# Diatoms - My "FACTS"



## NC10

First off, mine is a newish setup so I expected some. It's not really a big issue from my point of view, but just looked into it a bit more today, see what I could do. More unsightly than anything really.

Anyway, ended up at blaming silicates and salicylic acid so did a quick google search for some media to remove it. I came across a link to a thread on UKAPS, so obviously read it. It's an old thread which is why I didn't bump it and started this, it featured Ceg anyway. Would be interesting to know his current view on them though. I noticed a few other threads in here as well which didn't fit in with my situation so thought I'd start this.

Feel free to post your actual facts and experiences, not just what you think or have been told, hopefully it could help a few people out.


My actual factual facts 

1 - Tank is 2 months old. Some should be expected really, ride it out 

2 - I read a thread about purigen. I've been running purigen a while due to excessive tannins and it's had no effect on diatoms. Would it have been worse without the purigen? I can't answer that.

3 - The only place I have a problem with them is in the LOW light areas of the tank. PROVEN now I have added an extra 54w and they're slowly but surely subsiding. I originally had 2 x 39 watt T5's towards the front of the tank and in a 4ft tank they didn't reach either end. I also have 2 huge chunks of wood which further block the light towards the back. Basically, only the front 50% was directly lit and maybe a 10" gap either side wasn't lit. I've now added the extra full length 54w in the middle where one of the 39w was and moved the 39w to the back behind the wood. The back glass and plants behind the wood are quickly clearing up since I've done this.

4 - I went up to over 29.5 degrees on one night and woke up the next morning to find the diatoms on the back wall had reduced to near enough nothing. They slowly reappeared as I dropped the temp. I haven't managed to find an answer on their optimum temperature, but maybe this was slightly too high for them.

5 - Main problem area is/was directly above a spraybar kicking out near enough 2000lph, so high flow isn't a problem for them.

Edit: In fact thinking about it, I don't really have as much of a problem on the back left hand side of the tank. The size of the pump and the distance before anything actually comes out of the spraybar means I don't have an aggressive flow until just before the wood on the left, which is where the diatoms start. This would leave me to believe they actually prefer more flow.

6 - Until I actually wrote fact 1, I didn't realise how young my tank was. I won't be rushing out to find a quick fix just yet


----------



## Sacha

Whatever anyone tells you, diatoms feed on silicates. That is a simple fact. In all seawater on the planet, the more silicates there are, the more diatoms are present. It's only reasonable to apply the same logic to our tanks.


----------



## Sacha

Also, I mentioned the fact that diatoms occur mostly in low- light environments. I was basically told I was stupid and that my experience was invalid. 

Oh well, doesn't matter really. 

All I know is that diatoms are brown. Chlorophyll is green. I'll let you work out the rest.


----------



## NC10

I'll gladly sit beside you on the invalid stupid wagon


----------



## X3NiTH

Got rid of the diatoms in my main tank by removing the sand (not the reason for removing the sand).

Shrimp tank has them everywhere but no sand.

Replacement planted wall shrimp tank only receiving reflected light from main tank, currently void of livestock except beneficial bacteria and the odd cyclops, no sand but lots of aquarium silicone, zero diatoms.

Conclusion - I over feed my shrimp tank!


----------



## NC10

X3NiTH said:


> Got rid of the diatoms in my main tank by removing the sand (not the reason for removing the sand).



For whatever reason you removed the sand, you removed the main source of silicates and therefore removed the diatoms. I'll take that as a fact


----------



## Iain Sutherland

I dont have any 'facts' to offer up to you but i will be devils advocate....  

new Fowlr marine tanks also get diatoms at start up without sand, i think its also logical to assume that as sand is white and diatoms brown people assume there are more of them and link the two, blaming silicates.  Not to mention that plenty of people change there sand in mature marines and dont suddenly get diatoms again.

Diatoms appear in most new tanks, with sand, without, high light, low light... its how you deal with them that matters.

Is it not possible that you added the extra light as time went on meaning the diatoms were starting to come to an end also??

Low light areas of our tanks are also normally the low flow areas, diatoms within the water column will naturally settle in low flow areas giving a misconception.

Like i said, i have no facts.  Unless we do any of these things in a controlled situation then its speculation, ive had terrible diatoms in my low light shrimp tanks but none at all in asian dreams high light with sand, loads in barb island high tech high light no sand...  who knows, certainly not me.



Sacha said:


> It's only reasonable to apply the same logic to our tanks.


whats reasonable and whats true are two entirely different things..... nearly every logical decision ive ever made with fish tanks have proven to be incorrect with experience. Just saying


----------



## NC10

Iain Sutherland said:


> Is it not possible that you added the extra light as time went on meaning the diatoms were starting to come to an end also??.



No they weren't coming to an end, they've been the same really all along with no change. I went a bit too high with the temp one night and the next day they'd drastically reduced, virtually diassapeared off the back wall, that's surely not a coincidence, they quickly returned as the temp got back down to more reasonable levels.

Like with the lights, all this is over the course of just a couple of days it's drastically reduced, not a few weeks like you would expect with it dying out naturally.



Iain Sutherland said:


> Low light areas of our tanks are also normally the low flow areas, diatoms within the water column will naturally settle in low flow areas giving a misconception



It's the highest flow area of the tank where the problems are. I have a spraybar mounted just above the substrate firing up the back wall. This was also the lowest lit area until I moved the 39w to the back. Now it's lit, the diatoms are disappearing. If they do have a preference, then they definitely prefer the higher flow.


----------



## Martin in Holland

I use to have a big problem with Diantoms in my tank. I lowered the light, added more CO2, got spray bars, did a 4 day blackout ....nothing really helped...I ended up with 1x 54W tube 6 hours per day over a 300 ltr tank. Not much high tech in that!
Now I got rid of the spray bars (even lowered the pumps output for a while), much more light, but most of all a whole lot more plants and voila no more Diantoms.  
Now just need to tackle those BBA, not much but still to much to me.


----------



## Sacha

Ah, so you increased the light and your diatoms disappeared! *grin*


----------



## sciencefiction

Well I'll tell you how I triggered diatoms in two tanks recently.

Tank 1. Pulled all the plants out of the tank, increased light to 12hrs-needed algae for an otocinclus fry. Tank is 2 years old.
Tank 2. Increased feeding from once to twice a day, added a whole lot of bioload as I moved all the shrimp from tank 1 to tank 2. This tank is 4-5 years old, hadn't seen algae in 4 years in it, very sparingly planted. I did not change light levels in it.


----------



## Martin in Holland

Sacha said:


> Ah, so you increased the light and your diatoms disappeared! *grin*


 Yes, slowly gave it more light and the result was that my plants started to grow and diantom didn't seem to get a chance...I forgot to mention that I also added 10 more otos


----------



## Mr. Teapot

My experience of diatoms...

First version of tank: (lower light, high CO2, EI dosing)
Always there, never rid of it… terrible plant health and a mess 

Current version of tank:  (higher light, good CO2, EI dosing)
First bloom after about 2-3weeks after flooding dry start. Lasted until I put large amount of plant mass in and then slowly decreased as plants became healthier. Second bloom (all varieties of algae) after a mistake with CO2 resulted in melting plants. slowly decreased after everything came back to health.

Previous tanks:
Occupied with a single huge goldfish - very low light (Single T8), high bio-load, lots of half eaten plant stumps. Absolute diatom madness, great sheets of brown carpet on everything.

My very unscientific conclusion: caused by pollution/ammonia


----------



## Sacha

Whenever I have diatoms, they spread upwards from the substrate. So they always originate from there.


----------



## sciencefiction

Mr. Teapot said:


> My very unscientific conclusion: caused by pollution/ammonia


 
That's my opinion too. It can be conquered  in any tank with healthy plants and good filtration as long as one isn't pushing the limits with stocking and overfeeding.



Sacha said:


> Whenever I have diatoms, they spread upwards from the substrate. So they always originate from there.



They actually appear at lower levels because of the lack of flow there. They don't seem to be able to latch on to surface subjected to higher flow.  One of my tanks at the moment has a straight clear patch of about 5cm wide all around the tank glass near the surface area and that's because the surface movement is too strong for them there. It's a straight line cut as if I wiped it all above the line.
So it may appear to someone they grow from the bottom up because there are more at lower level.

I've had the two tank examples above for years, both with sand and both had no diatoms since I set them up first so there's no way I can blame the sand for the diatoms that decided to appear now. But I can cause it without a fail by increasing bioload and overfeeding.


----------



## Iain Sutherland

NC10 said:


> It's the highest flow area of the tank where the problems are. I have a spraybar mounted just above the substrate firing up the back wall. This was also the lowest lit area until I moved the 39w to the back. Now it's lit, the diatoms are disappearing. If they do have a preference, then they definitely prefer the higher flow.



Are you sure this is diatoms and not brown algae? As science said diatoms are generally pretty free flowing and don't really attach anywhere until they hit plant mass like bunches of eleocharis or low flow areas then gather...

No idea about the temp bit but certainly worth investigating...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NC10

Iain Sutherland said:


> Are you sure this is diatoms and not brown algae?



All the research I've done to find out what and why I had it, pointed at diatoms and/or brown algae. Most of the time the two being interchanged as though they were the same thing, both feeding on silicate and low light etc It's sort of dusty for want of a better word, which led me to diatoms. It's easily wiped of the back glass just by the leaves rubbing on  it due to the flow.

Are they not the same thing? What's the difference?


----------



## X3NiTH

Diatoms on my shrimp tank glass!

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7036/13889991667_cfdc3b9feb_k.jpg

Even closer!

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5542/14524339433_cb28c76378_o.jpg


----------



## EnderUK

Martin in China said:


> I forgot to mention that I also added 10 more otos


 
I think that was the main reason for disappearing diatoms.


----------



## roadmaster

My experiences with diatoms ..
They appear and go away with no extra effort on my part. (just time passing)


----------



## pepedopolous

I had diatoms until I added 10 Amano shrimp. It disappeared overnight!


----------



## ian_m

Ottos scoffed my diatoms when I first set the tank up.

Occasionally come back after major replanting and substrate fiddling.


----------



## zanguli-ya-zamba

I have been battling with diatom for long time.
Now my tank is diatome free lol.
I think for a new tank what really help is bio mass ! you need to add fast growing plants and a lot of it.
Second will be filter, you need to have a filter that is mature and have a good bacterial colony. 
Water change a lot etc....
these three points have helped me a lot to end this battle. My substrate is plain sand, and I have not changed it. I have always had plain sand in my tanks.
I have not increase my lights so they are not related to this.
One other thing I have done is adding CO2 24/7 at low rate. Like 3 or 4 time less than what I was pumping when I had diatome.

I think that a mature tank and filter is really important, and it doesn't take 2 month to have a mature tank, it takes loooonger.

well sorry for such a confuse answer and explanation lol but i am in a hurry.

Now that I have won the battle on diatom, I have some BBA (first time) and BGA I am on it but I am living the country in 1 week for 25 days, so the story will continue in august lol

cheers.


----------



## parotet

IME (no objective measurements... just an opinion) diatoms don't care:

- about light (I have suffered them both in dark and bright areas) [it matches with scientific knowledge: algae need much less light than macrophytes and of course can do well high levels]
- about flow (I had them in the filter outflow and in stagnant areas)
- about ferts (I had them when dosing different ferts to no dosing) [it matches with scientific knowledge: algae can live with much less nutrients than macrophytes but of course benefit from high levels]
- silicates (at least, I have a clay based substrate very rich in diatoms…  and a sand one free of it)

IME they probably care:

- about organic matter build-up
- about poor filtration capacity due to small and/or immature filter (which at the end is the same: limitation to manage organic matter breakdown, ammonia, etc.)

As an example brown diatoms frequently appear in my nano tank (24 l) after re-scaping (ammonia, plant debris, etc.), breeding (less WC frequency, more frequent fish/fry feeding) or when my filter gets clogged (most of the times a consequence of re-scaping and breeding episodes).
I guess the difference with my larger tank (same WC frequency -twice a week if posible, always once a week-, same substrate disturbance, etc.) is that in my 60 liters tank I have an Eheim 2215 (significant filtration rate + high filter media surface + nearly impossible to get clogged in 1-2 month + quick recovery of denitrifying bacteria colony after cleaning). As a result in my 60 liters tank, which does not suffer from diatoms, I have a significant “safety margin” to address organic build-up without consequences. My nano tank has an internal filter with foam and a tiny box of bioballs (150 ml? probably less). I notice that this filter cannot get rid a debris excess. Being an internal filter, most of the debris remain attached to the foam and are not sucked by the filter (at least shrimps seem to enjoy it!). Another fact is that every time I clean the filter (even with tank water), it looks like it needs a week to work fine again (due to lesser bacteria surface?)

Well, my two cents…

Jordi


----------



## sciencefiction

Well, I stumbled across this article which may answer a few questions.

According to this article, diatoms apparently love organic compounds and utilize them heterotrophically, and also are also more efficient in low light levels.

http://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/bio/tuchman/tuchman06.pdf


----------



## NC10

Nice find. I'll have a proper read later.


----------



## Sacha

Please review my posts in this thread: 

http://www.ukaps.org/forum/index.php?threads/Whats-this-algae?.32517/



Sacha said:


> I've seen this on this forum a couple of times, and I have to put it right.
> 
> Diatoms' cell walls are made up of silica. Without available silica, they can't rebuild their cell walls, and they can't multiply.
> 
> Clive, you're a smart guy, I know these papers won't be beyond you.
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16193051/
> 
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v397/n6719/abs/397508a0.html
> 
> It's pretty clear that diatoms thrive on silica. The more silica there is, the faster they grow.





Sacha said:


> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...sCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
> 
> "Diatom growth depends on silicate availability, in addition to nitrate and phosphate, but northern Atlantic waters are richer in nitrate than silicate. Following the spring stratification, diatoms are the first phytoplankton to bloom. Once silicate is exhausted, diatom blooms subside in a major export event. Here we show that, with nitrate still available for new production, the diatom bloom is prolonged where there is a periodic supply of new silicate: specifically, diatoms thrive by 'mining' deep-water silicate brought to the surface by an unstable ocean front"
> 
> "As diatoms have an absolute requirement for silicon (as silicic acid)3, its supply into the photic zone — largely by silica dissolution and upwelling — controls diatom production (and consequently the biological uptake of atmospheric CO2 by the ocean) over vast oceanic areas"
> 
> "Silicon is a major limiting nutrient for diatom growth and hence is a controlling factor in primary productivity."
> 
> There are loads of papers on exactly this subject, a quick Google brought these up.


----------



## Sacha

I don't really see how anyone can argue with that?


----------



## sciencefiction

Well, according to the above article, they metabolize heterotrophically without any silica but organics compounds.
We would all have diatoms if sand was to blame only.


----------



## Sacha

"As diatoms have an absolute requirement for silicon (as silicic acid) its supply into the photic zone — largely by silica dissolution and upwelling — controls diatom production (and consequently the biological uptake of atmospheric CO2 by the ocean) over vast oceanic areas"

"Silicon is a major limiting nutrient for diatom growth and hence is a controlling factor in primary productivity."


So you are saying this is wrong? Bear in mind it is published in nature journal


----------



## sciencefiction

Sacha said:


> "As diatoms have an absolute requirement for silicon (as silicic acid) its supply into the photic zone — largely by silica dissolution and upwelling — controls diatom production (and consequently the biological uptake of atmospheric CO2 by the ocean) over vast oceanic areas"
> 
> "Silicon is a major limiting nutrient for diatom growth and hence is a controlling factor in primary productivity."
> 
> 
> So you are saying this is wrong? Bear in mind it is published in nature journal



No, I am not saying it's wrong. But maybe diatoms are not as simple and are similar to certain bacteria that can change metabolism and use different sources of food. Did you read the article I posted above?
Plus it may depend on species too. Most articles talk about the ocean where we are dealing with fresh water tanks.
Personally, with having 4 tanks with silica sand diatoms have never been a problem for me. Are you saying I should have had diatoms?  But I can always trigger them by increasing the bioload all of a sudden.
Certainly the article says that in the dark they utilise the organics better up to 94% compared to 68% in light conditions


----------



## Mr. Teapot

I don't mind being a guinea pig in this debate… let me know your choice of silicon and I'll dump a bag of it in my filter and record what happens.


----------



## Sacha

I will read the article now. 

One thing is for sure. All diatoms, no matter what species, will die if there is zero available silicates. That is because their cell walls are made up of silica compounds. It's well known that diatoms do better in darkness than they do in light. But just don't let Clive hear you say that (everyone else is wrong apparently).


----------



## sciencefiction

> That is because their cell walls are made up of silica compounds



I can't argue about it as I haven't read the proper info expanding on this but lets take an example with shrimp who have  copper based oxygen transport system (Hemocyanins) and copper is essential to their survival, yet high copper amounts kills them outright. And shrimp don't eat copper or depend on the amounts of copper to multiply and flourish, they just need some of it for survival.
So silicates for diatoms cell survival means just that.


----------



## Sacha

Silicon is a major limiting nutrient for diatom growth.

That is simple fact. I posted this before, Clive told me my "data were faulty". It's up to the OP who he believes..


----------



## sciencefiction

Sacha said:


> Silicon is a major limiting nutrient for diatom growth


 
_The diatom species examined in this study all inhabit
benthic habitats where they may often
encounter light depletion due to frequent burial in
the sediments, highly turbid or stained overlying
water, or from high density algal mats. Under such
light-limited conditions these diatoms can activate
mechanisms for uptake and metabolism of organic
substrates as a survival strategy. In addition, they
have the ability to turn off these metabolically
costly uptake mechanisms when irradiance is
adequate for photosynthesis.
Comparable forms of

these compounds and their derivatives are present

in aquatic ecosystems and may be introduced into

the environment from a number of natural

sources, including decomposition, allochthonous

inputs, autochthonous inputs, animal or plant

excretions, or UV-B photodegradation of DOC

(Wetzel et al., 1995; De Lange et al., 2003).

In addition to using these compounds as a

source of carbon, diatoms might utilize amides,

amines, and amino acids as a source of nitrogen as

well. Diatoms readily take up dissolved organic

nitrogen in both benthic (e.g., Nilsson & Sundba・N ck,

1996) and planktonic habitats_


----------



## NC10

Found this as well, just to add something else into the mix 


"If the silicate (Si) to phosphate (P) ratio is high, then diatoms are likely to have a growth advantage over true algae types and Cyanobacteria..................(when) phosphate is accumulating in the maturing tank, the Si: P ratio will change in favour of phosphate, which is likely to favour the growth of green algae instead."


I'm using Easylife Profito which doesn't have phosphates. I didn't need the phosphates due to my fish, or eventual fish. I'm guessing that a lot of the more "showy" high tech tanks with a few small fish (or none) would use a fert containing phosphate, obviously changing the ratio in favour of phosphate from the very beginning = no diatoms, ever, possibly.

As this is just a thought and not my actual factual "facts" I deserve a warning for derailing my own thread  Interesting nevertheless.


----------



## ceg4048

Sacha said:


> Silicon is a major limiting nutrient for diatom growth.
> 
> That is simple fact. I posted this before, Clive told me my "data were faulty". It's up to the OP who he believes..


Readers are encouraged to believe the hobbyists who don't get diatoms in their tanks.
The "fact" is I don't get diatoms - unless I want them to appear.
Regret to advise that your data is still faulty.

Cheers,


----------



## Sacha

It's not my data, it's the data published in the journal of Phycology. 

"Silicon is a major limiting nutrient for diatom growth" 

That is a verbatim quote from the peer- reviewed paper 

So are you telling me this peer- reviewed scientific data is faulty? If so, why not write a letter to the authors informing them that their research and findings are incorrect?


----------



## Sacha

Sorry, I am getting my papers mixed up. The paper I am referring to is entitled "SILICON METABOLISM IN DIATOMS: IMPLICATIONS FOR GROWTH", and was published in the journal of Phycology, volume 36, issue 5. 

Clive, please read that paper. The entire paper is about how increased silicates means increased diatom growth.


----------



## ceg4048

Sacha said:


> So are you telling me this peer- reviewed scientific data is faulty?


Sacha, their data isn't faulty, but your misapplication of their data is faulty. You've drawn conclusions that are not rational.
Firstly, there are over 100,000 species of diatomic algae.
Is the species in your tank the same as they have analyzed?
Is the environmental conditions in your tank the same as in the environment the paper is based on?

The response of specific species depend greatly on the environment. It's very dangerous to extrapolate information and make assumptions about their behavior under your particular conditions. When I pull data from a journal I'm always cognizant of that fact. I make sure that it's relevant to my conditions. GSA, BGA and the others will behave differently in natural environments than they do in out tanks. They'll behave differently in fresh water versus salt water, and so on and so forth.

Secondly, so what if silicon is a major limiting nutrient for diatom growth? The condition in our tanks is the blooming of diatoms. Just because silicon is in abundance it does not mean that automatically diatoms will bloom. Diatoms can appear in a bare tank with RO water. Nutrients don't cause algae just by virtue of their presence. Something in our tanks  triggers a diatomic bloom. If a food source is available they will take advantage but the food source does not trigger the bloom. The trigger is a much more sophisticated set of conditions and you have to deal with those root causes, not become obsessed with silicon. You've completely missed this important point.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the metabolic path of diatoms has nothing to do with silicon. I mean, glass is made of silicon and sand, clay and many rocks are composed of silicon, but diatoms cannot use silicon in this form. It must be silicic acid, typically orthosilicic acid (H4SiO4) which they process into Silicon Dioxide (SiO2). In order for sand and other silicon containing rocks to be hydrated into orthosilicic acid, the water needs to be about 4000 meters deep to develop enough pressure. So that's how it's produced in the ocean because the ocean is easily that deep. Your tank cannot produce orthosilicic acid from your Silicon containing hardscape (unless you have a tank that is as deep as The Abyss of course).

Fourthly, diatoms are very small, so they don't need a lot of orthosilicic acid. In natural systems orthosilicic acid content of less than 0.1 ppm can sustain a dominant population of diatoms once triggered, so it's not likely that you can starve out diatoms even if you do have high orthosilicic acid content.

Fifthly, diatoms in our tanks follow a boom-bust cycle. They take advantage of the hobbyists incompetence and bloom for a few weeks, then they go away - unless the hobbyist continues to degrade the tank with any combination of too much light, poor circulation, poor CO2 and poor cleaning habits. That's what this hobbyist did=> http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/diatom-dilemma.27208/

He didn't need a science degree, or try to solve the silicon content of the tank, or bemoan the fact that ceg4048 was a tyrant. He just followed the basic procedure and got on with his life and his problems went away. Now he knows that if and when diatoms appear, he has to stick with those procedures and he can be confident that the issue will be resolved.


So all of this hysteria about Silicon is completely misguided and what you should be looking at, within the context of our tanks is to reduce your lighting and to improve your flow/CO2 distribution.

The silicon lovers and high light lovers are the ones who continue to get diatoms. Instead of improving their technique and following the procedures, they make halfhearted attempts, fail, blame the procedure for their failure, and then try to find explanations for their failure in The Matrix.

Cheers,


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





> Thirdly, and most importantly, the metabolic path of diatoms has nothing to do with silicon. I mean, glass is made of silicon and sand, clay and many rocks are composed of silicon, but diatoms cannot use silicon in this form. It must be silicic acid, typically orthosilicic acid (H4SiO4) which they process into Silicon Dioxide (SiO2). In order for sand and other silicon containing rocks to be hydrated into orthosilicic acid, the water needs to be about 4000 meters deep to develop enough pressure. So that's how it's produced in the ocean because the ocean is easily that deep. Your tank cannot produce orthosilicic acid from your Silicon containing hardscape (unless you have a tank that is as deep as The Abyss of course).


 It is is in another post <http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/whats-this-algae.32517/page-2#post-345483>, but Clive is right the real issue with diatoms and silicon (Si) is that the silicon has to be in the form of orthosilicic acids (H4SiO4), and for the Diatom to use it to build its frustule these silicic acids are formed by the acidification of silicate salts (such as sodium silicate) in aqueous solution.

In the case of silicon it is inert when it is in the structural form of silicon oxides or "silica". Silicon dioxide (SiO2) is "quartz", one of the hardest naturally occurring minerals and a major constituent of rocks that are, in some cases, billions of years old. It isn't only the quartz in sand and rocks that builds up in large amounts because of the combination of hardness and insolubility, the diatom frustules themselves built up in huge layers to form the Moler clay that is used for "Tesco lightweight cat litter", and as a substrate in many of our tanks.

Having said all that Diatoms are actually incredibly good at extracting silica from water, and realistically it is almost impossible to get the level low enough to become a factor. There is an explanation here:
<http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/combining-chemical-filtration-media.20015/>.

You can think of silicon as a bit like nitrogen, when nitrogen is as a gas molecule (N2) it is inert, but if you can add enough energy to split the extremely strong triple bond between atoms, the nitrogen atoms are then highly reactive and can form a whole range of compounds.

cheers Darrel


----------



## NC10

@ceg4048 or anyone that's reading really, the thing annoying me, regardless of sand, glass or tap water giving off silicate or however it may enter the water column, is that the diatoms are only present in low light areas of my tank.

It's just a blanket response to say algae equals too much light, end of story. A long reply including big words doesn't mean something's correct. Less light, more Co2 and flow is not the answer to every problem. I've proved it myself by adding an extra light and now either Sacha or sciencefiction (can't remember which without checking) has added a scientific report saying they thrive in lower light, further backing up my theory. I know there are multiple factors involved, but in my case high light wasn't one of them. If I reduced my light from 2x39w in a 4 footer, I'd have to buy the fish white sticks and a guide dog.

I understand where Sacha is coming from and getting annoyed, because it's like talking to a brick wall really. I started this thread through my own personal experience, not just what should happen, would happen or people have told me will happen. The plan was that others would, so everyone could compare notes regardless of what should be expected. High light, excessive nutrients etc etc I should add my ammonia is zero, nitrites <0.25 and nitrates around 10/20, just in case it makes a difference.

Would be interesting to know the scientists take on the Si vs P ratio though, would that make a difference?


----------



## ceg4048

NC10 said:


> @ceg4048 or anyone that's reading really, the thing annoying me, regardless of sand, glass or tap water giving off silicate or however it may enter the water column, is that the diatoms are only present in low light areas of my tank.


And so what? In the areas of your tank which are affected there are other factors which you cannot see or measure that have an effect in that area. Is that the case in all tanks which suffer diatoms? Do the diatoms only ever develop in the lower light regions of the tanks? I think Ian has already pointed that out to you and you have ignored that important detail. The tank is responding as a unit, or system. Plants suffering a nitrate shortage will become victims of BGA, but the BGA can for either on the leaf itself or on the substrate far from where the leaf is, on hardscape or on substrate.

In the same way that Sacha has misinterpreted data from other sources you have misinterpreted your observations and have derived conclusions based on speculation and coincidence. Part of the problem in this hobby is that we only have primitive tools with which to measure things and we don't know all the facts, so we can only observe the tank as if looking through a keyhole. 

We have no idea what your flow/distribution is like. We have no idea how effective your CO2 dissolution is. We do know that these two factors, in the presence of light contribute greatly to the stimulation of diatomic blooms, especially in new tanks, which are unstable chemically. I have already discussed, in the thread I linked to above, the path to follow, which includes a thorough assessment of your injection/distribution techniques, of your nutrient dosing and of your maintenance procedures. As far as I'm concerned you've only proven that in these areas of tank management, your methods are suspect. I'm pretty sure you're doing something incorrectly there, but without a detailed description of the setup I'm not able to be precise. I'm sorry if that annoys you, but imagine how annoyed are the people who have already solved their algae problems, having to listen to arguments from people who can't get rid of their diatoms.

If you care to provide such details and if you are prepared to follow the advice, then I'm confident we can resolve your issues. But I have no interest in debating with someone who has already drawn a conclusion that our advice is akin to a brick wall and who prefers to chase ghosts. I can already tell that you are a test kit lover and that immediately invalidates any conclusions drawn from the kits worthless readings. I also refuse to argue with ratio lovers. So, if that's the path you wish to take, well then good luck with that. Feel free to measure your silicate and phosphate levels and enjoy the fantasy numbers. For other readers who suffer diatomic blooms and are weary of all the dead end conclusions found throughout The Matrix, they can use the information in the linked thread above as a template for problem resolution.



NC10 said:


> A long reply including big words doesn't mean something's correct.





NC10 said:


> Would be interesting to know the scientists take...


Scientists will more than likely have a long reply using big words. Be careful because it may not be correct.

Cheers,


----------



## Sacha

It is well known that diatoms thrive in low- light environments. Clive is the only person I have come across who denies this


----------



## ian_m

Sacha said:


> It is well known that diatoms thrive in low- light environments


Mine appeared in quite high light when I first set my tank up and appear occasionally again after major plant re-arrangements in even higher light I have now. So nothing to do with light levels.


----------



## Sacha

On right, so those scientists are wrong again. The Matrix must have them. 

It looks like I travelled in too deep and now nothing can bring me back. There's no hope for me now


----------



## sciencefiction

Honestly, scientists can prove anything they like as far as I am concerned. Just pay them enough.

Personally, as Ian says above, I get diatoms when I have a bioload overload either because I stirred the substrate, because my plants are melting,  or because I overfed, or because I added too many fish at once, or in a new setup, or all of these combined.

The problem with diatoms is that they are difficult to sustain in case one wants diatoms like I do at the moment.


----------



## Mr. Teapot

sciencefiction said:


> I get diatoms when I have a bioload overload


Agree with everything you say and is my experience as well.

Interesting that you can't sustain an intentional diatom bloom. Perhaps it's because the bio-available silicon has been used and removed from the system as discussed in Sasha's Paper. A great experiment would be to fertilise your diatoms with silicic acid?


----------



## sciencefiction

Mr. Teapot said:


> Agree with everything you say and is my experience as well.
> 
> Interesting that you can't sustain an intentional diatom bloom. Perhaps it's because the bio-available silicon has been used and removed from the system as discussed in Sasha's Paper. A great experiment would be to fertilise your diatoms with silicate?



Well, I don't mind trying but how do I fertilise with silicate?
The tanks always had silica sand ,but no diatoms prior to that.  My guess is the filters/plants cope with the bioload eventually and for whatever reason outcompete the diatoms. Also, the test did measure very low ammonia levels once I increased the bioload so that goes hand in hand. Diatoms maybe using different sources of nutrients besides silica that aren't always available, or at least not available to the diatoms and used by something else.  In some of the info from the papers Sacha posted,  it said diatoms use silica ADDITIONALLY to other sources. So one may need silica AND......
As far as light goes, it doesn't matter. If you hinder the diatoms by increasing the light you'll end up with other nastier sorts of algae that thrive in similar environment but are better at photosynthesizing.


----------



## Iain Sutherland

If you want to sustain for algae eaters it's very difficult, they relish it so much. Sustaining with no livestock is easy, just neglect the tank once it blooms and it will continue.

Think it's pretty clear from the number of threads on this forum that diatoms will bloom in any tank with any number of different situations.  Silicates, no silicates, high light, low light whatever... The only fact we do have is how to get rid of them.

Loving the discussion though.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sciencefiction

Iain Sutherland said:


> If you want to sustain for algae eaters it's very difficult, they relish it so much. Sustaining with no livestock is easy, just neglect the tank once it blooms and it will continue.


 
I remember I had no problem sustaining diatoms in a fry tank with corys which were fed 4-5 times a day and grew fast overloading my filters to the point they couldn't manage despite the water changes.
Otherwise it takes a couple of weeks and diatoms stop growing. They don't magically disappear from the glass or plants though so unless one manually removes it or gets algae eaters they'll stay where they appeared.

But I have no problem sustaining other types of algae :


----------



## NC10

This will be my last comment on this thread because I don't want it just turning into a slanging match, which it's starting to. I'll leave that to Sacha 

@ceg4048 - My tank is fine, I'm very happy with it. I didn't start the thread for advice, I started it for people to compare their own experiences, that's it.

Feel free to carry on making assumptions about me though, going along believing they're right and twisting what I've said to try and belittle me. Just to answer a few of the assumptions though.....

I haven't ignored any important detail by Ian. In my tank they were only in the low light areas, simple as that. I can only go on my personal experience if I want to be 100% sure about something, which this clearly isn't in my case:


ceg4048 said:


> Diatomic algal blooms are strictly a result of excessive lighting.
> 
> Cheers



My tank managements suspect? Why? How? Lol You don't even know what I'm doing. My tank and tank management is fine. The advice given is like a brick wall? I said its like talking to a brick wall, how can advice be like a brick wall? A test kit lover? I tested the water at the weekend for the first time. Ratio lover? lol I've just mentioned something I came across to see what people thought of it. Anyway, I'm gone.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,
I think the answer to "low light" or "high light" for diatoms is just "any light". You will always have diatoms in your tank, just sometimes they will be more apparent than other times.

Diatoms are pretty well universal in any habitat with liquid water (even if it is only sporadic), if you look at soil in the Arctic or the trunks of rain-forest trees, you will find diatoms. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## EnderUK

Sacha said:


> It is well known that diatoms thrive in low- light environments. Clive is the only person I have come across who denies this


 
My nano is as low tech as could be, Diatoms were only a problem with the initial plant melt but once I prunned the melting leaves the plants bonced back and never saw diatoms again, not even when I rescaped a few weeks ago with the same plants. No otos but I have nerite snails, MTS and shrimp so I suppose they're doing the trick. My main tank has never seen Diatoms (well not that I have noticed) and that's pretty low light and there was a point when there was no otos or shrimp in there for the first four months, there was a small number of MTS in there from the begining though.


----------



## James O

No comments on anyone's view here but here's my thinking:

Some do struggle with diatoms. Some do not.  It seems more advantageous for the 'do's' to follow advice from the 'do nots' because they clearly know something you don't.  Only when your tank is clear (and you become a 'do not' ) does it make sense to investigate the deeper meaning of a diatom bloom........unless of course you like diatoms, are a scientist or maybe a masochist 

Make clear water not war

Hugs all round


----------



## Andy Thurston

When i started my cube i didn't get any diatoms.  
4weeks DSM, Ji3 compost, full ei ferts,16w t5 lights 7hours a day 2 x 50% weekly waterchange(so tank hygene not that good) 12x turnover and as much co2 as i could get to dissolve into the water ph7.5 down to ph5.2
One of the t5 ballasts failed and i replaced it with a tmc tile and controller
I started the leds at 50% power and had a massive diatoms bloom and plants melting. So i reduced the led to 20% cleaned the tank and drained the water then refilled with new dechlorinated water. 2weeks later i noticed more diatoms just very feintly appearing again so i cleaned reduced light to 10% and drained and filled again. 
Lights are now at 15% drop checker is yellow/green and has been stable for a month and ready for fauna.
I used this method on 4 tanks now and diatoms has only occured in high light high flow areas 3 of the four tanks got shrimp/ottos added to get rid and those tanks matured and adapted while the cuc got fat. once those tanks matured the ottos became skinny and i/we had to start feeding more.

Clive's? method works, even for noobs, you don't really need to understand every process that goes on in the tank, just the ones you have control over and its a good starting point if you do want to understand more
Why make it harder than you have to
Lowish light and loads of co2, ferts and waterchanges. 

Have a read through this journal
http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/my-first-ever-aquarium-juwel-rio-180l.22176/

Ignorance is bliss


----------



## Martin in Holland

Clive's way worked for up to a point....I think my plants weren't able to out compete so I turned up the light a bit and added a lot more plants, this did it for me at the end run....in my tank the diantoms were growing faster than the plants, that's way I thought to give my plants more light (and ferts)...I kept a close eye to my CO2 (pH vs KH)
In the end Clive helped me a whole lot, but as he is not here standing next to my tank he (nobody for that matter) couldn't see/ test or otherwise look close to what was happening in my tank, that last bit is still up to yourself.


----------



## Jaap

ceg4048 said:


> And so what? In the areas of your tank which are affected there are other factors which you cannot see or measure that have an effect in that area. Is that the case in all tanks which suffer diatoms? Do the diatoms only ever develop in the lower light regions of the tanks? I think Ian has already pointed that out to you and you have ignored that important detail. The tank is responding as a unit, or system. Plants suffering a nitrate shortage will become victims of BGA, but the BGA can for either on the leaf itself or on the substrate far from where the leaf is, on hardscape or on substrate.
> 
> In the same way that Sacha has misinterpreted data from other sources you have misinterpreted your observations and have derived conclusions based on speculation and coincidence. Part of the problem in this hobby is that we only have primitive tools with which to measure things and we don't know all the facts, so we can only observe the tank as if looking through a keyhole.
> 
> We have no idea what your flow/distribution is like. We have no idea how effective your CO2 dissolution is. We do know that these two factors, in the presence of light contribute greatly to the stimulation of diatomic blooms, especially in new tanks, which are unstable chemically. I have already discussed, in the thread I linked to above, the path to follow, which includes a thorough assessment of your injection/distribution techniques, of your nutrient dosing and of your maintenance procedures. As far as I'm concerned you've only proven that in these areas of tank management, your methods are suspect. I'm pretty sure you're doing something incorrectly there, but without a detailed description of the setup I'm not able to be precise. I'm sorry if that annoys you, but imagine how annoyed are the people who have already solved their algae problems, having to listen to arguments from people who can't get rid of their diatoms.
> 
> If you care to provide such details and if you are prepared to follow the advice, then I'm confident we can resolve your issues. But I have no interest in debating with someone who has already drawn a conclusion that our advice is akin to a brick wall and who prefers to chase ghosts. I can already tell that you are a test kit lover and that immediately invalidates any conclusions drawn from the kits worthless readings. I also refuse to argue with ratio lovers. So, if that's the path you wish to take, well then good luck with that. Feel free to measure your silicate and phosphate levels and enjoy the fantasy numbers. For other readers who suffer diatomic blooms and are weary of all the dead end conclusions found throughout The Matrix, they can use the information in the linked thread above as a template for problem resolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists will more than likely have a long reply using big words. Be careful because it may not be correct.
> 
> Cheers,


I now have diatoms 

There are a few reasons that I suspect caused this.

1. The fact that I have lowered co2 a little
2. I have added 3 guppies and 3 otos...had no fish before
3. I have increased light intensity
4. I have not cleaned my filter for 3 months

I am suspecting number 4...is it possible that this happened due to a very dirty filter?


----------



## sciencefiction

It's number 2. You increased the bioload suddenly = ammonia increase. Very common cause. I wouldn't think your filters without any fish and fish food in the tank would have noticed you haven't cleaned them.


----------



## Jaap

Well I can say its not CO2 becaue in an hour I go from a 7.96 to a 6.60 with a kH of 9


----------



## Sacha

Are you sure your fish are alive?


----------



## Jaap

Sacha said:


> Are you sure your fish are alive?



Hehe....yes they are doing just fine....what can I say 

11:00 - CO2 ON - 7.96
12:00 - 6.94
13:00 - 6.75
14:00 - Lights on - 6.60

CO2 profile looks fine to me....and the fish are very happy for 2 weeks now with no signs of distress, eating just fine!


----------



## naz

Just been reading this post about diatoms algea,iv had a  tank running for 2 years now so it is very mature,over the last 7 months I have had diatoms in my tank I have tryed everything to get ride of the this algea and nothing has keep it at bay,iv tryed blackouts,dosing hydrogen oxide,algeafix,raising the co2 really really high,my guess to 50 or 60ppm as I run a wet and dry sump filter with high O2 in my tank, lowering light,running high light,nothing has worked,every time I dose ferts I see a bigger outbreak of diatoms,at the moments I am just trying different  things to try to combat this algea I have not dosed the tank for 2 weeks  now and I am seeing a bit of a inprovment as I am not getting diatoms over the new grow that is coming though,where as when I was dosing I was getting the whole plant covered in the stuff,I have tryed to vacoom the substrate  this morning to see if it is something leaching out of the substate that is keeping the diatoms from going,hopefully I will do this over the next few weeks and see better results  with the diatoms,iv been in to the planted tanks hobbie for the last 10 years now,and all I read on forums is to raise the co2 to fix every algea outbrake in anyone's tank,I think this is the wrong advice for people,it makes people think thay need crazy amounts of co2 in there tanks to have a stunning tank and this is completely  wrong,your gonna have this magical tank if you find a way to disoIve crazy amounts of co2 though your reactors and in to your tanks. I  have seen stunning tanks and had very nice tanks myself that  were run on very low c02,low flow,low light,the opposite to all the advice you get on forums,I just think high co2 to fix everything is not the case,well I no it isn't.


----------

