# How much carbon in natural waterways?



## HiNtZ (11 Aug 2018)

As per title - let's assume the highest concentration possible....

What are the sources for this carbon?


----------



## Keith GH (12 Aug 2018)

Ask your water supplier that one and the answer would be official.

Keith


----------



## zozo (12 Aug 2018)

In a nutshell..  It's originating source, such as sediment deposites it runs through.. In principle no matter if the source is a melting glacier or from rain fall, initialy the atmosphere is the originating source of all water on the planet.. Thus initialy it starts with water that has very little of everything in it only what it collects from the atmosphere during it's way down again. And once on the surface again mean while its way down to the lowest point it washes out everthing it runs through and over. It collects and accumulates numerous elements such as carbon sources from these sediments and is constantly changing in parameters along the way.

No idea what you are aiming towards with the question.. I assume you aim towards CO² than it also relates to acidity and carbonates. The so called gH and KH, calcium carbonates and Natrium bicarbonates etc. Than for example if water runs through peat sediments it gets more acidic from other elements it collects and gets a higher pH. In higher pH the carbonate molecules split and release CO². In lower pH it rather stays a carbonate molecule. But for this more in depth explaination, you have to wait for more expertised members finding your question willing to go into the subject.


----------



## HiNtZ (12 Aug 2018)

I'll explain why I asked in a bit, got the family round from abroad and all I wanna do is mess around with my tanks... No such luck. 

Thanks for the reply


----------



## Tim Harrison (12 Aug 2018)

There's a good bit about this in Diana Walstad's book Ecology of the Planted Aquarium. I think the gist of it is that carbon is scarce in freshwater and levels fluctuate rapidly. CO2 levels typically range from 0 to over 14 mg/l. Most CO2 is generated by decomposition of POC (particulate organic carbon) and DOC (dissolved organic carbon).
Like Marcel says pH also affects CO2 concentration, it determines the relative proportions of CO2, bicarbonates and carbonates. Basically, the lower the pH the higher the percentage of DIC (dissolved inorganic carbon) that exists as CO2.


----------



## zozo (12 Aug 2018)

A nice safe home experiment with Acid and Carbonates in relation to CO² is overdoing it compaired by natural levels with making your home brew sodapop limonade. The way it was made in the first half of the 20th century. Than take 1 litre of tap water in a pet bottle (Sweetened with syrup or not) and gently throw in 12 grams of Natrium Bicarbonate (baking soda) followed by 12 gram of Citric acid powder. (Or other way around) and it starts reacting immediately producing CO² bubbles, quickly screw on the cap put it in the fridge and waiit a day for a delicious bottle of sprankling sweet limonade.


----------



## tiger15 (12 Aug 2018)

Dennis Wong has compiled co2 in natural waters.  The sample size is small which shows that 10 mg/l is most common, <5 and >30 are less common.

https://www.advancedplantedtank.com/choosing-co2-why.html


----------



## Edvet (12 Aug 2018)

Don't forget in nature it gets replaced 24/7 , so it doesn't run out, and if we see healthy plantgrowth in nature it has been selected through natural selection to flourish where they grow  (otherwise we see no plants).
The beautifull anf full grown places like Bonito are being fed through subteranean aquafers and springs,


----------



## tiger15 (13 Aug 2018)

Those Pics are too beautiful to be real.  Clear water habitats are rare  in the Amazon. 95% of the water there are black  or white water with low visibility,  and if there are any plants, they are dominated by one to very few species.


----------



## rebel (13 Aug 2018)

tiger15 said:


> Those Pics are too beautiful to be real.  Clear water habitats are rare  in the Amazon. 95% of the water there are black  or white water with low visibility,  and if there are any plants, they are dominated by one to very few species.


Clear water habitats are very rare anywhere. I believe 1% of all freshwater or even less.

I am also curious how low CO2(presumbly - has anyone measured the actual CO2 amounts) and high light doesn't seem to cause algae. There must be other unknown variables in this equation.


----------



## Edvet (13 Aug 2018)

1) most habitats have none or little plants
2) plants grow where they can adapt
3) lightlevels are mostly low ( filtered and blocked through the canopy) ( we see pics of mid day situations where sun is from above)
4) lots of floaters, much much more ( floating meadows) compared to submersed plants
5) often when we see submerged plants its in flooded areas ( waters can rise 10-20 meter in places)
6) most of the times submerged plants are a few leaves struggling not to be covered in algae/debris (look throuh the hours of video from Mikolji, and he is even driving for hours and hours to find filmable waters)
7) the continuous refreshment of all nourishment and fertilisation is not to be compared to a closed tank.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2017.00076/full
https://eos.org/research-spotlights/why-is-there-so-much-carbon-dioxide-in-rivers
https://phys.org/news/2015-08-significant-streams-rivers.html


----------



## zozo (13 Aug 2018)

rebel said:


> Clear water habitats are very rare anywhere. I believe 1% of all freshwater or even less.
> 
> I am also curious how low CO2(presumbly - has anyone measured the actual CO2 amounts) and high light doesn't seem to cause algae. There must be other unknown variables in this equation.



Never realy measured it, don't know if it can be measured that accurately.. But regarding the kh ph table, my outdoor Mission Bathtub setups are pH 8,5 in highlight period and kH 10. That's less than 1.3ppm CO² according the table.. Even if the table aint accurate it can't be so much more or less, but i have no algae issues other than Clado which more is a plant than an algae actualy. Even the glass of the little aqaurium stays remarkably clean, only cleaned it twice this year with very little algae on it.. The submersed potamogeton and Lileaopsis b. and hairgrass growing realy good and stay clean.


----------



## dw1305 (13 Aug 2018)

Hi all,





HiNtZ said:


> As per title - let's assume the highest concentration possible....


You have to specify which type of carbon you are talking about. If you just take "Dissolved (or Total) Inorganic Carbon" "TIC/DIC" in nearly all circumstances you have the same amount, dependent upon temperature, and assuming that you have 400ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. All that changes <"is the form it is in">.

The reason that temperature is important is that it regulates the solubility of gases and it is the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere that governs everything else. 



 
If you have a source of added CO2 you can naturally get huge CO2 concentrations, I've just returned from a month in Rotorua, where volcanic CO2 release leads to water with very low pH and large amounts of dissolved CO2. This process is documented in the <"Lake Nyos disaster">.

For Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC), the natural level ranges from trace amounts to about 10% of the water volume. We've been doing some work in deep disused limestone quarry voids, and in the more recently abandoned of these you have very clear water with visibility of ~10 metres and very little in the way of DOC or nutrients (the water has plenty of HCO3- and Ca++ ions, but nothing else).

After that the nature of the DOC matters, you are back to old friend <"Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)">. You could have very low nutrient tannin rich water where you have very low BOD, or you could have organic rich very polluted water with an immense BOD (This is covered in some detail in the <"So what is organic..."> thread).

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305 (13 Aug 2018)

Hi all, 
There is probably naturally CO2 enriched clear water in @zanguli-ya-zamba's <"DR Congo expedition..."> thread.



cheers Darrel


----------



## tiger15 (13 Aug 2018)

rebel said:


> Clear water habitats are very rare anywhere. I believe 1% of all freshwater or even less.
> 
> I am also curious how low CO2(presumbly - has anyone measured the actual CO2 amounts) and high light doesn't seem to cause algae. There must be other unknown variables in this equation.


In my planted shrimp bowl that receives 4 hr direct sunlight, estimated co2 at peak light period is 0.6 ppm at kH6 and pH8.5.  There is no algae of any sort, so Barr’s theory that high co2 will solve 90% of algae problem is not substantiated. I would propose that high intensity light equivalent to sunlight   level will solve algae problem.

Unlike coral reef and kelp forest scenes,  lush planted clear water habitats are extremely rare in freshwater.  Clear water alkaline lakes in African Rift Valley have abundant algae, but not much plant growth,if any.  Most freshwater scents have murky or tannic water with poor visibility, detritus covered wood and rock, and worse, human trash.  Lush planted tanks are artificial sensations rarely duplicated in nature, and vice versa with reef tanks.


----------



## Edvet (13 Aug 2018)

tiger15 said:


> high co2 will solve 90% of algae problem is not substantiated.


We (majority of this forum) tend to think it is; the majority of the problems we see are: lots of algea, lots of light, insufficient CO2 levels and distribution. improving he latter will solve the first.There is ample evidence that is a functional solution. Barr's theory is a good one  and i haven't seen any contradictory evidence against it. If you have any evidence ( scientific or through well documented journals) please share.


----------



## dw1305 (13 Aug 2018)

Hi all,





tiger15 said:


> Unlike coral reef and kelp forest scenes, lush planted clear water habitats are extremely rare in freshwater. Clear water alkaline lakes in African Rift Valley have abundant algae, but not much plant growth,if any. Most freshwater scents have murky or tannic water with poor visibility, detritus covered wood and rock, and worse, human trash. Lush planted tanks are artificial sensations rarely duplicated in nature


They are an artificial construct, but I think partially this is due to <"anthropogenic effects">, and that if you could go back in time 1,000 years you would find a lot more fresh water bodies with clear water.

Another factor is that the division between the plants you want and the plants you don't ("algae") is an entirely artificial one. 

If you have light, water and even a trace of nutrients plants will grow. Green Algae belong to the same clade (<"Viridiplantae">) as all the mosses, fern and higher plants we might have planted. There isn't one state that favours "algae", there are algae that grow under a huge range of different growing conditions.

Some plants (both algae and higher plants) will have high potential growth rates, they basically want/need everything (light and nutrients) <"turned up to 11">, others will grow in sub-optimal conditions. 

If you <"don't mind slow growth"> you can use mosses, ferns, _Cryptocoryne_ spp., _Anubias etc. _in tanks with minimal nutrient addition.

cheers Darrel


----------



## tiger15 (13 Aug 2018)

Edvet said:


> We (majority of this forum) tend to think it is; the majority of the problems we see are: lots of algea, lots of light, insufficient CO2 levels and distribution. improving he latter will solve the first.There is ample evidence that is a functional solution. Barr's theory is a good one  and i haven't seen any contradictory evidence against it. If you have any evidence ( scientific or through well documented journals) please share.


I am not contradicting Barr. but want to point out that what we observe in nature is very different from in the glass box, and our understanding of what trigger algae is incomplete.  According to Barr, low CO2 and intense light is a recipe for algae.  It didn't happen to me and others who have tanks exposed to sunlight.  Plants seem to be able to utilize low CO2 very efficiently given sunlight which is many times more intense that the highest artificial light.  The 30 ppm CO2 target in high tech tank is rare in nature.  There is also under measurement of CO2 by pH probe due to abundant free CO2(mist) generated by diffuser, making total CO2 availability to submerged growth greater than atmospheric CO2 to emerged growth.


----------



## dw1305 (14 Aug 2018)

Hi all, 





dw1305 said:


> There isn't one state that favours "algae", there are algae that grow under a huge range of different growing conditions.


I should have linked in the Lenntech article <"General Effects of Eutrophication">, it shows the changes in algal assemblage as nutrient levels rise.

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305 (14 Aug 2018)

Hi all,





tiger15 said:


> It didn't happen to me and others who have tanks exposed to sunlight. Plants seem to be able to utilize low CO2 very efficiently given sunlight which is many times more intense that the highest artificial light.


This is certainly true in some situations, this also occurs in the natural environment where water bodies may <"remain in a macrophyte dominated state"> long after the level of nutrients would have usually led to a phytoplankton dominated state. 



 
Figure 3.5: Probability plot of two stable states in shallow freshwater ecosystems. Over a broad range of phosphorus concentrations in the eutrophic-hypertrophic range, either state may potentially occur. However, once established, that state promotes processes that result in it becoming stabilized, and switches between the two states are only rarely observed.​
This photo is of a <"bucket full of Hornwort with a resident frog">, it is in full sun and if it didn't have a frog in it it would have a small amount of Hornwort and a lot of green filamentous algae.  

The frog will be supplying some CO2, but I assume the effect is mainly a nutrient one.



 

cheers Darrel


----------



## zozo (14 Aug 2018)

tiger15 said:


> It didn't happen to me and others who have tanks exposed to sunlight.



Yes, i can conferm.. But also, remember 1 swallow doesn't make summer..  It can very easily go the other way, the tipping point aint realy huge.
I also have such a outdoor sun lit tank which is relatively algae free.. But still it is relatively and it needs attention and if i don't give it the hair algae in it will grow as fast as all other plants and probably winning it in the end.

Thus maintenance and human input is inevitable, leaving it to nature only as far as we can speak from nature in a small closed system. ALgae likely will always win in the end..

Bottom line there is no 100% remidy against algae growth.. Adding CO² is often presented like that, but it isn't. The proper balance is more like the remidy and in this the proper maintenance is the key. Because the balance is not something standing alone it needs to be mainatined with our input.

I have such a natural pond near my home, it is crystal clear and teaming with aqautic plants, like hornwort, lily and curled pondweed. Butt looking closely it grows an equal amount of algae too.. In such a water body the algae plays a major role in mantaining that balance. It actualy is not only a foodsource for the life stock, but also since it has a different lifecycle than macrophytes it provides a major carbon source for the plants growing with it.

In our small artificial closed system it works completely different..


----------



## tiger15 (14 Aug 2018)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all, I should have linked in the Lenntech article <"General Effects of Eutrophication">, it shows the changes in algal assemblage as nutrient levels rise.
> 
> cheers Darrel


I don't think you can rely on eutrophication studies to manage glass box environment.  While these studies are scientifically valid, they are not  applicable to glass box environment.  For example, the chart shows that at 1 ppm phosphate, phytoplankton will be 100% dominant.  It has proven wrong that high phosphate (or nitrate) can lead to algae growth in glass box, rather the lack of phosphate (or nitrate) can lead to poor plant growth and algae invasion.  Also, the concerns for outdoor environment are very different from glass box environment.  Environmentalists primary concerns are floating and blue green algae that can suffocate waterways, potentially turn anoxic, and kill fish.  They are not concerned for bba, gda or gsa attached to rock, wood and plants that aquarists care, and most creeks are too murky to support submerged plant growth anyway.  On the contrary, if they can see attached algae, it is an indication of healthy creeks.


----------



## dw1305 (14 Aug 2018)

Hi all, 





tiger15 said:


> For example, the chart shows that at 1 ppm phosphate, phytoplankton will be 100% dominant. It has proven wrong that high phosphate (or nitrate) can lead to algae growth in glass box, rather the lack of phosphate (or nitrate) can lead to poor plant growth and algae invasion.


I think my point would be that "algae" aren't single invasive entity, they are "_plants you don't want_" that have the same wide range of ecological requirements as the "_plants you do want_". 





tiger15 said:


> Environmentalists primary concerns are floating and blue green algae that can suffocate waterways, potentially turn anoxic, and kill fish.


I don't know about the USA, but in the UK, and even more so on mainland Europe, scientists are very interested in changes in the macrophyte and algal assemblages as indicators of eutrophication, long before we arrive at fish kill.





tiger15 said:


> ......and most creeks are too murky to support submerged plant growth anyway.


 I think you might be looking at grossly modified water courses and assuming that is their natural state. Have a look at <"Nitrogen, phosphorus, and eutrophication in streams">, if you can't down-load a copy I have access to it and can email it. The key findings (from the abstract) are





> ....indicates (1) stream benthic chlorophyll is significantly correlated to both total N and total P in the water column, with both nutrients explaining more variance than either considered alone; (2) nutrients have increased substantially in many rivers and streams of the United States over reference conditions





tiger15 said:


> On the contrary, if they can see attached algae, it is an indication of healthy creeks.


Yes and no, it is back to the reference above and Lenntech article, if you can identify the species in the algal assemblage, and quantify their relative abundances and total biomass, it will tell you a lot about the water quality. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Aquahorti (26 Aug 2018)

I would suggest reading the following article: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/75d0/c9e27c142d9f36b49733b0cb27bcf697ae82.pdf. You will find the answer to your question there, as well as mean nutrient levels.


----------



## tiger15 (26 Aug 2018)

Aquahorti said:


> I would suggest reading the following article: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/75d0/c9e27c142d9f36b49733b0cb27bcf697ae82.pdf. You will find the answer to your question there, as well as mean nutrient levels.


Interesting findings but I want to caution borrowing limnology studies for planted tank management can be misleading.  For instance, high phosphate is considered cause of eutrophication, but Barr and others found the lack of phosphate, rather than too much, is the cause of algae.


----------



## zozo (26 Aug 2018)

tiger15 said:


> but Barr and others found the lack of phosphate, rather than too much, is the cause of algae.



That might be the difference in Nature vs. Aquarium, both are hardly comparable. And likely near impossible to artificialy recreat nature in a tank There might be other factors in combination with high phosphate causing the actual algae explosion the field researchers might have overlooked or just not measured (searched) for.. But than if regular measurments are consistant for 80% or alike with algae and water bodies eutrophic with high levels of phosphates. Than even still if an other ingridient also is needed, than still it's partialy true that without the phosphate it would be beter off regarding exesive algae development.  Maybe not the but a root cause..


----------



## Aquahorti (27 Aug 2018)

tiger15 said:


> Interesting findings but I want to caution borrowing limnology studies for planted tank management can be misleading.  For instance, high phosphate is considered cause of eutrophication, but Barr and others found the lack of phosphate, rather than too much, is the cause of algae.


Given that Barr doesn't measure parameters in the aquariums I find it hard to use the findings for anything, as there is no parameter control. Good science is good control over the parameters.


----------



## dw1305 (27 Aug 2018)

Hi all,





Aquahorti said:


> Given that Barr doesn't measure parameters in the aquariums


I think he he measured some of them initially, at <"UC Davis">. 





Aquahorti said:


> I find it hard to use the findings for anything, as there is no parameter control. Good science is good control over the parameters.


The scientific method is the way forward, the problem comes because you have such a large number of interacting variables in the aquarium. You could cut down the replication required using a modelling approach, but it still needs a lot of time and money thrown at it.

Because of <"these difficulties"> we are really into the field of ecology, and ecologists would initially use a 5 day BOD and biotic index to attempt to quantify the trophic state of  a lake etc.  Neither test is really available to us, but we can use proxies to give us some estimation. I use the <"Duckweed Index"> and baseline conductivity measurement as proxies, neither is perfect but they give you a pretty good idea. 

Have a look at <"Nitrates in water.....">

cheers Darrel


----------



## Aquahorti (27 Aug 2018)

zozo said:


> That might be the difference in Nature vs. Aquarium, both are hardly comparable. And likely near impossible to artificialy recreat nature in a tank There might be other factors in combination with high phosphate causing the actual algae explosion the field researchers might have overlooked or just not measured (searched) for.. But than if regular measurments are consistant for 80% or alike with algae and water bodies eutrophic with high levels of phosphates. Than even still if an other ingridient also is needed, than still it's partialy true that without the phosphate it would be beter off regarding exesive algae development.  Maybe not the but a root cause..


How would plants requirements for growth be changed just by moving it from nature to an aquarium? 
When we place plants in an aquarium we are tasked with providing them the best possible conditions, but when we take plants from vastly different biotopes and try and place them in the same environment we run into problems. All you need to do is look at the many problems seen around the world with invasive species, most plants are in some sort of balance with its surroundings but when something pushes parameters away from the equilibrium we see the overall composition change. It's the same in our aquariums, and I guess that is the beauty of EI, you run unlimited nutrients and via the water changes you reset it once or twice a week. The downside is the requirement for near constant maintenance and the tweaking while getting the aquarium grown in. 
I am not home so I don't have access to my article library, but I'll give you some links to propper peer reviewed research on algae and growth of it.


----------



## dw1305 (27 Aug 2018)

Hi all,





Aquahorti said:


> You will find the answer to your question there, as well as mean nutrient levels.


Thank-you, I was looking for that paper the other day.

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305 (27 Aug 2018)

Hi all, 





Aquahorti said:


> When we place plants in an aquarium we are tasked with providing them the best possible conditions, but when we take plants from vastly different biotopes and try and place them in the same environment we run into problems.


I think this is a really valid point, you wouldn't grow <"orchids and Tomatoes"> in the same way. 

There are  some references in <"What are your nitrate......">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Aquahorti (27 Aug 2018)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,I think he he measured some of them initially, at <"UC Davis">. The scientific method is the way forward, the problem comes because you have such a large number of interacting variables in the aquarium. You could cut down the replication required using a modelling approach, but it still needs a lot of time and money thrown at it.
> 
> Because of <"these difficulties"> we are really into the field of ecology, and ecologists would initially use a 5 day BOD and biotic index to attempt to quantify the trophic state of  a lake etc.  Neither test is really available to us, but we can use proxies to give us some estimation. I use the <"Duckweed Index"> and baseline conductivity measurement as proxies, neither is perfect but they give you a pretty good idea.
> 
> ...


I have yet to see hard data from Barr, I looked for quite a while and just gave up after a couple of days of sifting through his posts. 

I will continue to stick with using peer reviewed research and base my setups on that. When I started again in the hobby I was quite baffled by the strange theories in it, many of them contradicting established research. In the end I just gave up, and now I just run with balanced nutrients levels in the aquariums, trying to emulate nature as well as possible when having plants for different biotopes. 

Thanks for the links, but again I prefer peer reviewed articles, not links to other threads that at some point ends up with hearsay.


----------



## tiger15 (27 Aug 2018)

Aquahorti said:


> I have yet to see hard data from Barr, I looked for quite a while and just gave up after a couple of days of sifting through his posts.
> 
> I will continue to stick with using peer reviewed research and base my setups on that.


I have no qualm on the validity of the majority ecological studies which were conducted by qualified scientists, peer reviewed by reputable journals, and backed up by rigorous testing  with unlimited funding .  But the validity is applicable only to outdoor environment, not necessarily transferable to glass box environment that is very different.  

Understandably, aquarium hobby lacks the resources to conduct similar caliber studies.  Barr's studies are largely empirical.  They get the results right, but lack rigorous scientific explanation nor hard data to back up.  His studies were not peer reviewed by journals, but many hobbyists try  and proved his approach work.


----------



## zozo (27 Aug 2018)

Aquahorti said:


> How would plants requirements for growth be changed just by moving it from nature to an aquarium?



Why does a tomato grown in the sun in organic soil have different and much beter taste than a tomato grown on rockwool under artificial ferts and light? Visualy we dont realy see it..
In controlled conditions we grow them bigger and at +/- 18 kilo p/m² according my farmer neighbour, but not as tasty as mother nature can do under the sun. Obviously to get 'm tath tasty the plant requires something we can not give it artificialy.. 

Now i understand for ornamental plants and looks only we might be visualy satisfied and ask what's the difference.. I guess somewhere on a molecular level there probably is something realy different and in many casses also the looks of it. As for example i grew a Rotatala indica submersed in the garden it it grew Burgundy red, this is rarely to be seen in an indoor aqaurium. Personaly i'm not equiped to grow the same rotala like that indoors.

So i was merely try to say that in nutare there is on every level a much greater (bio)diversity etc in the chain of events parameters name it, it makes big difference in the big picture, we cannot replicate in a small closed system. Than comparing both and make conclusions is not realy that factual..

In this case i replied to the statement that phosphate eutriphication cuases algae growth in natural waters and the contradictive statement from people saying it can not be true because i can not replicate this in my aqaurium with an overload of phosphates. Ok, i understand this implies that maybe phosphate isn't the root cause, but likely a very important link in the event..  Since regarding the field researchers and their reports there almost always is a relation between phosphate eutriphication and excesive algae growth in nature.


----------



## dw1305 (27 Aug 2018)

Hi all,





Aquahorti said:


> I looked for quite a while and just gave up after a couple of days of sifting through his posts.


You could try contacting him directly, he is "@plantbrain" on this forum.





Aquahorti said:


> Thanks for the links, but again I prefer peer reviewed articles, not links to other threads that at some point ends *up with hearsay*.


I agree but I think that is more than a little unfair, in areas where there are peer reviewed papers we've tried to refer to them. This is linked in <"Testing parameters for ei...."> 





> It is also difficult to find toxicity levels for just NO3, problem is that it is only really aquascapers who add it to their tanks in significant amounts. There is this paper: <*"*Comparing the effects of high vs. low nitrate on the health, performance, and welfare of juvenile rainbow trout _Oncorhynchus mykiss_ within water recirculating aquaculture systems*">,* where NaNO3 was added to the trout's water, that suggests that: ......study results provided strong evidence that relatively low NO3-N levels, 80–100 mg/L, were related to chronic health and welfare impacts to juvenile rainbow trout........


If you read through the forum you will see that there are linked papers for archaea based nitrification in aquarium filters etc. 

Have a look at <"Bacteria/biological starter...">.

The problem, for a lot of other areas, is there aren't (m)any peer reviewed science papers specifically on aquariums, so you have to make "best guess" estimations based upon research in plant physiology, aquaculture, waste water treatment and personal experience.

cheers Darrel


----------



## tiger15 (27 Aug 2018)

dw1305 said:


> The problem, for a lot of other areas, is there aren't (m)any peer reviewed science papers specifically on aquariums, so you have to make "best guess" estimations based upon research in plant physiology, aquaculture, waste water treatment and personal experience.
> 
> cheers Darrel



Journals of limnology has the most relevant topics on aquatic ecology, flora and fauna.  Walstad referenced limnology studies extensively in her Ecology book, so did Barr.  Both conducted some  personal experiments in glass boxes to support their findings. 

https://www.jlimnol.it/index.php/jlimnol


----------



## roadmaster (28 Aug 2018)

Fluctuating temps,available O2 ,CO2, PossibleTree canopy cover(plants may see only a couple hours of direct light) ,sediment's, all fluctuate wildly in nature.Most of the plants we attempt to grow,often times do not grow completely submerged in nature.
I believe these factors and causes make comparison's and or difference's between nature, and our glass boxes of water ,significantly troublesome .


----------



## zozo (28 Aug 2018)

roadmaster said:


> I believe these factors and causes make comparison's and or difference's between nature, and our glass boxes of water ,significantly troublesome .





As we so often say, no 2 tanks are the same. What works for you can be disasterous for me, why we don't know. As we could say no 2 ponds, whatever, are the same. Hence sounds a bit far fetched, but no 2 raindrops might not be the same..


----------



## dw1305 (28 Aug 2018)

Hi all, 





roadmaster said:


> Most of the plants we attempt to grow,often times do not grow completely submerged in nature.


Very true, the <"commercial production system"> (emersed growing) favours production of plants that naturally grow in area where they aren't submerged all the time. Producing true (obligate) aquatic plants doesn't fit into this system, and they are more difficult to source. 





tiger15 said:


> Journals of limnology has the most relevant topics on aquatic ecology, flora and fauna.


We have referenced the Journal of Limnology and it has a lot of <"good papers"> in it.  





tiger15 said:


> Walstad referenced limnology studies extensively in her Ecology book.........


 I'm a great Diana Walstad fan, and one of the reasons for this was that she referenced as much as possible of her work.

I also think you have to admire her (and <"Dr Tim Hovanec">) for their willingness to revise their opinion based upon <"subsequent research"> (I would recommend the <"Walstad revises"> thread to our newer members). 





roadmaster said:


> I believe these factors and causes make comparison's and or difference's between nature, and our glass boxes of water ,significantly troublesome


That would be one of the reasons that I'm most interested in research from <"Recirculating Aquaculture Systems"> (RAS) and waste water treatment, and specifically <"phytoremediation">). 

The processes that occur during phytoremediation are probably more similar to what happens in planted aquariums than the natural processes in lakes and rivers. Phytoremediation is widely used on an industrial scale, but  there are also <"mesocosm experiments"> that attempt to quantify the processes that are occurring.

Another area of research that might pay dividends is the work on culturing the model organism Zebra "fish" (_Danio rerio_), although they are cultured in <"fairly sterile conditions">, there will be empirical values for water quality indicators.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Aquahorti (28 Aug 2018)

zozo said:


> Why does a tomato grown in the sun in organic soil have different and much beter taste than a tomato grown on rockwool under artificial ferts and light? Visualy we dont realy see it..
> In controlled conditions we grow them bigger and at +/- 18 kilo p/m² according my farmer neighbour, but not as tasty as mother nature can do under the sun. Obviously to get 'm tath tasty the plant requires something we can not give it artificialy..


Here you go: https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2307/2269357 , the problem with your question is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I will no go into lights, other than say that get the artificial light to be identical to the natural sunlight, and you than have eliminated one variable (Lights are one of my pet hates in the hobby, but after a few years I have given up this approach https://xkcd.com/386/).

With regards algae, have you tried to have boxes containing water with different nutrient levels and just leave them in the sun for a couple of weeks, it's a simple experiment and the results will (as long as the temperatures in the containers are within a reasonable range) underline the current research. If you look at a lot of the research done on algae you find that much of it is actually done in labs, thus closer to our aquariums (disregarding the much better parameter control) and still getting findings that cooperate the findings in nature https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2307/1940395.

This thread is moving to far away from the OPs question, if you have further questions PM me.


----------



## Aquahorti (28 Aug 2018)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,You could try contacting him directly, he is "@plantbrain" on this forum.I agree but I think that is more than a little unfair, in areas where there are peer reviewed papers we've tried to refer to them. This is linked in <"Testing parameters for ei...."> If you read through the forum you will see that there are linked papers for archaea based nitrification in aquarium filters etc.
> 
> Have a look at <"Bacteria/biological starter...">.
> 
> ...



Hm, I still haven't had problems finding articles that covers general problems encountered in the hobby. Granted if you look for research on a specific plant that is hard to come by, but articles that can be applied to our aquariums. A good place to start is looking at Kaj Sand-Jensens papers (https://www1.bio.ku.dk/english/staff/?pure=en/persons/49846). Kajs articles are quite good, and his referencelists to other articles are really good and can keep you entertained for days.


----------



## Aquahorti (28 Aug 2018)

roadmaster said:


> Fluctuating temps,available O2 ,CO2, PossibleTree canopy cover(plants may see only a couple hours of direct light) ,sediment's, all fluctuate wildly in nature.Most of the plants we attempt to grow,often times do not grow completely submerged in nature.
> I believe these factors and causes make comparison's and or difference's between nature, and our glass boxes of water ,significantly troublesome .


Using your argument, can be used to refute the transfer of experiences from one system to another (aquariums). I agree that there is a plethora of variables, but I find it troublesome just discarding research in favor of limited sample sizes from the internet. Yes it takes a very long time to read articles, check references, and in some cases trying to reconcile conflicting research, to take something away from the research that can be used in your aquarium and not everyone wants to do that. Anyway I have always found the following lyrics very useful https://genius.com/Tom-lehrer-lobachevsky-lyrics, when dealing with problems outside my field (just remember to get the references right though)


----------



## dw1305 (28 Aug 2018)

Hi all, 





Aquahorti said:


> Kajs articles are quite good, and his reference lists to other articles are really good and can keep you entertained for days.


I've seen some of his research groups work on the <"decrease in oligotrophic plant species"> along anthropogenic nutrient gradients.  

I'll <"nail my colours to the mast"> and say that I have no doubt that enhanced phosphate and nitrate levels are the markers of eutrophication, and that I have, and will continue to, use high plant mass mainly as a method for reducing nutrient levels. I just want some active plant growth, which is why I've recommended the <"Duckweed Index">.  

I don't measure any specific nutrient levels (we have the analytical equipment available, but I don't have the time on a regular basis), I just use the growth of a floating plant and a conductivity datum as a (visual) estimation of nutrient levels.  Conductivity I measure because it is the only accurate dip meter that gives a linear response over a large range of water types, and that you don't have to calibrate with every use. 

If you start with low conductivity water and your tank water reads ~150 microS, you don't have many ions of any description. If your floating plants are green and still growing you don't need to add any nutrients, it is really straightforward to use as a method. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Oldguy (28 Aug 2018)

I like the concept of an indicator plant put forward by dw1305. I have found duckweed in an aquarium to be too troublesome, but I am now using 
Hygrophila polysperma 'Rosanervig, if its looking good then I am happy.
Natural waters often have dominant or frequent plant species which form colonies. These colonies are very indicative of water conditions, not just nutrient levels but water flow patterns over long periods of time. Plant colonies typically survive desilting activities and transient pollution events.


----------



## dw1305 (28 Aug 2018)

Hi all,





Oldguy said:


> I like the concept of an indicator plant put forward by dw1305. I have found duckweed in an aquarium to be too troublesome, but I am now using Hygrophila polysperma 'Rosanervig, if its looking good then I am happy.


Most plants will do, originally I used a floating plant to take CO2 out of the equation (aerial leaves have access to 400ppm of atmospheric CO2).

You are right about Duckweed (_Lemna minor_) it isn't suitable for every aquarium, it doesn't like low nutrients or soft water, and when its happy it grows like mad and gets every where. 

I called it the "Duckweed Index" originally because I based it on the <"_Lemna minor_ bio-assay">. I soon found that there was a better "Duckweed", and that it was Amazon Frogbit (<"_Limnobium laevigatum">_), it has the advantages of not being effected by water hardness and still maintaining some growth under a low nutrient regime. Its only disadvantage is that it takes longer to show deficiencies of non-mobile nutrients than Duckweed, which has more frequent new leaf production. 

This is some really healthy Amazon Frogbit (from <"An iwagumi called ...">)




 

Have a look at <"Duckweed Index says Nitrogen please?">, it shows what iron deficiency looks like.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Oldguy (28 Aug 2018)

Many years ago I used to have Amazon Frogbit, Loved its roots, but found shading of other plants problematic. Over thinned it and lost it. Will look up the duckweed/iron link, Thanks.


----------



## Oldguy (28 Aug 2018)

Thank you Darrel, an interesting link & discussion on Iron Chelates. I use two products: Solufeed 13 Fe EDTA  (13% Fe) and Solufeed TEMag, EDTA Fe, Mg & a shopping list of trace transition metals. My understanding is GpII elements will displace transition metal elements from EDTA. The stability of the other chelating complexes are pH dependent. EDTA is fine in acid to neutral waters but not in marine tanks with their higher pH's, hence other agents.


----------



## tiger15 (28 Aug 2018)

Although journal studies are good reference material, the findings don't always apply to planted tanks due to significant differences between glass box and natural environments,  Here are some:

(1) Light Level:  Although most aquarium plants are shade plants in nature, the levels of shade in nature is brighter than in planted tank. I used a LUX meter to measure light intensity and converted to PAR for the following illustration.   A bright shade in my outdoor under tall tree is between 100 to 200 PAR, and in direct sun between 800 to 2000 PAR.  I am in Zone 6 temperate region so light intensity in tropical and suptropical regions is expected to be higher.  So in between moving sun under forest canopy, cloud cover and thunderstorms, even a few hours direct sunlight and long bright shade in nature has more overhead light intensity than in a high light tank. That said, many Amazon black and white water are murky or tannin stained that there are no submerged plant growth due to low light penetration. 

(2) Plant Diversity:  Many creeks in nature do not have submerged plants, and if they do, there are only a handful of species, and some have one to two species dominating to the exclusion of others.  Survival of the fittest means that those plant species not best fit for the environment will not exist.  It's true that no two ponds are the same and this is why certain plant species dominate in one pond, one creek, one habitat, but not others.  Mixing many species in our glass boxes from different habitats, regions and climate is unnatural.  In fact, growing submerged plants exclusively in a glass box is rare in nature.

(3) CO2:  Most aquarium plants in nature are amphibian, living partially above and below water level, and fully submerged only during flooding season.  So they can take aerial advantage in nature as Walstad called it.  Walstad systems replicate nature closer than EI system.  Walstad acknowledged difficulty growing stem plant, and carpet plants in conjunction with other plants, and she attributed the latter to Allelopathy.  I think it's just CO2 limitation in this situation as Barr and others can grow carpet plants with other plants with CO2 injection.  Although natural waters can have elevated CO2 above atmospheric diffusion, having 30 mg/l dissolved CO2 is rare and having CO2 mist from injection is totally unnatural.  This is why high tech tank can grow many stem and carpet plants, but not Walstad.

(4) Nutrient levels:  The nutrient levels we see in glass boxes, even in Walstad tanks, are eutrophic, and in EI tanks, extremely eutrophic based on ecological standards.    Yet, both EI and Walstad tanks can achieve minimal algae if done right.  Apparently, high nutrients alone won't trigger algae, something else do, which is not revealed in ecological studies.

(5) Different concerns:   Ecologists are concerned for noxious algae that fouled up natural waters which include, in particular, floating, matting, and blue green algae.  Aquarists don't want any algae and particularly BBA, GDA and GSA that grow on plants, glass, driftwood and rock.  Ecologists are not concerned for the latter, but see them as indicators of healthy stream.  Aquarists want is to grow healthy plants of all species without algae.  Ecologists want to get rid of exotic species, and care less about growing them healthy without algae.


----------



## dw1305 (28 Aug 2018)

Hi all, 





Oldguy said:


> I use two products: Solufeed 13 Fe EDTA (13% Fe) and Solufeed TEMag, EDTA Fe, Mg & a shopping list of trace transition metals.


That should cover any micro-nutrient deficiencies.





Oldguy said:


> My understanding is GpII elements will displace transition metal elements from EDTA


I'm not sure, I think  ferric iron  (Fe+++) is the most strongly bound ion. I got that from the <"University of Bristol MOM page on EDTA">, it says





> The unusual property of EDTA is its ability to chelate or complex metal ions in 1:1 metal-to-EDTA complexes.   The fully deprotonated form (all acidic hydrogens removed) of EDTA binds to the metal ion.  The equilibrium or formation constants for most metals, especially the transition metals, are very large, hence the reactions are shifted to the complex.  Many of the reactions are pH dependent, especially the weaker forming complexes with Ca+2 or Mg+2......The structure of a classical complex of Fe+3 with EDTA is shown below.  This is EDTA acting as a hexadentate ligand or all six sites on the ETDA bind to the metal ion.





Oldguy said:


> EDTA is fine in acid to neutral waters but not in marine tanks with their higher pH's, hence other agents.


That is definitely right, as the pH rises EDTA is less effective. I use rain-water in the tanks and FeEDTA, but in harder water you would need another chelator. <"Solufeed"> are a company that specialise in soluble fertilisers for the commercial market, so they are always a good source for nutrients if you don't mind buying industrial amounts. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Oldguy (29 Mar 2019)

dw1305 said:


> may <"remain in a macrophyte dominated state"> long



Interesting read. While pike are tolerant of nutrient rich waters, as ambush predators they require good stands of macrophytes to hide in. Once water has become too turbid to support such growth, the numbers of pike will fall and trash fish numbers will grow to the point that the population of small crustacea will be reduced and the shift to phytoplankton will be dominant. The absence of pike often result in high populations of stunted fish, especially roach and perch, the latter have to be large before they become effective fish predators. European waters benefit from zander which are pursuit predators and can help slow or perhaps help reverse the shift to phytoplankton domination. They are also far better eating than pike!


----------



## richard brown (29 Mar 2019)

tiger15 said:


> Dennis Wong has compiled co2 in natural waters.  The sample size is small which shows that 10 mg/l is most common, <5 and >30 are less common.
> 
> https://www.advancedplantedtank.com/choosing-co2-why.html



I have never come across that site once while searching and researching so thank you very much, my afternoon just got better


----------



## dw1305 (29 Mar 2019)

Hi all, 





Oldguy said:


> Once water has become too turbid to support such growth, the numbers of pike will fall and trash fish numbers will grow to the point that the population of small crustacea will be reduced and the shift to phytoplankton will be dominant.


It would definitely help if lakes and rivers had more structure (meanders and sunken trees etc) to provide cover for larger fish, and healthy populations of fish eating birds, otters etc. <"Re-introducing the Beaver"> (_Castor fiber_) would be a start, but none of these things are very popular with angling clubs or land-owners. 

I think it is unlikely that many of the <"eutrophic water bodies will ever revert"> to a macrophyte dominated state, mainly because of the phosphate loading.

The estimate is that the phosphate reserve would take <"1000 years to decline to background"> (pre-industrial) levels, and that we are still adding about <"5kg per hectare per annum in the UK">.



 
Our best hope is that <"global phosphate shortages"> make phosphate stripping economically viable. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Oldguy (29 Mar 2019)

dw1305 said:


> but none of these things are very popular with angling clubs or land-owners.


Very much depends on the land-owner or fishing rights owner. Some of the best rivers reaches that I have surveyed had been carefully managed by riparian owners to enhance fluvial diversity and aquatic plant communities and hence fishing. English water courses are very strange beasts and can vary from one 500m reach to the next 500m reach, almost beyond recognition.

I take on board that over straightening and flood embankment work, both late 1930's and late 1940-50's were heavy handed but there was a nation to feed. With more modern setback flood embankments, typically four to five summer flow channel widths wide there is space for meanders/and or side berms to be reintroduced. These would be drowned during high winter flows and would have little effect on flood management. Wide headlands between tilled land and a water course are of value, there are land owners and land owners. Can but dream. 



dw1305 said:


> otters


Our Forest of Dean otters had to be removed, they were infected before introduction. I would have thought more care would have been taken. Naturally occurring debris dams have been recorded by the E. A. ever since their introduction of RHS's in 2003.




dw1305 said:


> phosphate reserve


Are these phosphate levels biologically available or do they include total phosphates. cf BOD's and COD's in the conundrum of a drop of heavy lubricating oil in a bucket of water and dissolved oxygen in said bucket of water.


----------



## dw1305 (29 Mar 2019)

Hi all, 





Oldguy said:


> Our Forest of Dean otters had to be removed,


Beavers?





Oldguy said:


> Wide headlands between tilled land and a water course are of value, there are land owners and land owners. Can but dream.





Oldguy said:


> Are these phosphate levels biologically available or do they include total phosphates.


That would be the total phosphate, it is largely getting into water courses bound to soil particles. In my experience thi is particularly from Maize and Potato fields, because these tend to be in river valleys and have a long period where they don't have any vegetation cover. 

I think the current research indicates that, in the long run, most of the phosphate will eventually become available.  BOD is a much more sensitive tool than COD for less polluted waters, but you really need a biotic index as well.  

cheers Darrel


----------



## Oldguy (29 Mar 2019)

dw1305 said:


> Beavers


Yes beavers, thinking of dams. Sorry for being brain dead. Run up to Bank Holiday Monday is sapping my will to live. Holiday for some but not for me.


----------



## HiNtZ (1 Apr 2019)

Oh bugger! I didn't even remember about this thread till today..... looks like you guys have bee having good discussion.

For the record, my family did leave..... in the end. 

Will catch up with this later.


----------

