Phosphate is the king of the planted tank

Zeus.

Member
Joined
1 Oct 2016
Messages
3,128
Location
Yorkshire,UK
But Flow without nutrients sucks.
Yes if all you was using was RO water and no active substrate or root tabs

But low nutrients with good flow spreads the limited supply round, good levels of nutrients in tank as a whole and poor delivery to plants leads to issues eg dense stems in areas of poor flow lose leaves an lower part of stem, however good flow maintains the leaves


RuBisCo (and NADPH) will have a conniption if you say that :p; Flow is king only when it carries nutrients
RuBisCo (and NADPH) happen withing the cells off the plants, however flow is external to the plants , Flow isnt need in air for CO2 as its diffusion rate is 10,000 times faster in air than water. But flow is King in water

limit phosphates
but we are missing something beautiful
Limiting some nutrients can have fantastic effects, bit like the death and breakdown of leaves on trees in the fall, and some deficiencies can be prolong and still tank looks great


We can't willy nilly dose everything as we please. The word excess is misleading. Too much of something will increase the chances that the plant will pick that up (possibly instead of something else? - Mulders). I love what Barr did to develop EI - it's great - and if it wasn't for EI, I would not know what healthy plants look like, nor would I have considered CO2 so deeply. But if you dump whatever the toxicity of something is in your tank (as it will be unique to each tank) minus 1 into your tank and sustain that level for months on end, there will be issues. My Rotala that change immediately after MONTHS of excess potassium is a prime example. My Pogo too.
But what is the toxic level for each nutrient and it will be plant specific as well

@ceg4048 dose his tank 3 to 4 times in excess of full EI, he reported the plants never looked better

@Tim Harrison use to dose his with a luxury dose - x2 EI levels - plants looked great. Tim is using more lean doses ATM ( correct me if I'm wrong Tim)



Limiting certain nutrients in a planted tank definitely has its place, not something I have gone into myself yet ;)
 

JoshP12

Member
Joined
8 Dec 2019
Messages
415
Location
Canada
@ceg4048 dose his tank 3 to 4 times in excess of full EI, he reported the plants never looked better

@Tim Harrison use to dose his with a luxury dose - x2 EI levels - plants looked great. Tim is using more lean doses ATM ( correct me if I'm wrong Tim)
To dose in full EI obeys ratios - since our dosing salts themselves preserve ratios. I don't want to speak for anyone's tank, so I will let them weigh in.

Each tank is a nutrient soup and hard water will add a layer of complexities. If we pick one nutrient and pour it in for months (I don't mean you drop a bottle for one photoperiod and you do a water change when you come home - a healthy established system can handle that), there will be issues, so we cannot dismiss the notion of ratio-ranges in non-toxic extreme circumstance (of course each nutrient will have different effects and some will be minimal in comparison).

Josh
 

Zeus.

Member
Joined
1 Oct 2016
Messages
3,128
Location
Yorkshire,UK
To dose in full EI obeys ratios
Nope- Liebig law of the minimum , ratios are just coincidental IMO, your looking for trees and the forest is in the way, if you look for ratios you will always find them it doesn't mean the ratios have any meaning

If we pick one nutrient and pour it in for months
and it doesn't reach a toxic level or changes the equilibrium of the state (ionic/precipitate) of another nutrient/compound or interact with other element/compounds when certain [nutrient] are reach which result is a harmful compound, then all is fine :thumbup:

we cannot dismiss the notion of ratio-ranges in non-toxic extreme circumstance
No we can't, however with the lack of any convincing evidence/proof we can be skeptical about ratios, just like Agnosticism is about god.

However they can only be one King, there can be quite a few princes, stewards, judges etc The King may have little to do with the running of things at times, however he has the ultimate say. If the King has no kingdom or people in his Kingdom his rules are pretty meaningless ;)
 

JoshP12

Member
Joined
8 Dec 2019
Messages
415
Location
Canada
Nope- Liebig law of the minimum , ratios are just coincidental IMO, your looking for trees and the forest is in the way, if you look for ratios you will always find them it doesn't mean the ratios have any meaning
First, I need to clarify that I am not suggesting that ratios dictate good plant growth. Liebig's law applies in the plant. It is not about what we give it in the water column. So to fully examine, we need to look at how the plant absorbs nutrients. I.e. the structure of the leaf: passive/active transport.

If someone truly thinks that dumping hundreds and hundreds of ppm of potassium in their tank (not the chunk that will explode) but say potassium sulfate or potassium bicarbonate (not potassium with macronutrient) will not cause ANY issues, then go ahead and do it. Do not manipulate anything else. Find toxic ranges for all your plants and dose directly under the minimum, then you have to test potassium due to uptake and dose more and more until you maintain below that toxicity. High GH will allow you to have that much more potassium. Conversely, if you have high GH, cease dosing all potassium except those from EI macronutrients and pull all of it out - further, remove all magnesium except 2ppm and maintain all other doses regularly. The complexity is unique to each specific tank so even my ridiculous example will not suffice.


It is a probabilities game as the concentration in the water that flows by a plant leaf changes. If the soil has concentrations and the water is not as mobile, concentrations will affect the uptake of those nutrients.

your looking for trees and the forest is in the way
I am not looking for anything. I am not looking for a magic bullet. I have not defined what I am looking for.

The reality is this:

This thread offers very minimal practical advice for us.

The practical advice is:

1) use your tap water
2) dose a comprehensive fert or follow a pre-set out system
3) use any substrate you want (soil has its benefits but if you are WC dosing hard, then use inert)
4) clean/trim well
5) optimize flow
6) plant hard
7) use good light with a dimmer
8) high surface agitation + high injection rate (get it stable from lights on to off)
9) address deficiencies if they show up


But this thread does demystify to much of the mystery that I felt as a newcomer to the hobby.

Some of those concepts are:

1) nutrient concentration in water column vs. substrate ... is there a difference? I think yes and the specifics are in phosphate mobility. Further, it unlocks the ADA system.
1595768191125.png


The ever quoted that ADA soil has so much more nutrients than EI dosing is true. However, it is HOW the plant utilize these nutrients that gives the answer. Roots are different than leaves. The plant must (I think) trigger the roots to move nutrients through its stem as needed. The HIGH CEC of the substrate locks some nutrients (via providing a lower concentration gradient potential) so they don't leech forever into the water column - they will leech until the system has balanced (of course), but then testable amounts are low. So if the nitrates in the substrate are so high, why do we get gorgeous nitrate-limiting plant growth. It is because it limits phosphates via the lack of mobility. Water column dosing forces different uptake of plants than roots. Crypts melt - and I bet it has to do with the insane root system that sequesters CO2 from the rhizosphere - so you have a dramatic shift in conditions - why stems don't melt as bad? Less roots - less of an emphasis on CO2 from soil - more on water column dosing, which when lean on phosphates can limit the demand on CO2.

2) how PMDD works

3) why the masters just turn on their CO2 and watch the tank and ignore the notion of "stable from lights on to lights off" ... the reality is that high injection rates gives rise to stability faster - so it is moot - but the concept has to do with CO2 demand based on phosphate and light availability.

4) why we need low light on start up - because the plant cannot get the nutrients - primarily CO2 as Clive said - it needs to grow ... until the plant changes it won't adapt. This has to do with obtaining nutrients NOT what we give it. So Liebig's holds but it's not about us - it's about in the plant. In my post, I proposed why low light on startup if you provide everything. The reality was that it is not about me provide everything - it was the ability of the plant to grab nutrients (primarily CO2). So, my suggested notion that we can't willy nilly dose one thing in excess is not to prove some self-fulfilling prophecy; it is in an attempt to give the plant the best chance to utilize and capture the nutrients we give so they can grow. We don't chase a relative concentration - but we do need to be cognizant of the effects that high concentration of stuff has on other things in our nutrient soup.

And the argument to minimize phosphates or dose none and use high light on startup will work - the unfortunate part is that you will NOT know the uptake of those phosphates in your tank from day 1, nor will the plants necessarily have roots to pull the phosphate from the substrates - UNLESS, they use the stored nutrients they had before you bought them ... so we will get deficiencies which is not worth it; hence why we use healthy plants from day 1 - give them everything they need in the substrate + WC + give CO2 good flow + light - and they might survive, if they can reconfigure quick enough.

5) it is the understanding (not all the science but the "concept") that allows someone to run a gorgeous tank on a lean water column dosing regime with minimal CO2 <-- by letting CO2 be just above the minimum for Leidbig.

Why do we care about this? Not everyone can run a wet-dry trickle; not everyone can afford a skimmer; not everyone can have high surface agitation; not everyone has/wants a shallow tank; not everyone can supply the oxygen required to run a tank at high, high CO2 ... these are the right rules to follow. But if we know why they are there, we can break them, after all - every body of water is not a fast flowing stream.

But, why bother - just have high oxygen and life is better all around.

Zeus, you have helped me greatly and in no way do I want this conversation to hinder that; I hope that it is merely that - a conversation.

EDIT: I mentioned in another post that the notion of ratio should be worded as relative concentrations.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ray

jaypeecee

Member
Joined
21 Jan 2015
Messages
1,370
Location
Bracknell
Hi Folks,
This thread offers very minimal practical advice for us.

The practical advice is:

1) use your tap water
2) dose a comprehensive fert or follow a pre-set out system
3) use any substrate you want (soil has its benefits but if you are WC dosing hard, then use inert)
4) clean/trim well
5) optimize flow
6) plant hard
7) use good light with a dimmer
8) high surface agitation + high injection rate (get it stable from lights on to off)
9) address deficiencies if they show up
@JoshP12 , you have listed nine items of practical advice. But, doesn't each of the above nine items need some detail in order to be truly practical? For example, what is optimized flow? What is a 'good light'? These points have been touched upon in this thread but we need to quantify flow, good light, etc. Throughout UKAPS, there has been much discussion on each of these topics. Are we getting nearer to the answers that we all/a majority can agree upon (possibly a rhetorical question)? I realize that your thread focussed on phosphate but, because you summarized with practical advice, I thought I'd throw my two penn'orth into the melting pot.

JPC :)
 
Last edited:

Zeus.

Member
Joined
1 Oct 2016
Messages
3,128
Location
Yorkshire,UK
Find toxic ranges for all your plants and dose directly under the minimum
think you meant under the toxic level :angelic:

The practical advice is:

1) use your tap water
2) dose a comprehensive fert or follow a pre-set out system
3) use any substrate you want (soil has its benefits but if you are WC dosing hard, then use inert)
4) clean/trim well
5) optimize flow
6) plant hard
7) use good light with a dimmer
8) high surface agitation + high injection rate (get it stable from lights on to off)
9) address deficiencies if they show up
:thumbup:

nutrient concentration in water column vs. substrate
But the substrate may have a High CEC (Cation Exchange Capacity) like ADA AS - so when active it mops up excess cations/toxins in the WC until equilibrium is reached and releases Cation/toxins after WC until equilibrium is reached, when you dose in WC it mops up excess cations/toxins in the WC until equilibrium is reached, when plants mop up nutrients or release toxins the ADA AS it releases nutrients and mops up toxins.

However with Hard water the excessive mineral content may block the active sites esp with the higher pH, lower pH (soft water) does seem to extend the life of substrates with a high CEC


how PMDD works
same as EI dosing nutrients in excess- the fert dose may be low but, whats coming from the substrate or root tabs fish waste, plus lower light normally as well


why the masters just turn on their CO2 and watch the tank and ignore the notion of "stable from lights on to lights off"
They have done similar setups before and have mastered the water they use - most use RO water

it is the understanding (not all the science but the "concept") that allows someone to run a gorgeous tank on a lean water column dosing regime with minimal CO2 <-- by letting CO2 be just above the minimum for Leidbig.
:thumbup:
Why do we care about this? Not everyone can run a wet-dry trickle; not everyone can afford a skimmer; not everyone can have high surface agitation; not everyone has/wants a shallow tank; not everyone can supply the oxygen required to run a tank at high, high CO2 ... these are the right rules to follow.
Not rules but 'guidelines/theories/principles' and these vary form tank to tank
Facts are hard to find/get

Zeus, you have helped me greatly and in no way do I want this conversation to hinder that; I hope that it is merely that - a conversation.
:thumbup:, folk meeting in at pub/club chatting over the topic ;)
 

JoshP12

Member
Joined
8 Dec 2019
Messages
415
Location
Canada
think you meant under the toxic level :angelic:
Yes - whoops.


But the substrate may have a High CEC (Cation Exchange Capacity) like ADA AS - so when active it mops up excess cations/toxins in the WC until equilibrium is reached and releases Cation/toxins after WC until equilibrium is reached, when you dose in WC it mops up excess cations/toxins in the WC until equilibrium is reached, when plants mop up nutrients or release toxins the ADA AS it releases nutrients and mops up toxins.

However with Hard water the excessive mineral content may block the active sites esp with the higher pH, lower pH (soft water) does seem to extend the life of substrates with a high CEC
Right, via ion-exchange, we switch out H+ for a positive mineral (Ca, Mg etc) ... those then lock up negatively charged nutrients from the WC (i.e. phosphates). Soft water has much less +.



same as EI dosing nutrients in excess- the fert dose may be low but, whats coming from the substrate or root tabs fish waste, plus lower light normally as well
I am not so sure that it is the same as EI. The reduced phosphate in both ADA style and PMDD do something.

I just found this: http://aquarium-fertilizer.eu/pmdd-original-text-control-of-algae-in-planted-aquaria-article-34

Excellent read.

From < Tom's original post on EI >, he said,
Note:
PO4 and Fe are two nutrients that are difficult to assess without first assessing the other nutrients. If the NO3, K, and CO2 are in good shape, you can add a fair amount of these within a wide range. I have added to almost 3ppm of PO4 consistently week after week. Plant's response is incredible.
Green spot algae has never been an issue when high PO4 levels are maintained even under high light with Anubias. Adding traces has been a focus for me lately. Many have stuck with the old standby of a residual of 0.1ppm of iron(namelt from the work done developing PMDD). Well what does this residual tell us? Does it tell us what is available to the plants? Is this enough? Do higher doses cause algae?

The combination of the two reads tell us that there is something that Barr does that PMDD doesn't. The level of CO2 in the tank. PMDD gives the plant just enough PO4 and Barr gives it the maximum. As a result, CO2 demand is reduced (directly because of ADP to ATP and light driving calvin cycle) OR the CO2 demand is increased, respectively.

As aquarists, we can increase CO2 - lakes can't - and so we can mop up excess nutrients very easily.

I am not trying to convert anyone - I dose EI (though I will be leaning phosphate soon to see what happens). I think it is important for me as an aquarist to understand why each of these systems work*. I never took applied sciences - for a reason - I can't stand lab work (all of my chem courses were theoretical and organic and I opted out of lab work when I could) - I would rather pay someone to conduct my experiments - I can't stand it. However, if we accept that the photosynthetic mechanisms are sequential and the established theory on those mechanisms is correct, we need not test anything. The final crux is the mobility of phosphorus from the WC or the substrate - and here we look at roots vs. leaves. From there, we understand concentration gradients (and from that paper I linked somewheres on radish growth size) we know that substrate phosphate concentration will impact growth rates/size less than water column. There is something about that water column and the way that plants uptake nutrients in their leaves vs. their roots. That will be the final piece (that I almost willing to accept without any further investigation) that will say phosphate in the WC is easier to uptake in leaves than the roots.


They have done similar setups before and have mastered the water they use - most use RO water
For sure, and I don't think many aquarists are doing insane ramp up and down. And they have high surface agitation and high injection rate so they reach the stability within the 30 minute ramp anyways.

:thumbup:, folk meeting in at pub/club chatting over the topic ;)
:D.


The big bamboozler for me was those that dose phosphate in the WC lightly, and for the reasons above, they can run CO2 in the quoted BBA spawning zone and not spawn BBA - like Amano.

And I guess it depends on what you want to grow and how you want your growth to look. Like all else, dosing regimes are tools that we use. :)

Josh
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ray

jaypeecee

Member
Joined
21 Jan 2015
Messages
1,370
Location
Bracknell
Hi @JoshP12

I've extracted this snippet from the link you provided in post #28:

"Experiments with planted aquaria appear to indicate that growth of green algae, red algae, and cyanobacteria is suppressed in planted tanks in which the availability of phosphate is the factor limiting plant growth".

My interpretation of this is...low phosphate means minimal/no algae or cyanobacteria. Is that how you read it?

JPC
 

JoshP12

Member
Joined
8 Dec 2019
Messages
415
Location
Canada
Hi @JoshP12

I've extracted this snippet from the link you provided in post #28:

"Experiments with planted aquaria appear to indicate that growth of green algae, red algae, and cyanobacteria is suppressed in planted tanks in which the availability of phosphate is the factor limiting plant growth".

My interpretation of this is...low phosphate means minimal/no algae or cyanobacteria. Is that how you read it?

JPC
Let's bring on the crazy. These are my ideas :).

The cause of algae is *irregular photorespiration.

When irregular photorespiration occurs, a signal (likely electrical? as a result of the differing mechanism than Calvin Cycle) is sent triggering algae to germinate. They germinate and grow and sweep up the nutrients in the water column.

Photorespiration occurs at a threshold of LOCALIZED CO2 concentration.

Note:
1) PMDD claimed to beat algae with reduced phosphates.
2) Barr said they had too low CO2 and the true problem was CO2 mastery. He induced lots of algae with low CO2, while providing excess phosphates.

For our purposes, define low CO2 as concentration of CO2 < 30?, 28?, 25? 20? ... lets pick 20 for this exercise (go ahead and pick 30 since it is the proposed magical target - it makes no difference).

The photosynthetic rate of a plant is determined by both light intensity and available phosphate:
1595804059312.png
<--- from < here >.

And,
1595804119068.png



*Photosynthetic rate of the leaf = f(availability of phosphate) + g(light intensity) where f and g are some functions.

*the light-dependent reaction

Now, the plant leaf can degenerate chlorophyll to shield itself from light when phosphate is driving photosynthesis (I am convinced my plants are doing this) as we speak.

The light-dependent reaction directly influences the required CO2. My conjecture is that at our threshold (20 ppm for this exercise) CO2 is in excess and regardless of the conditions (i.e. phosphate and light) these conditions will ALWAYS force the plant to favor photosynthesis OVER photorespiration.

The old leaves of my Rotala are literally disintegrating (either the movement of mobile nutrients, but more likely a photo-oxidative response) yet no algae. By our common understanding, unhealthy plants = algae, I should be swarmed. My plants are clearly unhealthy, yet no algae.

Since light can be buffered, phosphate is the driving force. So, what PMDD did (and ADA < says >: Potassium supplementation also helps prevent algae growth by promoting the plants’ intake of nitrogen and phosphate which trigger algae. ... However, phosphate can trigger algal blooms once it is supplied even slightly more than the amount needed by plants.) was limit that driving force without hurting plant growth.

As a result of overdosing phosphate, you are driving the light dependent reaction to the point where CO2 becomes insufficient - and as a result photorespiration occurs (a thought I had and later found < this paper >: The rate of glycolate metabolism (i.e. photorespiration) is highly influenced by, an d is proportional to, oxygen concentration, light intensity, and temperature. Glycolate metabolism is also enhanced when low environmental carbon dioxide limits photosynthesis and (probably in a related mechanism) when pH is high.)

Tom Barr < can spawn BBA in the zone of >, "5-15 ppm [which] seems to be the range when many get BBA outbreaks and I've seen this hundreds of times." He doses EI. This means that phosphate is not a limiting reagent and CO2 becomes the limit; as a result, irregular photorespiration occurs (*and I say irregular because we have to assume it happens rather consistently and randomly sometimes due to evolution) - signal is sent - algae blooms. It is evolutionary, it is so that the nutrients are used and LIFE continues.

Conversely, if your CO2 is below the threshold where photosynthesis is preferred, then it cannot keep up with an increased phosphate dose.

Why do we see BBA in our tanks but not in nature? It's because it's black. Black absorbs all wavelengths of visible light - naturally PAR. If it absorbs all that PAR, it will disintegrate since it is a tiny thing. Heck, the sun burns us. It's too much energy. Conversely, green thread are found under conditions of high light (and in loads of lakes) - it can handle it. If it wasn't for our phosphate fertilizers run-off increasing the light-dependent reaction rate, then there would be less algae. BBA is a marine algae, the ocean is deep - refraction - that's why it needs to absorb all the light to live.

The claims that high light cause algae are valid when dosing EI - because your phosphate with light increase the localized CO2 demand which will vary based on Flow (the king of the tank :p).

The claim that excess nutrients cause algae is valid too when using phosphate below my threshold (I have no clue what the threshold is by the way - but probably 20).

< Tropica >: A high demand in CO2 is approx. 15-25 mg/L. Tropica already knows this. Notice they quote JUST above the point Tom Barr spawns BBA and also the same level that ADA runs.

In truth, with low phosphates (in the water column) and appropriate CO2, pack on the light baby! Our plants will either photoxidize and disintegrate OR they will turn beautiful colors for us to enjoy at their expense. Oh and they should < pearl like crazy >.

Similarly, get over that threshold of 20 ONLY when your light and phosphate levels dictate the maximum; i.e. if you have a long ramp go ahead and use 5 ppm of CO2 for the first 10 minutes - it won't matter. I read somewhere that < Filipe Oliveira > turns on CO2 at lights on and not before (I have no quote and very well wrong) - but here is why it works - and he's phenomenal.

I think that's all :).

Off to water change.

Cheers,
Josh

EDIT: too bad for my tank I am still here. The notion that excess ferts do not cause algae in the tanks of the people who say it as their CO2 is above my suggested threshold. Of course, if photorespiration is not irregular, then algae will not bloom.

I think that's all now.

Oh, and, a lake the function of light and phosphate have their own ceilings.

In particular, the lake may have enough CO2 to facilitate the fixed intensity of the sun (at its particular ceiling) and the minimal phosphates:
1595806620839.png


Hence why people claim ferts cause algae in lakes: light + CO2 are constant and unmanipulated.
We claim lights and CO2 cause algae and leave ferts constant :banghead: ... because we choose to manipulate CO2 and light whereas nature can't.

Ok, now I am done :p.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ray

rebel

Member
Joined
4 Aug 2015
Messages
2,061
The cause of algae is *irregular photorespiration.
Nah man. Algae is caused when the algae wins that ecological niche. The cause of the win is still a mystery. Otherwise we would be able to remove all algae from systems easily.

All the common factors play a role.
 

JoshP12

Member
Joined
8 Dec 2019
Messages
415
Location
Canada
Nah man. Algae is caused when the algae wins that ecological niche. The cause of the win is still a mystery.
Or is the cause irregular photorespiration 🤔?

Otherwise we would be able to remove all algae from systems easily.
Lots of people have "no" algae in their system without the use of an algecide.

All the common factors play a role.
Because they reduce the likelihood of a varying CO2/phosphate concentration in a localized area of the tank. They key is localization - each leaf will vary based on the flow and nutrients carried within that flow past it. So non-zero amounts of algae are normal, unless your scape, flow design, and CO2 diffusion are impeccable. And I think the things that UKAPS promote about good fishkeeping in general are the latter.


Plants evolved from algae - they should know how to beat them. Just like we beat every other animal on the plant.

Unfortunately, we cannot go back in time to see the first lakes where plants evolved in and see if they ended up outcompeting the algaes. We only see our fertilizer polluted lakes that were not what these plants evolved under.

Under my assumptions, most arguments that people make towards the cause of algae are valid and can be justified - unless I am missing something which is very possible, so please help :D.


Josh
 
Last edited:

JoshP12

Member
Joined
8 Dec 2019
Messages
415
Location
Canada
Hi Folks,


@JoshP12 , you have listed nine items of practical advice. But, doesn't each of the above nine items need some detail in order to be truly practical? For example, what is optimized flow? What is a 'good light'? These points have been touched upon in this thread but we need to quantify flow, good light, etc. Throughout UKAPS, there has been much discussion on each of these topics. Are we getting nearer to the answers that we all/a majority can agree upon (possibly a rhetorical question)? I realize that your thread focussed on phosphate but, because you summarized with practical advice, I thought I'd throw my two penn'orth into the melting pot.

JPC :)
I missed this and I am sorry. I think that Clive has answered all of these in detail scattered throughout the forum.

A comprehensive guide of this would be wonderful and useful.
 

rebel

Member
Joined
4 Aug 2015
Messages
2,061
Plants evolved from algae - they should know how to beat them. Just like we beat every other animal on the plant.
I don't agree that we have beaten every other animal on earth. The dominant life form on earth is still plants.
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506

Curious about what percentage of plants is algae? I don't know how to search for such articles but maybe someone here can search for us. :cheers:
 

rebel

Member
Joined
4 Aug 2015
Messages
2,061
So non-zero amounts of algae are normal, unless your scape, flow design, and CO2 diffusion are impeccable.
I think non zero algae is normal regardless. Sometimes algae can't get a upper hand but sometimes it does. Sometimes it's somewhat predictable but most of the time no idea why. If we knew exactly why, we should be able to grow each type of algae at any time by giving it's requirements whether be light, photorespiration etc etc.
 

Zeus.

Member
Joined
1 Oct 2016
Messages
3,128
Location
Yorkshire,UK
Algae is at the bottom of the food chain, so there must be more algae than any other form of life on earth, without algae there wouldn't be enough O2 for us all the breath, without algae we wouldn't even existo_O as we evolved from the primeval soup, so our tanks have all types of algae once established, Algae mastered colonisation of many environments well before more complex life form even existed, aglae has mastered its trade, but when the balance is right we don't see much algae or little off it, but its still there doing its job, being eaten by lots of life forms, if the balance is out we get an algae bloom. Its not rocket science
 
Similar threads



Top