is the dichotomy that plants grown in a higher CO2 environment are actually more susceptible to minor CO2 shortfall, whereas plants grown in a non CO2 supplemented environment are more robust and are less susceptible to CO2 shortfalls. So we are more likely to observe CO2 related faults in a CO2 supplemented tank, as counter intuitive as this may seem...

Cheers,
 
Just an update. I have been adding Tropica Premium fertiliser, plus doing a 50% weekly water change. Overall the health of the plant leaves has improved. I'm getting some really nice growth from my Bacopa caroliniana, which wasnt doing much at all before.

There are still some holes in the older leaves on all plants, so going to also try reducing the light levels in the tank, to see if it's a CO2 deficiency.

Thanks again for the help.
 
we are more likely to observe CO2 related faults in a CO2 supplemented tank, as counter intuitive as this may seem...
It is counterintuitive, indeed, because CO2 fluctuations in relative terms are much stronger in low-tech, and even more so in places with natural illumination.
Both illumination and CO2 concentration vary considerably, abruptly, and often unpredictably in natural habitats. Therefore I rather disagree with often mentioned argument that "plants need time to adjust" to these variables. Of course, plants re-create many proteins (normally about 15 to 25 % per day) to reflect their changing needs and priorities. However, they do not have to adjust to variables which are - within certain limits - changing all the time.
It is quite normal that CO2 concentration fluctuates between zero to about 5 mg/L every day. It is normal that plants uptake CO2 in the morning and bicarbonates in the afternoon. At the same time, every day is quite different in sunlight/cloudiness, temperature, and surface agitation (winds, rains). There is nothing like stability in natural habitats. If plants needed "days" to adjust, they would die first.
Compare that with a high-tech tank with regulated temperature, constant illumination, zero winds/rains, and - what a disaster! - CO2 concentration falling from 30 to 15 mg/L, i.e. mere 50 %, and still in abundance.

I respect observations made multiple times by many people. But if I try to comprehend it, I find suggested explanations somehow unsatisfactory.
In a CO2 injected tank the issues are more likely to be CO2 related. Conversely in a non injected tank much less likely to be CO2 related, but doesn't mean it isn't CO2
Correct, but then...
I have been adding Tropica Premium fertiliser, plus doing a 50% weekly water change. Overall the health of the plant leaves has improved.
... we see that other causes are "possibly possible".
Carbon builds plant structure, so any failure of structure can only mean a failure in Carbon.
This is a simplification which should not pass unnoticed. It is true that structural tissues are generally poor in nutrients and are formed primarily by polysacharides, i.e. (CH2O)n. But structural defects caused by nutrient deficiency are well described for calcium, boron, copper, and other nutrients.
Secondly, there is only indirect link between photosynthesis and structural tissues building. Plants are permanently full of simple sacharides which are continuously distributed (through xylem & phloem) to all plant's organs. Troubles are more likely caused by missing or malfunctioning enzymes, whose central atom is often a micronutrient.
I can speculate of many possible effects of varying concentration of CO2 on various enzymes, but I'd never call any of them "a failure in Carbon".

When it comes to "pinholes" in leaves, my bet is neither carbon nor potassium, but rather magnesium. Not necessarily an absolute lack of Mg. It may very well be functionality of some enzymes responsible for chlorophyll creation/maintenance which is compromised locally by something (pH, H2O2, ...) which in turn is caused by CO2 fluctuations. I don't know of any scientific paper which explains these observations.
 
Many non obligate aquatic plants have a growth pattern of 'reach for the sky' and will pin hole/shed lower leaves as the surface is reached. We cut of the top stems and replant and discard the lower stems. Its gardening, growth follows the knife.
It must also be realized that water circulation is significantly curtailed by plant mass and what was good a month ago may now not be up to scratch. Psychologically difficult to thin out plants.
My money is on low CO2/circulation.
 
Hi all,
Many non obligate aquatic plants have a growth pattern of 'reach for the sky' and will pin hole/shed lower leaves as the surface is reached.
That is the problem really. Most <"aquarium plants"> are actually plants that would much <"prefer to be emersed">, with access to atmospheric gases, but can tolerate <"being submerged">.

If <"Tropica etc">. can get away with selling a terrestrial plant as an aquatic plant it suits their production facilities, makes transportation easier etc.



cheers Darrel
 
It is counterintuitive, indeed, because CO2 fluctuations in relative terms are much stronger in low-tech, and even more so in places with natural illumination.
Both illumination and CO2 concentration vary considerably, abruptly, and often unpredictably in natural habitats. Therefore I rather disagree with often mentioned argument that "plants need time to adjust" to these variables. Of course, plants re-create many proteins (normally about 15 to 25 % per day) to reflect their changing needs and priorities. However, they do not have to adjust to variables which are - within certain limits - changing all the time.
It is quite normal that CO2 concentration fluctuates between zero to about 5 mg/L every day. It is normal that plants uptake CO2 in the morning and bicarbonates in the afternoon. At the same time, every day is quite different in sunlight/cloudiness, temperature, and surface agitation (winds, rains). There is nothing like stability in natural habitats. If plants needed "days" to adjust, they would die first.
Compare that with a high-tech tank with regulated temperature, constant illumination, zero winds/rains, and - what a disaster! - CO2 concentration falling from 30 to 15 mg/L, i.e. mere 50 %, and still in abundance.

I respect observations made multiple times by many people. But if I try to comprehend it, I find suggested explanations somehow unsatisfactory.

Correct, but then...

... we see that other causes are "possibly possible".

This is a simplification which should not pass unnoticed. It is true that structural tissues are generally poor in nutrients and are formed primarily by polysacharides, i.e. (CH2O)n. But structural defects caused by nutrient deficiency are well described for calcium, boron, copper, and other nutrients.
Secondly, there is only indirect link between photosynthesis and structural tissues building. Plants are permanently full of simple sacharides which are continuously distributed (through xylem & phloem) to all plant's organs. Troubles are more likely caused by missing or malfunctioning enzymes, whose central atom is often a micronutrient.
I can speculate of many possible effects of varying concentration of CO2 on various enzymes, but I'd never call any of them "a failure in Carbon".

When it comes to "pinholes" in leaves, my bet is neither carbon nor potassium, but rather magnesium. Not necessarily an absolute lack of Mg. It may very well be functionality of some enzymes responsible for chlorophyll creation/maintenance which is compromised locally by something (pH, H2O2, ...) which in turn is caused by CO2 fluctuations. I don't know of any scientific paper which explains these observations.
I think you have valid points @_Maq_ . Without a few very well constructed experiments done double blind to confirm or disprove CO2/Mg/PO4/... Its almost anyone's best guess/theory. All our tanks are so different makes any conclusions drawn from our combined observations a little inconclusive - but it all we have to work on until we have firm proof.
My money is on low CO2/circulation.
Mines on poor Flow/Circulation resulting in localised fluctuating nutrient levels during photoperiod in a CO2 injected tank, think that covers quite few things. Carbon being favorite ;)
 
Back
Top