-
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
What is the driving force? Light or CO2?
- Thread starter Jaap
- Start date
Edvet
Member
CO2 is the hardest thing to get enough in the water.
Ferts and light are easiest to get plenty of, so CO2 will be the limiting factor to the plantgrowth.
Ferts and light are easiest to get plenty of, so CO2 will be the limiting factor to the plantgrowth.
There's not much to learn from this question because on the face of it, increasing any of these three has the potential to increase the plant growth rate. But this is too simplistic. Is the point to maximize growth rate or is to maximize plant health? Increasing the light without regard to the other two components will generate higher growth rates but also has the potential to create a deficiency in the nutrient/CO2 uptake. So the actual numerical value of "X" is important and at the same time few people actually know the numerical values, or at what numerical values the deficiencies are developed in the other "X's".
Therefore, there is no point chasing "X" other than to know that there are some PAR values that make life difficult, medium, or easy in obtaining decent growth rates while fostering decent plant health. They are all interactive with each other and they each have certain practical characteristics. As Edvert mentions, CO2 is extremely difficult to optimize but it's very easy to turn on a light switch and very easy to dump nutrients into the water column.
So, since light drives the requirement for the other two components you have a situation where it's easy to increase the light but extremely difficult to increase the CO2. The obvious solution is to limit the light input to the tank so that it will be either easier to either improve the effect of the CO2 addition, or will require less CO2.
Adding light is like increasing the speed while driving your car. The more light you add the smaller the mistake is needed to careen out of control.
There is no relationship between the rate of plant growth and the level of plant health. This is a key point that most people consistently misunderstand. Plants can have a high growth rate and yet be miserably unhealthy. Conversely, growth can be agonizingly slow, yet the plants can be in picture perfect health.
When a tank is first set up it always looks bland and uninspiring due to the shortage of plant mass, so everyone immediately has the objective in increasing the growth rate as quickly as possible and the decisions made regarding tank management are always within the context of this objective - and that's where the trouble starts, because the growth rate priority is almost always to the exclusion of other, more important factors that govern plant health.
The best path is to use 0.1X light + 50X nutrients + 100X CO2. This will minimize most problems.
Cheers,
Therefore, there is no point chasing "X" other than to know that there are some PAR values that make life difficult, medium, or easy in obtaining decent growth rates while fostering decent plant health. They are all interactive with each other and they each have certain practical characteristics. As Edvert mentions, CO2 is extremely difficult to optimize but it's very easy to turn on a light switch and very easy to dump nutrients into the water column.
So, since light drives the requirement for the other two components you have a situation where it's easy to increase the light but extremely difficult to increase the CO2. The obvious solution is to limit the light input to the tank so that it will be either easier to either improve the effect of the CO2 addition, or will require less CO2.
Adding light is like increasing the speed while driving your car. The more light you add the smaller the mistake is needed to careen out of control.
There is no relationship between the rate of plant growth and the level of plant health. This is a key point that most people consistently misunderstand. Plants can have a high growth rate and yet be miserably unhealthy. Conversely, growth can be agonizingly slow, yet the plants can be in picture perfect health.
When a tank is first set up it always looks bland and uninspiring due to the shortage of plant mass, so everyone immediately has the objective in increasing the growth rate as quickly as possible and the decisions made regarding tank management are always within the context of this objective - and that's where the trouble starts, because the growth rate priority is almost always to the exclusion of other, more important factors that govern plant health.
The best path is to use 0.1X light + 50X nutrients + 100X CO2. This will minimize most problems.
Cheers,
Thanks Clyve for the answer!
Is it possible that by increasing CO2 levels plant health might deteriorate? I am asking this in the sense that by increasing CO2 might increase growth rate which will render the nutrients inadequate....or are the EI nutrient levels always adequate even if CO2 is increased?
Is it possible that by increasing CO2 levels plant health might deteriorate? I am asking this in the sense that by increasing CO2 might increase growth rate which will render the nutrients inadequate....or are the EI nutrient levels always adequate even if CO2 is increased?
Last edited:
Yes it's certainly possible and it actually happens more often than we'd think. Increasing the CO2 has the effect of driving up the demand for nutrients. If the concentration of nutrients is unlimited then you won't run out as the nutrient demand is increased due to increasing CO2. However, the Matrix teaches us to fear nutrients, and so most people, out of this irrational fear, restrict the nutrient levels so that they are NOT unlimited, then, as the nutrient demand is increased due to increasing CO2, the tank runs short on some nutrient and the result is a nutrient deficiency syndrome. They then erroneously conclude that CO2 causes plant problems, but in fact the increased CO2 exposed the fact that the nutrient level was not unlimited. Adding more nutrients fixes the problem immediately.
Cheers,
Cheers,
Last edited:
So to understand this better.
Once you start off a tank with light, nutrients and CO2 you are just estimating/approximating that the levels of these 3 factors are "correct" to establish healthy plants and starting with low light intensity is kind of playing it safe (driving slowly to avoid mistakes). However, the light, nutrients and/or CO2 might not be at the ideal levels that promote healthy plants. Therefore, someone will tweak one thing at a time so as to establish this ideal ratio depending on the observed problem.
Right?
Once you start off a tank with light, nutrients and CO2 you are just estimating/approximating that the levels of these 3 factors are "correct" to establish healthy plants and starting with low light intensity is kind of playing it safe (driving slowly to avoid mistakes). However, the light, nutrients and/or CO2 might not be at the ideal levels that promote healthy plants. Therefore, someone will tweak one thing at a time so as to establish this ideal ratio depending on the observed problem.
Right?
Yeah, basically I agree with everything you said except for the idea of ideal ratio. There are many combinations of the three factors that will produce acceptable growth rates while maintaining good plant health. Also there are many different objectives the hobbyist might have. Some prefer the lower pressures and lower responsibility associated with lower growth rates, so he/she may intentionally restrict any or all three to some extent. Others have goals of entering contests and the tank must produce an acceptable level of maturity and plant mass to compete, which will then require high everything to meet the deadline. Other objectives will lay somewhere in-between.
The wide range of acceptable light/nutrient/CO2 combinations means that one never needs to chase "ideal ratio". I think folks put too much pressure on themselves and on their tanks to produce "ideal" and they get into trouble that way.
Starting the tank with reduced lighting greatly reduces the pressure, gives a much wider margin for error and gives the hobbyist much more flexibility. High light/nutrient/CO2 forces you, for example, to do more water changes and cleaning, so if your lifestyle means that you will often need to skip water changes then why chase ideal or attempt to obtain maximal growth rates? These parameters can always be increased if the goals and objectives change to something more dynamic.
Cheers,
The wide range of acceptable light/nutrient/CO2 combinations means that one never needs to chase "ideal ratio". I think folks put too much pressure on themselves and on their tanks to produce "ideal" and they get into trouble that way.
Starting the tank with reduced lighting greatly reduces the pressure, gives a much wider margin for error and gives the hobbyist much more flexibility. High light/nutrient/CO2 forces you, for example, to do more water changes and cleaning, so if your lifestyle means that you will often need to skip water changes then why chase ideal or attempt to obtain maximal growth rates? These parameters can always be increased if the goals and objectives change to something more dynamic.
Cheers,
Last edited:
