• 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

Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience.

Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience

...many of us are overcomplicating what is in essence, a fairly simple hobby.

Agree completely, I think that sometimes we all have a tenancy to over complicate matters, but by the same measure delving in to the science of it all is part of the enjoyment for some hobbyists.

I think the main thrust of the issue I was trying to raise is that sometimes we tend to mistakenly attribute cause and effect on what amounts to nothing else but hearsay.
 
Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience

There is a "causal chain", a series of events that go all the way back to the big bang. Every event is both a cause AND an effect - since each cause is actually an effect from a previous cause and by the same token each effect is actually the cause of another effect. :?

What the more scientifically oriented people try to do, is uncover the "direct cause" for a particular effect. The closer two events are on the "causal chain" the more direct or more accurate is the conclusion that "x caused y". In order to "get closer" they work on the molecular/atomic level and take the "causal chain" metaphor literally. This is the reductionist approach and it's conclusions are limited in scope - say in a petri dish. The results can be applied to our tanks with variable success.

On the other hand, the more casual tank owner isn't concerned with molecules. He works with light duration, nutrient concentration dosing, quantity of fish etc In terms of the "causal chain" he has many more events between x causing y.

Some might say that the scientists view of the "causal chain" is more valid than the casual users view because it's more direct and must therefore be more accurate. This isn't neccessarily true, both views are equally valid within their own context.

A tank is not a petri dish, it's a complex dynamic system. A "causal chain" is only a chain in a limited context, in a tank effects have more than one cause and causes have many effects. The chain merges into a complex web of interaction.

The way I see it, generally speaking, the casual users context is less accurate but more useful, the scientists context is more accurate but less useful. The problems come when people mix up their contexts.

"Hearsay" or anecdotal evidence is still evidence and just as valid as scientific evidence or "proof". The problem is that anecdotal evidence is typically presented with assumptions and without knowing what these assumptions are it's difficult to assess it's validity. Science suffers the same problem but to less a degree.

Anyway Troi, the situation is this, you aren't convinced that fluctuating CO2 causes BBA because you change 30-50% of your water each week and don't have BBA. Well, if you take anyone that has BBA and trace the "causal chain" back to the big bang! you will probably discover that somewhere along the way, there is a change in CO2. This doesn't mean change in CO2 is THE cause, it just means that it's one of many events that lead to BBA. BBA comes from fluctuating CO2 but the reverse is not always true - fluctuating CO2 doesn't always cause BBA. Complex web of interaction in a complex dynamic system, all tanks are different. People look for THE one cause because they want to understand and the easiest way to understand is to simplify. Simplifying has limits. Some algae are easy to defeat, other's like BBA and GSA have multiple causes hidden amongst the complex web of cause and effect - probably due to their non trivial life cycles.

Anyway for what it's worth, I think that BBA is caused by multiple events - at least depletion of CO2 followed sometime later by it's return. Anecdotally, I've only ever had an outbreak when my CO2 runs out and I've not noticed for a couple of days. Perhaps depletion causes spore release which then germinate when CO2 returns. You don't get BBA because your CO2 never gets fully depleted. Depletion could happen in any corner of the tank which might be why people have minor BBA that never results in an outbreak. But hey, what do I know, I'm a casual user and I'm fully prepared to change my mind tomorrow - in the meantime, I will continue to keep the lights off when my CO2 runs out!
 
Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience

sWozzAres said:
The problem is that anecdotal evidence is typically presented with assumptions and without knowing what these assumptions are it's difficult to assess it's validity. Science suffers the same problem but to less a degree.

Well, some use both methods, and rather than seeking cause, they seek to falsify what they can test.
This seems to work with a higher degree of certainty and within the hobby fairly well.
Searching for the cause itself...........may not.

Anyway Troi, the situation is this, you aren't convinced that fluctuating CO2 causes BBA because you change 30-50% of your water each week and don't have BBA. Well, if you take anyone that has BBA and trace the "causal chain" back to the big bang! you will probably discover that somewhere along the way, there is a change in CO2. This doesn't mean change in CO2 is THE cause, it just means that it's one of many events that lead to BBA. BBA comes from fluctuating CO2 but the reverse is not always true - fluctuating CO2 doesn't always cause BBA. Complex web of interaction in a complex dynamic system, all tanks are different. People look for THE one cause because they want to understand and the easiest way to understand is to simplify. Simplifying has limits. Some algae are easy to defeat, other's like BBA and GSA have multiple causes hidden amongst the complex web of cause and effect - probably due to their non trivial life cycles.
Anyway for what it's worth, I think that BBA is caused by multiple events - at least depletion of CO2 followed sometime later by it's return. Anecdotally, I've only ever had an outbreak when my CO2 runs out and I've not noticed for a couple of days. Perhaps depletion causes spore release which then germinate when CO2 returns. You don't get BBA because your CO2 never gets fully depleted. Depletion could happen in any corner of the tank which might be why people have minor BBA that never results in an outbreak. But hey, what do I know, I'm a casual user and I'm fully prepared to change my mind tomorrow - in the meantime, I will continue to keep the lights off when my CO2 runs out!

Good post there and well stated.

But back to falsification, you can vary the other complex variables like light, NO3, PO4, etc and falsify those as singular causes, or cook up any number of combinations you suspect. This could take awhile, but you can rule out many other species of algae and interactions along the way for each nutrient.

Then perhaps measuring O2, or filtration type etc, or current, or tap water differences between sites etc.
At least this way, you can rule singular causes and start looking at the more complex. If you cannot falsify something, then.......well.............we sort of tentatively accept and drag our knuckles on that one and sheepishly accept it till proven wrong.

We can also use over all plant growth concepts such as very high light = the highest demand for resources......CO2 and nutrients etc..........and apply those to the system to see results faster/more immediately/more strain, whereas they might appear slow and subtle in a low energy lower light/non CO2 approach.

Basically choosing the most susceptible, sensitive cases, much like when miners used the Canary in a cage for toxic fumes.

A combo of methods and observations(anecdotes) seem to work the best. We need to be able to corroborate theory/test etc........in the field (our aquariums). So we have to try it and see. Some things are not simple, sometimes we just over looked something really simple :lol:

Done this many times.
 
Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience

sWozzAres said:
There is a "causal chain", a series of events that go all the way back to the big bang....in the meantime, I will continue to keep the lights off when my CO2 runs out!

Good post and I enjoyed reading it.

Just by way of general discussion, I don’t think that any scientist worth their salt these days expects to explain complex systems in solely reductionist terms…that is if they ever really did. It has long been recognized that complex systems are more than the sum of their parts. And these days even particle physics seems to have more in common with divinity than it does with its original reductionist framework.

But then things are often turned on their head. I know that when ecology was in its infancy and very woolly around the edges (still is in truth) many ecologists attempted to legitimize it by adopting quantitative reductionist methods commonly used in physics with varying degrees of success - the nature of the raw data was often too qualitative to be realistically quantifiable. Sociologist and psychologist did the same for their respective fields of endeavor.

As mentioned it’s really horses for courses. Sometimes, a solely reductionist approach is appropriate and can provide the answers we need, even as far as aquarium phenomena are concerned, and Tom has illustrated this quite eloquently by describing how he applies the scientific method of falsifying hypotheses.

However, it’s really just a question of scale; the scope of reductionism isn’t just confined to the Petri dish. Answers gained from a reductionist methodology are often the first step of a holistic approach or when trying to model complex systems. This is especially so in ecology which incorporates quantitative analytical tools but also recognizes quality as a vital feature of the world it studies.

Personally I have always recognized quality as every bit as important as quantity in the world in which we live. I don’t require a theory to be validated by falsifying hypothesis to see that perhaps it contains at least some truth. But by the same measure I always approach such theories with healthy skepticism and try to assess them critically.

So essentially, we are in agreement, and to put it in to the context of our example - water changes on their own in a low energy system do not necessarily cause fluctuating CO2 levels (if indeed they do at all) that are significant enough to cause algal blooms ; but sometimes work in synergy with other factors to perhaps do so. But until someone identifies the exact "causal web" responsible we will never know for sure. Meanwhile, if it works for you, continue to keep the lights off when the CO2 runs out. :)
 
Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience

Troi said:
So essentially, we are in agreement, and to put it in to the context of our example - water changes on their own in a low energy system do not necessarily cause fluctuating CO2 levels (if indeed they do at all) that are significant enough to cause algal blooms ; but sometimes work in synergy with other factors to perhaps do so. But until someone identifies the exact "causal web" responsible we will never know for sure. Meanwhile, if it works for you, continue to keep the lights off when the CO2 runs out. :)

I think there are 2 main reasons fluctuating co2 levels from water changes in a low tech dont cause bba blooms. First is the frequency of the fluctuations ie once or twice a week, as opposed to constantly unstable in a poor example of high tech. Second is the big bang, poor plant health = algae. If your low tech is anything to go by you have very healthy plants and all your water changes are doing is removing algal spores. If your plants are not healthy you will get algae, it dosent matter if you have a high or a low tech.
I've never tried intentionally inducing algae so Tom if you would be so kind. Are you able to induce algae in a tank full of healthy plants?
 
Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience

For BBA that grows on the edges of leaves, your probably right in that the plant can resist it as long as it's healthy.

Unfortunately, BBA also has an affinity for static surfaces, ie wood, plastic, rubber etc. so plant health in this case is irrelevant - at least in terms of resisting attachment. Interestingly it won't grow on glass and I suspect this is because the spore can't settle in order to germinate - smooth surface with nowhere to get lodged.

BBA experiences alternation of generations so it has two types of spore, carpospore and tetraspore. It's the former that's more interesting because apparently it remains with it's parent plant (gametophyte) until the plant deteriorates - then it germinates. I am guessing that the deterioration of the gametophyte is due to loss of CO2, making it lose structural integrity.

I've had background levels of BBA in my new tank for a couple of months. It was strands, dotted around here and there. I've left it alone - you know what they say, keep your friends close but your enemies closer :shifty: but after a couple of months decided to nuke it all with excel, double dosed for a week. A couple of weeks later it returned, only this time it was small tufts.

This is interesting because of alternation of generations, basically the gametophyte releases carpospores which germinate and grows into a tetrasporophyte which releases tetraspores that germinate and grow into a gametophyte again - thereby completing the life cycle.

I am thinking that the strand/hairy type BBA was the gametophyte, that got nuked by the excel leaving carpospores littered about. These survived the excel but then germinated into a tetrasporophyte which was the tufty looking BBA.

However, since BBA gametophytes and tetrasporophytes are isomorphic, they should look the same - they did look very similiar but you could tell the difference so this could also be due to fact that of the 300 or so species of BBA, there are I think 30 or so that are freshwater. So it might be that I've had different species which further complicates matters when your trying to nail down a cause because different species can have different causes :(
 
Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience

Troi said:
Just by way of general discussion, I don’t think that any scientist worth their salt these days expects to explain complex systems in solely reductionist terms…that is if they ever really did. It has long been recognized that complex systems are more than the sum of their parts. And these days even particle physics seems to have more in common with divinity than it does with its original reductionist framework.

I couldn't agree more, emergent phenomena. Chemistry emerges from physics, biology emerges from chemistry, technology emerges from biology. What emerges from technology, hmmm? It's almost as if each level of emergence creates a new layer of reality with it's own entities and rules of interaction. One level can't be explained in terms of, or reduced to the level that it emerged from. So it' s more than the sum of it's parts, mysteriously you seem to get something more than you put in! The mind can't be reduced to the brain, society can't be reduced to people, people can't be reduced to cells etc etc

So back on topic, the casual users "level of reality", that of dosing nutrients, water changes, fish load can't be explained in terms of molecules, atoms and their interactions. It seems there will always be a disconnect between the world of the scientist and the world of the casual user, one that's impossible to bridge.

Anyway just rambling, I think you will probably find this interesting http://jap.physiology.org/content/104/6/1844
 
Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience

Hi all,
Reading thread's like this I get the feeling that many of us are overcomplicating what is in essence, a fairly simple hobby. Plants need light, co2 and nutrients. .............A combo of methods and observations(anecdotes) seem to work the best. We need to be able to corroborate theory/test etc........in the field (our aquariums). So we have to try it and see. Some things are not simple, sometimes we just over looked something really simple
I agree with the other posters, in all likelihood we aren't going to be able to quantify all the factors that make a difference, but if we could accurately record what we did, over time we may build up a big enough database to draw up some general guidelines. But for me the real problem is that we can't accurately measure many of the parameters we are interested in, so what we surmise may not actually be borne out by the data.

I think one of the problems is that people get too hung up on following a set methodology and this can place people in an invidious position, where they may want to follow the Walstad method etc., and feel that they shouldn't change the water etc., even though their fish keeping experience tells them to.

BBA
BBA experiences alternation of generations so it has two types of spore, carpospore and tetraspore. It's the former that's more interesting because apparently it remains with it's parent plant (gametophyte) until the plant deteriorates - then it germinates. I am guessing that the deterioration of the gametophyte is due to loss of CO2, making it lose structural integrity.

I've had background levels of BBA in my new tank for a couple of months. It was strands, dotted around here and there. I've left it alone - you know what they say, keep your friends close but your enemies closer, but after a couple of months decided to nuke it all with excel, double dosed for a week. A couple of weeks later it returned, only this time it was small tufts.

This is interesting because of alternation of generations, basically the gametophyte releases carpospores which germinate and grows into a tetrasporophyte which releases tetraspores that germinate and grow into a gametophyte again - thereby completing the life cycle.

I am thinking that the strand/hairy type BBA was the gametophyte, that got nuked by the excel leaving carpospores littered about. These survived the excel but then germinated into a tetrasporophyte which was the tufty looking BBA.

However, since BBA gametophytes and tetrasporophytes are isomorphic, they should look the same - they did look very similiar but you could tell the difference so this could also be due to fact that of the 300 or so species of BBA, there are I think 30 or so that are freshwater. So it might be that I've had different species which further complicates matters when your trying to nail down a cause because different species can have different causes
I was thinking about alternation of generation in Red algae the other day (tetrasporophyte petrocelis generation of Mastocarpus stellatus), but I'd never really thought about it in terms of the Red algae in the Aquarium.

However, I think you might have the answer here to the differing types of BBA, but that it isn't the generations that differ in morphology, it is the sexes.

Based upon this <http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag...icroscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artmay99/gbalgae.html> which led to:

Júnio, O & Vis, M. (2005) "Reproductive ecology of the freshwater red alga Batrachospermum delicatulum (Batrachospermales, Rhodophyta) in three tropical streams." Phycological Research 53 pp. 194–200.

Batrachospermum delicatulum ...... Physical and chemical parameters and the spatial placement of thalli were investigated along with the reproductive characteristics of the gametophytic phase. ..... All specimens examined were dioecious. The ratio of male/female plants was relatively low (0.5 to 1.3) and male plants tended to occur as clumps (two or three plants together). High reproductive success was observed, as indicated by the occurrence of 100% fertilized (carposporophytic) female plants.
cheers Darrel
 
Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience

dw1305 said:
However, I think you might have the answer here to the differing types of BBA, but that it isn't the generations that differ in morphology, it is the sexes.

Ah! Of course, that makes more sense :thumbup:

Starting to bug me now though why after the excel I only saw the one sex reappear. We are talking about half a dozen small tufts but no strand/hair type anywhere. :rolleyes:
 
Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience

Hi all,
However, I think you might have the answer here to the differing types of BBA, but that it isn't the generations that differ in morphology, it is the sexes......Ah! Of course, that makes more sense
It is really no more than a guess, but I'll see if I can find out some more about the actual species involved in the aquarium. Some-one I used to work with is a Phycologist at the NHM, (and she works on the marine Rhodophyta), so she may be able to put us in contact with some-one who knows some more.

cheers Darrel
 
Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience

Spores can be asexual also, there is often no need to complete the entire life cycle for such pest, aquatic weeds spread mainly via asexual propagation.

Sheath's text is good for general stuff on Audouinella. Generally found in flowing waters, CO2 tends to be in the 5-10ppm ranges from what I've read.

Amano told me he suffered 10 years with this alga, I suffered about 3 years.
We both went after the issue the same way however: we focused on the plant growth and trimmed our way out of the issue. Both cases we added more and more CO2.

Life histories can be useful in learning more about it, but I do not think it'll help many hobbyist.

Our goal is not to learn to grow algae, not to learn 101 ways to kill algae, I did not get into this hobby to do that.
Our goal is deceptive and simple: to grow plants well. So focus there, then algae is really not that big an issue.

Healthy plants = little algae issues.

You can do this a few ways, why they work will be more related to the plant health and the indirect responses of the algae and the spore types to plant density/light/health etc.

The fast flowing water.........mid range of CO2 might be a key factor. BBA is very common in tanks that do those ranges of CO2/good flow etc. We took BBA covered rocks out a tank once, set them on a porch over the winter for 6 months, added them back, the algae grew back.

Killing BBA on non live things is a rather simple affair, plant leaves? I just trim it off. So does Amano.
This works well if the growth(thus the good care and focus on plant growth) rate is decent and the leaves grow in and do not get covered.

This way you export and remove all the new settling germlings on the older plant leaves. A few cycles beats the alga back and have a pretty clean tank. Some non CO2 folks use Excel/Easy carbo etc for a few weeks/months and kill it and enhance growth for a while.

Then return to non Carbon enrichment.

For folks using CO2, excel and Easy Carbo helps in the same way.
Easy carbon and Excel does NOT kill or reduce green algae.

I've also noted that many folks with high fish loading had BBA, but the plants often where not taken care of and the higher the fish loading, the more they added current and blew off the CO2 they added, so they had that same 5-10ppm range of CO2. It was not the ferts/nutrients, it was the CO2 and they added a lot more current to prevent low O2 for the fish.

Discus owners are commonly prone to this.
 
Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience

plantbrain said:
Life histories can be useful in learning more about it, but I do not think it'll help many hobbyist.
Exactly right, youv'e said in a much shorter succint way what we were describing earlier in the thread - the scientist can have thousands of pages of detailed information about life history/biology/triggers and even a map of the genome but when you add all of this up and transfer it to the hobbyist, all it amounts to is what we already have - stop CO2 fluctuating. :)
 
Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience

dw1305 said:
However, I think you might have the answer here to the differing types of BBA, but that it isn't the generations that differ in morphology, it is the sexes.

Darrel,

Reference http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/26399/1/13(1)_P57-76.pdf

They look at two marine species Audouillella alariae and Rhodochortoll repens and realise that they are actually the gametophyte and tetrasporophyte of the same species.

The gametophyte has both male and female gametangia on the same thallus - so it's both male and female at the same time.

The tetrasporophyte forms a tuft and has no hairs.

The gametophyte is composed of a unicellular base and 1-3 (-4) erect filaments with hairs

The tetrasporophyte is composed of a multicellular base and erect filaments without hairs

Looking at my tank last night I do now have one bit of strand/hair type. Not very scientific but it seems to fit the original hypothesis - the tufts that appeared after the excel treatment are now producing spores that are germinating into hairy gametophytes.
 
Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience

Also :rolleyes:

Reference: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...#v=onepage&q=Audouinella life history&f=false

Audouinella investiens...

The haploid gametophytes are hermaphrodite and therefore bear spermatangia as well as carpogonia

Regarding light...

it has been found that tetraspores are formed only in short day conditions

with 8h of light per day, tetraspores are formed, with 16h they are not

suggesting that light is another way to combat BBA and feeds into what we were saying earlier about multiple causes since 10h light could stop BBA even if you have fluctuating CO2 in a non CO2 tank ;)
 
Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience

Troi, this might go a long way in answering your question as to why you don't get BBA in your non-CO2 tank

I call the method low energy but perhaps it is really not that low energy since I used ferts (TNC) about the equivalent of 1/10th - 1/5th full EI, reasonably good lighting (12 hr/day, 1.5 watts of T8 per imp gallon, with reflectors) and an Eheim Pro canister filter that turns over 750 litres/hr - the tanks capacity is 90 litres, and I change 30% - 50% of the water twice a week.

Your 12 hr/day light period is stopping the BBA tetrasporophytes forming spores, thereby halting it's life cycle. :p

This could be a hypothesis that using Tom's falsification process can easily be tested. Just put your lighting down to 6hr and see what happens :)
 
Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience

I've scanned alot of BBA threads in the algae section and as far as people have said, all of those who have BBA outbreaks have 10 hours or less of lighting.

Still you can't expect people to up lighting to 12 hours to combat BBA but I've also found this talking about Audouinella botryocarpa

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/11263508709429378

Night-breaks of 1 h in a 16 h night prevented tetrasporangial reproduction and a critical daylength of 10 h was found at 10°C.

So perhaps having lights on for 1 hour in the middle of the dark period will also halt the life cycle.
 
Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience

sWozzAres said:
plantbrain said:
Life histories can be useful in learning more about it, but I do not think it'll help many hobbyist.
Exactly right, youv'e said in a much shorter succint way what we were describing earlier in the thread - the scientist can have thousands of pages of detailed information about life history/biology/triggers and even a map of the genome but when you add all of this up and transfer it to the hobbyist, all it amounts to is what we already have - stop CO2 fluctuating. :)

Well maybe it's a CO2 stability issue, maybe not.

Maybe it's just the 1st 30 min or 120 minutes that are important for CO2 and the rest of the day be over a wider range.
Maybe adjusting the light slowly is a better way, maybe it's something we have not considered?

Maybe light photo period has an effect, I'm doubtful.
 
Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience

plantbrain said:
Well maybe it's a CO2 stability issue, maybe not.

Maybe it's just the 1st 30 min or 120 minutes that are important for CO2 and the rest of the day be over a wider range.
Maybe adjusting the light slowly is a better way, maybe it's something we have not considered?

Maybe light photo period has an effect, I'm doubtful.

If fluctuating CO2 is the only "evidence" then surely fluctuating pH is a more likely "cause". Each tank will have a different pH for the same 0ppm CO2.
 
Back
Top