ch_rubilar said:
Well, there seems to be a misunderstanding. There is not Ca vsus Po4, I suggest an imbalance related to Ca plus Po4, too much of both relating to No3 and Mg. Before TB excess was a common word used to describe algae cause. TB discovers that to talk about excess is wrong and he propose that the lack of nutrients is the cause of algae. I believe that both concepts, lack or excess are incomplete. At the MDC (MCI) I explain why we should talk about imbalances.
Imbalanced with respect to plants, or algae?
Algae appears for 2 reasons near as I can tell, an inducement, say poor plant growth(limited CO2/carbon balance), maybe NH4 spike etc, too much light and imbalanced there with the general growth model of aquatic plants. Or introduction(say Cladophora added).
Imbalance with respect to plants, I agree.
Sometimes there is a lack, other times is an excess but not in absolute terms but relative, they are related to another macro/micro: Ca:Mg; No3😛o4, etc.
You are leaving out Carbon, CO2.
You should treat it as a nutrient, the plant cannot utilize the other nutrients if the Carbon is limited.
also, if you strongly limit PO4, then there is a strong dependency effect on CO2.
You trade one limitation for another, basically going from a strong CO2 limitation to a stronger PO4 limitation.
Plants are fine if they good CO2/carbon supply relative to the most limiting factor.
This is nothing new and goes back to Liebig's law of limiting factors, this is true for submsered aquatic plants also, just we have the added huge factor of Carbon added that is not present with terrestrial plants.
As most all aquatic species are amphibious and grow out of water as well , we can test this easily with hydroponics and different nutrient solutions independent of CO2 since the exchange rates are 10,000X faster(eg, no CO2 limitation).
Have you done this over a wide range for nutrients and measured biomass?
I have.
Without a reference aquarium control, you have nothing to compare inducement of algae or suggest possibles causes for algae. You have to have a control and the control in the first place to even do the test.
Plant growth issues are dependent for an algae bloom.
So many already have some issue there(light, CO2, maintenance, nutrients).
Put another way, plants define the system, not nutrients or algae.
This might help you think about what is occurring better and how to test better to answer your questions.
At the MDC I have identify certain algae with certain imbalances. The solution I propose had been used succesfully in reality instead of simple speculation.
If my assert is absurd for you, I think that you need more than a claim of one sentence to explain why. I intrigued.
I think I understand what you are saying here.
Using algae and specific species as Bioindicators of problems in gross terms.
BBA= poor CO2, GSA= low PO4 or CO2(or both, there may be more than one cause) and so on.........
I think many do this and have for a long time.
Algae does not lie and test what many are having issues with.
I think, I may be wrong, that what you suggest is pushing the nutrients to provide a strongly limiting PO4 situation over time. This leads to a GSA state in the aquarium which is relatively easy to get rid of. This method cures the present issue of various algae.
The reason why this works is indirect on algae however, it directly affects CO2 in plants by going from a strong/mild CO2 limitation to a more stable CO2/carbon demand since the PO4 now is the limiting factor, see Liebig's limiting factor the reference to this. If you treat CO2 as a nutrient, then it makes sense.
It also explains all of the observed patterns on aquariums that are non limiting, as well as why we see algae come and go when PO4 is limited and perhaps other nutrients.
Still, algae are not limited in either case, low PO4 or high.
I think many make that mistake.
This is not an algae effect, they are secondary effect of poor plant growth status with respect to Carbon.
So it's really an issue of plant growth, not algae.
Algae spores and vegetative cells will respond to various stimuli and environment cues, poor plant growth seems to be the largest one near as I can tell and the most universal. I've ruled out nutrients. Light and CO2 seem to be the larger players.
Interesting claim. Primitive but interesting. If you read the MDC, you will find that proper amount of Co2 is identify as a pre rrequisite. Proper amount of Co2 for me is just a little bit before shrimp became to be disturb.
Well, if good CO2 is part of it, how might we ensure that it is?
How do we measure such an elusive macro nutrient that is required for pretty much everything?
Drop checker?
pH/KH/CO2 charts?
Riccia pearling?
The last one seems best and is in line with what you are after I think.
Most methods do not tell you what the CO2 is really doing at a precise level.
I have a 3000$ CO2 meter, it data logs as well.
Here's a typical 1 day level:
CO2 is not added at night.
Various plants also have different CO2 compensation points, with 300+ species, this can have large effects on what might be good CO2 for some tanks/plants and what is not for another.
Not so simple.
I've never been able to sustain and induce GDA with a good reference planted tank.
Never.
Not once.
If I inoculated the tank and then reduced the CO2 and increased the light, viola.
Algae.
It took longer to eradicate the algae(2-3 weeks) after the bloom occured and the CO2 was returned to the higher rate and the light was reduced. Once the algae took hold, it will hang on and the balance requires more energy/effort to get back to the prior state.
This is true in restoration ecology as well.
Fixing aquariums algae issues is a lot like restoration Ecology.
ceg4048 said:
I mean lets get real for a moment: Is anyone seriously considering the authors claim of "generic protocol of the Kno3"? If so, one might as well consider uttering incantations of the Druids of Stonehenge. This so-called protocol may explain why his followers have various algae problems in the first place. Any protocol based on limiting nutrients invites disaster.
No, not really.
What about light?
PO4?
Sure we get GSA, but we can up the CO2, or add more PO4 later.
I agree that the method works to rid more noxious algae species.
I'm not sure it addresses plant growth correctly and Carbon demand however.
Still, as long as those are addressed at some point, then the path to getting there matters less.
I prefer less light to reduce Carbon demand and algae growth.
It works no matter what method of nutrients you chose.
PMDD was based on this same type of idea, but the method Chrubilar is suggesting is more radical. It is far less conservative than PMDD and suggest ramping up the KNO3 dosing much more to induce a strong PO4 limitation.
That in effect causes a downstream effect on CO2 demand.
At Dr.pez we were using this method for several years with positive feedback. The positive feedback at APC show that there is no the "disastre" you claim.
Agreed.
PMDD also showed good results for algae control as well and has a long history, so does PPS....however, why they claim it works is quite another matter. Like this method, GSA is the common end result.
They all drive PO4 limitation in plants, not algae.
That has downstream effects on Carbon and all the other nutrients.
These hypothesis as to why can be tested and falsified.
That is the issue I have with them. Not whether or not that they "work". Understanding why they work is of much more usefulness and interest to me and the aquarium hobby at large.
You have to test you claim and reason why to verify it, other wise you are only looking at one side of the coin, situation.
That leaves yourself open for mistakes.
When I do these test, I often find that the person making the claim has little knowledge of how to even do such test.
Little idea about the methods, and often does not test their claims. Paul Sears left himself wide open, but he admitted it and said it was a good idea based on what was known at the time.
And it was, just turned out to be wrong.
So why does EI and PMDD both work to varying degrees?
That's an interesting question and CO2 and light play a huge role.
"Aaron said:...try raising the PO4...This works sometimes with GSA but not with GDA.
Here we agree.
Regards
Ditto
Hopefully this clarifies some things about what Chrubilar is saying here.
I might have some of it wrong etc in the general idea.
I do not buy the issues with Ca and Mg etc, the effects of limiting NO3 or PO4 or both are well known on CO2 and carbon allocation demand in plants.
Gerloff's(1966) paper is a good place to read for NO3.
EI is what they basically came up with(30 years before me) for the nutrient mix.
Regards,
Tom Barr
its really interesting, cheers guys