The co2 algae circle

[Danny]

Hey guys,

I've been doing a fair bit of reading about co2 and algae recently but have started to get slightly confused....

From what I understand algae in a co2 tank is mostly due to lighting, circulation or fluctuating co2 levels.

I also understand that big frequent water changes are pretty much essential in the first few weeks of a tank.

Now water changes make the co2 level fluctuate massively and can add huge amounts of silicates, both are causes of algae.....

What is the actual way of understanding this?

Basically I have some hair algae starting to grow on a few plants and have been trying to narrow down a cause, I'm sure my distribution is fine along with circulation.

The lighting may be an issue and the algae could have been on the plants before transferring to this set up from a previous scape, I'll be reducing the lighting period to 5hrs from the current 7hrs for a few days.

Can a too short photo period have a negative affect?

The tank is 60L ish and I'm double dosing lco2, almost triple dosing ferts and co2 at about 2bps.

I'm going to increase the co2 to about 4bps for a few days and see how the tank reacts and if the fish will accept it, I'm also considering increasing to 3x the lco2 dose to combat the algae.

Assuming my circulation and co2 levels are fine is it safe to assume the lighting intensity is too high?

If so then how can it be too high if I'm matching the co2 correctly....

I hope this doesn't confuse the reader as much as it does me lol

 

[Danny]

This algae has developed over the last 9 days since planting, as you can see in the video the flow and distribution of the co2 seems to be fine from my opinion ( perhaps I'm wrong? )

"IF" the co2 is fine could it just be down to light intensity and amount (7hrs)?

I've left this algae there as a visual indicator to any improvement from any changes I make.

 

[Zeus.]

From what I understand algae in a co2 tank is mostly due to lighting, circulation or fluctuating co2 levels.

too much light is the biggest issue, compounded by fluctuating co2 levels and/or poor flow

Now water changes make the co2 level fluctuate massively and can add huge amounts of silicates, both are causes of algae.....

What is the actual way of understanding this?

Easy no need to understand it. Get a good CO2 profile not too much light dose EI with 50% WC

Basically I have some hair algae starting to grow on a few plants and have been trying to narrow down a cause

Too much light or too intense lighting

Can a too short photo period have a negative affect?

Not that I'm aware, my tank is over year old and still have lights on 6hrs only

I'm going to increase the co2 to about 4bps for a few days and see how the tank reacts and if the fish will accept it

Plants take time to adjust to the increasing [CO2] can take a couple off weeks. But the CO2 needs to be done well ie at full [CO2] at lights on and stable for photoperiod. A pH pen is a very handy tool to get a pH profile

This algae has developed over the last 9 days since planting,

Plants need time to adjust so just turn down your intensity and photoperiod 6hrs max IMO

Remove all the algea from the tank that you can easily, leaving it only compounds the issue.

Is this a new tank?

 

[Danny]

too much light is the biggest issue, compounded by fluctuating co2 levels and/or poor flow



Easy no need to understand it. Get a good CO2 profile not too much light dose EI with 50% WC



Too much light or too intense lighting



Not that I'm aware, my tank is over year old and still have lights on 6hrs only



Plants take time to adjust to the increasing [CO2] can take a couple off weeks. But the CO2 needs to be done well ie at full [CO2] at lights on and stable for photoperiod. A pH pen is a very handy tool to get a pH profile



Plants need time to adjust so just turn down your intensity and photoperiod 6hrs max IMO

Remove all the algea from the tank that you can easily, leaving it only compounds the issue.

Is this a new tank?

It has crossed my mind that the light is too intense, ADA aquasky 601 and I'm looking into dimming it.

When increasing the co2 today I do think I may have been a bit short of 2bps but am now confident I'm at about 4bps after numerous timed counts lol

It's not new as such, I initially flooded it 6 weeks ago but have drained and rescaped it a few times, however the filter is 6 weeks old so not a brand new tank. The co2 was only added I think a week ago ish.

The AR mini is also 6 weeks old and been moved from scape to scape.

I'll see how things look in a week but am fairly confident that light intensity in the problem so far.

 

[Danny]

So as I can't dim the aquasky as standard I've taped over some of the led's, it's made quite a difference to the intensity!

 

[Zeus.]

May well be worth looking at a TC420 not sure if it will work with aquasky LED light. But if its working voltage is between 12-24V and it uses less than 4amps you should be good, its a dream to use, great timer itsself and the dimmering and fade make it a must for an LED light for a scape IMO

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

and can add huge amounts of silicates, both are causes of algae.

You don't need to worry about the water change water, silicates causing algae was invented by unscrupulous people so they could sell people a silicate removal resin.

Diatoms have a frustule built of silica, but they build this by abstracting minute amounts of orthosilicic acids from liquid water. Quartz (like you get in sandstone or granite) is a silicon dioxide (SiO2), <"but it is insoluble">.

Diatoms are incredibly good at finding soluble silicates and <"any liquid water source (the water film on mosses, in interstices in the soil etc. the melt water from glaciers">) will supply sufficient silica.

cheers Darrel

 

[mow said]

As you are using led i would reduce the light intensity to 5 hours for a couple of weeks to let the plant grow as they are adapting to a new light. After you see the plants are growing well then every week add an hour to the 5 hours till you reach around 8 hours a day . Plants take time to adjust to light intensity you can't just blast full 30w into a 60l tank. I know you need a PAR meter to know how much PAR your light is providing but not alot of people have money to waste on one. i have a 160L tank with leds also my light is 71 watts with a dimmer , my tank dimensions are 100x40x40 . Started 5 hours for a month and now i'm doing 10 hours , but only from 10am to 2pm the light is at 100%. Here is my thread of the led i use and explains how many hours i used the light for from the beginning till now with zero algae issues.
https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/led-diy.49569/

 

[ceg4048]

Now water changes make the co2 level fluctuate massively and can add huge amounts of silicates, both are causes of algae.....

Silicates have nothing to do with algae. Furthermore, the difference between the amount of CO2 being injected and the amount of CO2 in the newly added water is insignificant in this respect.

Basically I have some hair algae starting to grow on a few plants and have been trying to narrow down a cause, I'm sure my distribution is fine along with circulation.

Everyone thinks that their CO2 and flow/distribution is good, so they ignore this factor an look for a fault somewhere else. Have you performed a pH profile to determine the behavior of the gas? Have you compared your flow/distribution to the standards depicted in other threads? Even if these factors are adjusted properly, it is entirely possible that there is too much light in the tank to accommodate the CO2. The gas has very limited ability for movement in water.

Can a too short photo period have a negative affect?

No.

Assuming my circulation and co2 levels are fine is it safe to assume the lighting intensity is too high?

Yes.

If so then how can it be too high if I'm matching the co2 correctly....

At some point, when the plants will have adjusted to the water, that may be possible, but new leave have to be grown in that tank in order for the plant to be adapted to the lighting and CO2. Emmersed leaves cannot deal with water effectively. This is a key factor that everyone ignores, to the detriment of the plants.

Cheers,

 

[Danny]

Silicates have nothing to do with algae. Furthermore, the difference between the amount of CO2 being injected and the amount of CO2 in the newly added water is insignificant in this respect.

Everyone thinks that their CO2 and flow/distribution is good, so they ignore this factor an look for a fault somewhere else. Have you performed a pH profile to determine the behavior of the gas? Have you compared your flow/distribution to the standards depicted in other threads? Even if these factors are adjusted properly, it is entirely possible that there is too much light in the tank to accommodate the CO2. The gas has very limited ability for movement in water.

No.

Yes.

At some point, when the plants will have adjusted to the water, that may be possible, but new leave have to be grown in that tank in order for the plant to be adapted to the lighting and CO2. Emmersed leaves cannot deal with water effectively. This is a key factor that everyone ignores, to the detriment of the plants.

Cheers,

Thanks for the lengthy reply, I haven't got a proper ph profile yet. I will be ordering a ph pen in a few days to be able to do it as I now see it's pretty essential.

Good to know the water changes make no difference, I was a bit confused on that one.

Being fairly confident of the co2 distribution as I am I have pretty much decided the issue is light intensity, your favourite thing lol

Since starting out I have read a lot of information and nearly everything does come back to light, I must say I would not have bought the light I did knowing now what an impact incorrect lighting has.

I did just think bright is best but can now see "the light" and realise that perhaps low light co2 tanks are actually the better option.

 

[ceg4048]

Yes, unfortunately, The Matrix programs us to think about brighter being better. It never informs us about the importance of gas exchange and the difficulty of sending gases to the plant while under water. The CO2 diffusion rate in water is about 10,000 times slower than it is in air. Bright lights accelerate the photosynthetic rate, but it cannot accelerate the movement of the gases across the membrane walls, so the CO2 demand will always exceed the supply. Our goal should always be to look for ways to reduce the demand and to increase the availability of the gas.

Cheers,

 

[Edvet]

Emmersed leaves cannot deal with water effectively. This is a key factor that everyone ignores, to the detriment of the plants.

Clive would it be better to take away all the emersed leaves, maybe except the newest, when planting emersed grown plants??

 

[Danny]

Clive would it be better to take away all the emersed leaves, maybe except the newest, when planting emersed grown plants??

I was just thinking that as they are likely to die off anyway....

 

[ceg4048]

Clive would it be better to take away all the emersed leaves, maybe except the newest, when planting emersed grown plants??

I was just thinking that as they are likely to die off anyway....

No, it would be better to reduce the light and to have excellent CO2/flow/distribution to improve the efficiency and survivability of the leaves.

When you submerge new emmersed plants it is not a given that they will die. If they die then it is your fault and it is an alarm that you have a fundamental problem. Failing leaves are often a precursor to general CO2 problems that may resurface later on. Furthermore, the leaves may continue to die off and you may actually lose the plant.

The leaves hold the reserve energy in the form of starches and they have the potential to produce more energy to fuel the growth of new leaves. They should not be viewed as a liability.

This is one of the reasons that frequent water changes are a good idea. Lowering the water level allows the leaves to take a gulp of air. This is almost like filling a scuba tank.

I've mentioned this before that a lot of times it's a good idea to float the plants for a week or two before planting. It looks sloppy with the plant tumbling around the tank but it allows the plant to trigger new submerged leaf growth while being able to catch a breath or two when it bobs at the surface. Even though it will be closer to the light, it will also be closer to the CO2.

Here is an example of an emmersed Echinidorus leaf on the far right. The leaf on the left is a submerged growth on the same plant. OK, so the emmersed leaf does not look so pretty, but no matter, it just carried on. I don't ever recall having to remove it.


Here is another example. A Ludwigia pantanal. Notoriously difficult. Supposedly impossible to grow in high KH/GH water.
Yet, here it is. All emmersed leaves except at the very top. No problemo. Why? Excellent CO2/flow/distribution.


Listen to your plants people.
If the emmersed leaves start to die then that's the clearest indication that you do not have good CO2 for the amount of light that you are providing.
Do not search for phantom reasons such as micronutrient toxicity and do not dismiss this symptom. Only low tech tanks have an excuse for die off.

Cheers,

 

[AverageWhiteBloke]

So, often wondered, does the same plant which is growing both emergent and immersed have one average way of dealing with co2 right across the plant when it comes to rubisco?
For instance, if you were to clip the head off a plant just below water level after letting it grow on the surface would firstly the top cutting be at a disadvantage as it has adapted to atmospheric co2 levels and would the remaining stem left under water be at a disadvantage because it was getting a fir bit of co2 from the top emerged part of the plant?

I'm meaning more from a non injected tank but I suppose it would still apply to injected tanks as well with the levels of co2 the plant has been exposed to in the atmosphere being vastly higher than underwater.

 

[ceg4048]

When heads get chopped off the remaining plant tries to extend the distance between nodes in order to to snorkel to the surface. The plant appears to us to have leggy growth and a common myth for many years has been that the cause id poor lighting, when in fact it due to poor CO2. That's a typical behavior for stems but many non-stems don't have that ability. Crypts might simply melt and try to regrow new submerged leaves. Swords can extend their lances very quickly as well (if they have enough reserves of energy). In any case, yes there is always a disadvantage if the main supplier of CO2 gets hacked. The chopped piece will quite happily live floating at the surface where CO2 is abundant. No disadvantage whatsoever.

The main goal is by default to reach the surface. I don't know why folks always assume that aquatic plants actually like to be submerged. They don't, but they also don't have a choice. They cannot just pack their bags and walk away. The changes that occur to the leaf is a survival strategy to being in a cyclically flooded environment. So if you hack of the submerged leaves near the surface then the new leaves that grow as submerged will also try to reach the surface and will not complain about being in air when they do reach. Once they reach the surface it can easily toughen up and grow new emmersed leaves. This happens all the time.

Cheers,

 

[AverageWhiteBloke]

In any case, yes there is always a disadvantage if the main supplier of CO2 gets hacked.

Based on that Clive, I'm currently running a non injected tank and have been allowing plants to breach the surface where possible hoping that A, the plant will have access to more co2 which it can then transport down to the submerged part of the plants and B, if that plant is grabbing co2 from the atmosphere it leaves more of any existing co2 in the water column for plants that can't due to their size ever reach the surface.

Would it be more beneficial to top plants before they even reach the surface so they never get a taste of atmospheric co2 therefore staying used to its underwater environment and possibly not melting back after its topped?

 

[Danny]

When heads get chopped off the remaining plant tries to extend the distance between nodes in order to to snorkel to the surface. The plant appears to us to have leggy growth and a common myth for many years has been that the cause id poor lighting, when in fact it due to poor CO2.

Based on this would it then be better to judge co2 efficiency by how dense stems grow and totally forget the theory they are leggy due to lack of light?

I always assumed it was high lighting that kept them dense, could the same conclusion also be applied to carpeting plants?

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Based on that Clive, I'm currently running a non injected tank and have been allowing plants to breach the surface where possible hoping that A, the plant will have access to more co2 which it can then transport down to the submerged part of the plants and B, if that plant is grabbing co2 from the atmosphere it leaves more of any existing co2 in the water column for plants that can't due to their size ever reach the surface.

Gas transfer does occur <"between different parts of the plant">, but what I think is more likely to happen is that the plant will begin to shed its submerged leaves, once it has become emersed with access to atmospheric CO2.

cheers Darrel

 

[AverageWhiteBloke]

Gas transfer does occur <"between different parts of the plant">, but what I think is more likely to happen is that the plant will begin to shed its submerged leaves, once it has become emersed with access to atmospheric CO2.

Hmm interesting, some say better to have loved and lost then never loved at all but in this case would it be more beneficial to either never let the plant taste the atmosphere but if you did to always maintain the plant with some aerial growth so's never too take away the atmospheric co2 it has become accustomed to?