Thank you, what levels are they exposed to in nature? Are there any examples?Well they are exposed to higher levels in nature so i would say no at 30ppm.
Up to around 70ppm if i remember correctly when looking up co2 information in Kasselmann's book last year.Thank you, what levels are they exposed to in nature? Are there any examples?
Seems strange to target 30ppm co2 if it is deemed harmful
Hmmm…no mention of such a value in my copy.Up to around 70ppm if i remember correctly when looking up co2 information in Kasselmann's book last year.
On page 602 theres a 91.7 also a 61.5, and a 61.2, on page 600 a 60.8 value, page 604 a value of 109, page 606 values of 125, 100, 95 and 84.4, and others elsewhere there's values in the 40's and 50's, yes lower values are the norm but there not exclusive.Hmmm…no mention of such a value in my copy.
The peak would depend on multiple factors but definitely not as much as artificially injecting CO2 at higher levels like we do.Just out of curiosity, what would the levels peak at during the hours of darkness in a heavily planted aquarium, I.e. when it’s the plants adding the Co2, not the bottle underneath?
Ah, thank you. I was looking at the information on page 70. Hadn‘t seen that info at the back.On page 602 theres a 91.7 also a 61.5, and a 61.2, on page 600 a 60.8 value, page 604 a value of 109, page 606 values of 125, 100, 95 and 84.4, and others elsewhere there's values in the 40's and 50's, yes lower values are the norm but there not exclusive.
Up to around 70ppm if i remember correctly when looking up co2 information in Kasselmann's book last year.
Did he mentioned where on the Earth such a high concentrations of CO2 occur naturally in surface waters? And what plants and other organisms do grow there? Statistically it's less than 10ppm (including when waters are mixed etc.), concentrations of CO2 may be higher in underground waters but I'm afraid no photosynthetic organisms can grow underground so these values may be completely irrelevant to water plant growing etc - and I mean underwater plants, floaters and emersed ones are actually specialised in higher CO2 concentrations and uptake, same with animals which can live both underwater and above the water level (various frogs, crustaceans etc.).On page 602 theres a 91.7 also a 61.5, and a 61.2, on page 600 a 60.8 value, page 604 a value of 109, page 606 values of 125, 100, 95 and 84.4, and others elsewhere there's values in the 40's and 50's, yes lower values are the norm but there not exclusive.
Thanks, i suppose it depends on the planting density, types of plant, etc, but it makes sense that it would be less than artificially injected.The peak would depend on multiple factors but definitely not as much as artificially injecting CO2 at higher levels like we do.
I think a lot of it depends on the fish. I'm going to guess that 30 ppm CO2 would quickly kill off most <"rheophilic fish"> and <"Tanganyikan cichlids">. This is an Arctic Charr reference <"https://www.grocentre.is/static/gro/publication/261/document/safina13prf.pdf"> and this a General Aquaculture paper <"talking about hypercapnia">. <"Acute CO2 tolerance in fishes is associated with air breathing but not the Root effect, red cell βNHE, or habitat">Thanks, i suppose it depends on the planting density, types of plant, etc, but it makes sense that it would be less than artificially injected.
That table is not showing the whole picture. I checked this morning on Kasselman's book and there is a footnote stating that CO2 was calculated, not measured. Something to keep in mind.@Happi posted this table some time ago which shows CO2 levels in various South American biotopes. I don't have a link to the original study, perhaps @Happi has it, but it is a useful table non-the-less. Without getting into absolutes, it does show that CO2 levels found in natural habitats are generally a fair bit higher than typical low energy tanks, but perhaps not as high as most CO2 injected tanks: