Those of us who have moved from liquid rock to soft water, are you surprised how easy is is to now grow plants?

[castle]

Finally coming back to this, glad that I’m not alone in noticing the difference 😅

@Geoffrey Rea you’re a talented dude, so of course you can make it work, and that was good advice, but all the cool plants are better suited to soft water 😁 you’re right plant selection is key, but the information isn’t easy to come by. In the last planted tank I had (in Cambridge) I found really good growth, once I’d switched to predominately crypt heavy scape.

Once thing I don’t use in my aquariums is co2, which I think without it makes a hard water tank really tough going.

@dw1305 i grew up on top of these chalk streams, but I’d argue with a few exceptions their underwater life is generally quite singular, normally you’d see something like stargrass going bonkers and nothing else having a chance, not much diversity once one plant gets ahold.

This book is excellent if you can get ahold of it: Amazon product

 

[Geoffrey Rea]

It’s not simple to get a plant to do what we expect. Thinking how to expand on this, and that’s it, what makes a plant behave in a specific way we want in an aquarium isn’t so simple. Modern setups have so many technological wonders available and a never ending online conversation about precise fertilisation… but what was the goal for the tank?!? Very doubtful it was growing plants easily for a lot of folks. For most it’s “I want rainbow colours…” 🌈 🤪

It’s co2/non-co2 injected, hard water/soft water, high light/low light, lean/EI… digital arguments for days without clarity of outcome.

Keeping a plant species growing and going for over two decades? Is that a good measure of success?

We do make plant care menacingly difficult for the newbie to the hobby. Anyone here ever ran a no tech planted tank? It’s a joy… it cost bugger all as well 😂

Here’s a hard water, Cambridgeshire tap water tank, using only indirect natural sunlight in the conservatory, hang on back filter using media that is six years mature, no heater and no co2. It’s a plant storage tank with ADA Amazonia, some shrimp that are breeding like rabbits and a small collection of White Cloud Mountain Minnows.

Staurogyne repens no tech, hard tap:

Tonina belem no tech, hard tap:

Hyptis lorentziana no tech, hard tap:

Ludwigia ‘tornado/twister’ no tech, hard tap:

Ludwigia arcuata no tech, hard tap:

Rotala bonsai no tech, hard tap:

Rotala wallichii no tech, hard tap:

Even less light than most no tech tanks because of floaters with lots of surface agitation:

Flow and distribution, yeah, no… 😂

It isn’t pretty in any scaping sense, but it’s clean and it grows.

What is simple is the plants in this tank don’t really give a rat’s bottom about anything a lot of folks consider important/vital/easier. Living for them is easy, regardless. The pace of their growth is slow. The plant mass is high. The fertilisation is minimal. The dissolved gases meet/set their needs. The interventions are infrequent. The hard/soft water argument decreases in value at this pace of growth.

So attacking the title of the thread head on, hard water isn’t a barrier to ‘easier’ plant growth even with a range of species that, yes, do colour up and look pretty in softer water, high light and co2 injection. But growing them successfully with the accelerator pedal pushed down to the floor is anything but easy. That’s a choice that has very little to do with hard or soft water.

Low tech, hard water can be done ‘easily’ with many species most would put in softer water and high light/co2 conditions in the first instance. But those plant forms that are plastered all over Instagram set the wrong standard. They also rarely show their failures running things fast with ‘easier’ nutrient acquisition for the purposes of high tech running conditions.

Growing plants ‘easily’ can mean letting things grow at a graceful pace. The plant isn’t cocking things up, it’s the tank owner and their wants.

Even feel this line of conversation I’ve created is debasing what good plant husbandary is by replacing it with a simpler argument, so will stop. What I do want to convey is, learn how to make the most of the water you have.

 

[plantnoobdude]

We do make plant care menacingly difficult for the newbie to the hobby. Anyone here ever ran a no tech planted tank? It’s a joy… it cost bugger all as well 😂

I agree… while my new tank isn’t no tech, it is Low tech. It is an absolute joy, so far. Water changes when I feel like it, ferts if I see something pop up( very rare) and plants grow nicely😁 a bit less fussed about perfect forms and whatnot there than my high tech, but both tanks have a place close to my heart ❤️

I think most folks would be surprised how easy it is to keep a Low tech tank going with nice plants especially if you keep nice and easy growers.

Tonina belem no tech

Gonna have to correct you there😜
Syngonanthus macrocaulon.

Absolute Beauty of a tank yours is, lean-ish ( I’m guessing) column, ammonia rich substrate, lower light. Ammonia at the roots and I suspect potassium from source water at the leaves… vin kutty, ADA got it all right!

 

[jaypeecee]

Yes, I've found it easier since moving to RO - or rather than easier, I should say I get less issues with algae and the like.

Hi @Wookii

That's a very useful observation. And, it's supported by research. In the book Limnology by Robert G Wetzel, the following statement is made:

"Thus, phosphate uptake by cyanobacteria should be favored in hard waters with an abundance of divalent cations".

In other words, cyanobacteria grows well in water with high GH.

JPC

 

[Geoffrey Rea]

"Thus, phosphate uptake by cyanobacteria should be favored in hard waters with an abundance of divalent cations".

In other words, cyanobacteria grows well in water with high GH.

Tipping this argument on its head, is there any body of water that won’t support a variant of Cyanobacteria?

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Tipping this argument on its head, is there any body of water that won’t support a variant of Cyanobacteria?

No, like <"Diatoms and the Green algae">, they are universal anywhere there is liquid water.

This Lenntech page <"General effects of eutrophication"> lists some "algal" sp. dependent upon whether they occur in clean or polluted fresh water.

Scientists use the other microalgae as bioassay organisms for water pollution.

Species used include:

• The <"Green Algae"> (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata (formerly Raphidocelis subcapitata & Selenastrum capricornutum) & Chlorella vulgaris)
• Diatoms (Navicula pelliculosa & Skeletonema costatum), and / or
• Cyanobacteria (Anabaena flos-aquae & Synechococcus leopoldensis).

This doesn't work for cyanobacteria etc. (they don't have any persistent parts). but because diatoms have a <"silica skeleton"> (frustule) they are used to reconstruct past, as well as present, water quality by looking at the diatom assemblage from sediment cores. The <"Trophic Diatom Index">.

This is an algal bioassay paper that touches on both <"the plants can't lie"> and the <"Duckweed Index">.

"Novel use of the alga Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, as an early-warning indicator to identify climate change ambiguity in aquatic environments using freshwater finfish farming as a case study"

<"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969719333571">

• Alga (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata), more responsive model than physicochemical parameters alone.
  • • Standard water quality parameters are not applicable to fish farm wastewater.
  • • Duckweed and constructed wetlands were under appreciated in wastewater treatment.

cheers Darrel

 

[jaypeecee]

Tipping this argument on its head, is there any body of water that won’t support a variant of Cyanobacteria?

Hi @Geoffrey Rea

Any body of water has the potential to support Cyanobacteria.

But, it's entirely possible to provide an environment in which Cyanobacteria does not flourish. And I have a tank alongside me right now in which I am unable to see any Cyanobacteria. I have posted about this tank before here on UKAPS. There is no conventional filtration. Instead, the plants keep the water in pristine condition.

JPC

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

And I have a tank alongside me right now in which I am unable to see any Cyanobacteria

My guess would be that most people's established aquariums are usually in the "No obvious BGA" state. <"My lab. tanks"> are back to "no obvious cyanobacteria", although they've received fairly cursory management since 2020.

cheers Darrel

 

[Soilwork]

Hi OP,

How soft is your new water. Can you link the quality report please?

 

[castle]

Out of tap I’m getting 60ppm, I’ll have to go for a hunt for the water report, I believe we get our water from Greenock

 

[Valerio]

It’s not simple to get a plant to do what we expect. Thinking how to expand on this, and that’s it, what makes a plant behave in a specific way we want in an aquarium isn’t so simple. Modern setups have so many technological wonders available and a never ending online conversation about precise fertilisation… but what was the goal for the tank?!? Very doubtful it was growing plants easily for a lot of folks. For most it’s “I want rainbow colours…” 🌈 🤪

It’s co2/non-co2 injected, hard water/soft water, high light/low light, lean/EI… digital arguments for days without clarity of outcome.

Keeping a plant species growing and going for over two decades? Is that a good measure of success?

We do make plant care menacingly difficult for the newbie to the hobby. Anyone here ever ran a no tech planted tank? It’s a joy… it cost bugger all as well 😂

Here’s a hard water, Cambridgeshire tap water tank, using only indirect natural sunlight in the conservatory, hang on back filter using media that is six years mature, no heater and no co2. It’s a plant storage tank with ADA Amazonia, some shrimp that are breeding like rabbits and a small collection of White Cloud Mountain Minnows.

Staurogyne repens no tech, hard tap:

View attachment 193607

Tonina belem no tech, hard tap:

View attachment 193608

Hyptis lorentziana no tech, hard tap:

View attachment 193609

Ludwigia ‘tornado/twister’ no tech, hard tap:

View attachment 193610

Ludwigia arcuata no tech, hard tap:

View attachment 193614

Rotala bonsai no tech, hard tap:

View attachment 193615

Rotala wallichii no tech, hard tap:

View attachment 193616

Even less light than most no tech tanks because of floaters with lots of surface agitation:

View attachment 193611

Flow and distribution, yeah, no… 😂

It isn’t pretty in any scaping sense, but it’s clean and it grows.

What is simple is the plants in this tank don’t really give a rat’s bottom about anything a lot of folks consider important/vital/easier. Living for them is easy, regardless. The pace of their growth is slow. The plant mass is high. The fertilisation is minimal. The dissolved gases meet/set their needs. The interventions are infrequent. The hard/soft water argument decreases in value at this pace of growth.

So attacking the title of the thread head on, hard water isn’t a barrier to ‘easier’ plant growth even with a range of species that, yes, do colour up and look pretty in softer water, high light and co2 injection. But growing them successfully with the accelerator pedal pushed down to the floor is anything but easy. That’s a choice that has very little to do with hard or soft water.

Low tech, hard water can be done ‘easily’ with many species most would put in softer water and high light/co2 conditions in the first instance. But those plant forms that are plastered all over Instagram set the wrong standard. They also rarely show their failures running things fast with ‘easier’ nutrient acquisition for the purposes of high tech running conditions.

Growing plants ‘easily’ can mean letting things grow at a graceful pace. The plant isn’t cocking things up, it’s the tank owner and their wants.

Even feel this line of conversation I’ve created is debasing what good plant husbandary is by replacing it with a simpler argument, so will stop. What I do want to convey is, learn how to make the most of the water you have.

Definitely agree with you @Geoffrey Rea and yours samples are stunning.
I have very hard water too, KH~14 GH~16, what's yours dKH/dGH levels there in Cambridgeshire to get those wonderful results?
Using RO water mixed with my tap I've seen many times a different(better) leaf shape in some plants, more pearling, more compact growth, but it's definetly possible even in my liquid rock to get a satisfying planted tank with lush growth.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

I have very hard water too, KH~14 GH~16, what's yours dKH/dGH levels there in Cambridgeshire to get those wonderful results?

They <"will be very similar">, because both the dGH and dKH are <"derived from dissolved CaCO3"> and that provides 1 dGH : 1 dKH. The "normal value" is about 17 dGH and 17 dKH, it is defined by the solubility of <"calcium carbonate (CaCO3)"> and the level of atmospheric CO2.

Because you are in Rome you may have <"some "extra" dGH"> from <"evaporite minerals"> such as magnesium sulphate (MgSO4.7H2O) and calcium sulphate (CaSO4.2H2O).

cheers Darrel

 

[Valerio]

Hi all,

They <"will be very similar">, because both the dGH and dKH are <"derived from dissolved CaCO3"> and that provides 1 dGH : 1 dKH. The "normal value" is about 17 dGH and 17 dKH, it is defined by the solubility of <"calcium carbonate (CaCO3)"> and the level of atmospheric CO2.

Because you are in Rome you may have <"some "extra" dGH"> from <"evaporite minerals"> such as magnesium sulphate (MgSO4.7H2O) and calcium sulphate (CaSO4.2H2O).

cheers Darrel

Yes @dw1305 , you are right. Here we have a ratio Ca:Mg = 4:1 out of tap with very low nutrients content ( ~0 ppm NO3/PO4 ), TDS readings are around 300-320.
I believe in fact that those fantastic results derive from their excellent skills rather then from the quality of the water, I've never been able to grow pinnatifida in straight tap, for example, like the guys in AG do. However, I believe that having soft water greatly simplifies the general cultivation of aquatic plants for a not advanced hobbyist.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Here we have a ratio Ca:Mg = 4:1 out of tap with very low nutrients content ( ~0 ppm NO3/PO4 ), TDS readings are around 300-320.

Similar to <"our tap water">, your water has more magnesium (Mg) and a slightly lower conductivity value.

I believe that having soft water greatly simplifies the general cultivation of aquatic plants for a not advanced hobbyist.

I'm pretty sure you are right, soft water makes life easier, mainly because you don't have the <"same issues with solubility">, or calcium carbonate (CaCO3) <"scale deposition"> etc.

I'm a rainwater user (it rains a lot in W. England), which I understand <"isn't an option for you">, and that means I keep fish and plants suited to moderately soft water. Because this is a limestone area I don't keep any black-water fish, our rain water <"is still too hard for them">.

If I couldn't use rain water, I would use our tap water (I don't really have any reservations about it), but keep <"fish and plants that are from hard water">. It just makes sense.

cheers Darrel