Hi all,
I continually made this claim* that was followed by, "based on my readings, I think ..." or something along those lines.
After < learning a bit about photosynthesis >, I realized that my thought that *phosphate directly controls CO2 demand is actually true. When the < light-dependent reaction > of photosynthesis occurs, it converts ADP to ATP:
That's your phosphate.
The light-dependent reactions happen before the Calvin Cycle:
which use the ATP and uses the CO2.
Phosphate is used BEFORE CO2 ... hence phosphate drive CO2 need.
What drive phosphate consumption? Light.
What happens if we provide enough phosphate - but still limit it (and provide enough of the other nutrients) ... OR blast the tank with light
... ***the plants color changes:
... via:
... the plants finds a way to mitigate the amount of light they get
... they get light from the chlorophyll pigment
... find a way to break down < Pheophytin > which is the first element in the Electron Transport Chain from PS 1
... **break down < chlorophyll a leaving chlorophyll b > ... we deal with < mostly Chlorophyll A and B >:
There are four types of chlorophyll: chlorophyll a, found in all higher plants, algae and cyanobacteria; chlorophyll b, found in higher plants and green algae; chlorophyll c, found in diatoms, dinoflagellates and brown algae; and chlorophyll d, found only in red algae.
... all plants have carotenoids (red/orange/yellow pigment); we just can't see them, then*** when we **.
For the same reason, carotenoid colors often predominate in ripe fruit after being unmasked by the disappearance of chlorophyll**.
and ...
1) ****I am thinking nitrate limitation is actually phosphate limitation (with no nitrogen deficiency) ... and I conjecture that with high light, we could provide ample nitrates and limit phosphates and get colorations. This never happens - because aquarists doing this are meticulous cleaners, water changers, controllers, etc.
2) This is why people notice their nitrogen (and other nutrients) plummet if phosphates sky rocket
3) This is why < " phosphates cause algae " >
4) This is PMDD
5) This is why some people say stop dosing for a few days and see what happens, then they blame EI for their issues
*** I daily dose EI - nitrate is not 0, it isn't 5, it isn't 10.
Why:
Half the plants are ok, the other half aren't:
This is why we replant tops - and not the middle segment <-- I replanted those and guess what, they are struggling - they will be fine in a few weeks though.
I am bombarding the tank with light my AI primes are at 100%.
And I am giving ample phosphates to fuel ATP creation. They are scared - and they are turning color to slow down photosynthesis because they can't keep up. I bombard them with phosphates forcing them to grow via chemistry + physics (this is a cop out as it is probabilities/concentrations/and flow that determine the latter).
They do not have the RuBisCo concentration to absorb CO2 from my water column TO MATCH my forced phosphates, to perform carbon fixation, to make sugars, to build tissue ... hence why they are thin. They aren't stunted, they aren't any other deficiency. It is CO2. But because of phosphates. It also has other things - not just RuBisCo ... the thylakoid aren't stacked properly etc.
At this point, I am convinced that I can either:
1) reduce light (which is what I did this morning) ... because it is the click of a button.
2) Leave light and reduce phosphates (what I should do) - I did not do this because my doser has the macro solution already mixed.
3) Increase CO2 even more - and gas my fish -- which I have done in the past.
Notice that my Pogo is still healthy:
It has adapted to these conditions.
And one could argue that my rotala were already in my tank so they have adapted. But if we recall, they were 3x as tall. Amano suggested cutting 1/3 ONLY of a stem (read this from one of @alto's posts) ... and it is for this reason: it will reduce the likelihood that the plant itself does not have the proper configuration for the conditions it is in.
This is why < we should use low light on start up >.
So as per what @Ray said < here >, I think we can extend this notion to each internode of each stem as @Ray asserted < here >.
Hmm ... I guess that's all .
Please, please, please, if I am wrong on any of this, please correct me.
I am merely in a pursuit of understanding.
Josh
I continually made this claim* that was followed by, "based on my readings, I think ..." or something along those lines.
After < learning a bit about photosynthesis >, I realized that my thought that *phosphate directly controls CO2 demand is actually true. When the < light-dependent reaction > of photosynthesis occurs, it converts ADP to ATP:
That's your phosphate.
The light-dependent reactions happen before the Calvin Cycle:
which use the ATP and uses the CO2.
Phosphate is used BEFORE CO2 ... hence phosphate drive CO2 need.
What drive phosphate consumption? Light.
What happens if we provide enough phosphate - but still limit it (and provide enough of the other nutrients) ... OR blast the tank with light
... ***the plants color changes:
... via:
... the plants finds a way to mitigate the amount of light they get
... they get light from the chlorophyll pigment
... find a way to break down < Pheophytin > which is the first element in the Electron Transport Chain from PS 1
... **break down < chlorophyll a leaving chlorophyll b > ... we deal with < mostly Chlorophyll A and B >:
There are four types of chlorophyll: chlorophyll a, found in all higher plants, algae and cyanobacteria; chlorophyll b, found in higher plants and green algae; chlorophyll c, found in diatoms, dinoflagellates and brown algae; and chlorophyll d, found only in red algae.
... all plants have carotenoids (red/orange/yellow pigment); we just can't see them, then*** when we **.
For the same reason, carotenoid colors often predominate in ripe fruit after being unmasked by the disappearance of chlorophyll**.
and ...
1) ****I am thinking nitrate limitation is actually phosphate limitation (with no nitrogen deficiency) ... and I conjecture that with high light, we could provide ample nitrates and limit phosphates and get colorations. This never happens - because aquarists doing this are meticulous cleaners, water changers, controllers, etc.
2) This is why people notice their nitrogen (and other nutrients) plummet if phosphates sky rocket
3) This is why < " phosphates cause algae " >
4) This is PMDD
5) This is why some people say stop dosing for a few days and see what happens, then they blame EI for their issues
*** I daily dose EI - nitrate is not 0, it isn't 5, it isn't 10.
Why:
Half the plants are ok, the other half aren't:
This is why we replant tops - and not the middle segment <-- I replanted those and guess what, they are struggling - they will be fine in a few weeks though.
I am bombarding the tank with light my AI primes are at 100%.
And I am giving ample phosphates to fuel ATP creation. They are scared - and they are turning color to slow down photosynthesis because they can't keep up. I bombard them with phosphates forcing them to grow via chemistry + physics (this is a cop out as it is probabilities/concentrations/and flow that determine the latter).
They do not have the RuBisCo concentration to absorb CO2 from my water column TO MATCH my forced phosphates, to perform carbon fixation, to make sugars, to build tissue ... hence why they are thin. They aren't stunted, they aren't any other deficiency. It is CO2. But because of phosphates. It also has other things - not just RuBisCo ... the thylakoid aren't stacked properly etc.
At this point, I am convinced that I can either:
1) reduce light (which is what I did this morning) ... because it is the click of a button.
2) Leave light and reduce phosphates (what I should do) - I did not do this because my doser has the macro solution already mixed.
3) Increase CO2 even more - and gas my fish -- which I have done in the past.
Notice that my Pogo is still healthy:
It has adapted to these conditions.
And one could argue that my rotala were already in my tank so they have adapted. But if we recall, they were 3x as tall. Amano suggested cutting 1/3 ONLY of a stem (read this from one of @alto's posts) ... and it is for this reason: it will reduce the likelihood that the plant itself does not have the proper configuration for the conditions it is in.
This is why < we should use low light on start up >.
So as per what @Ray said < here >, I think we can extend this notion to each internode of each stem as @Ray asserted < here >.
Hmm ... I guess that's all .
Please, please, please, if I am wrong on any of this, please correct me.
I am merely in a pursuit of understanding.
Josh