# baffled and in need of help



## plantnoob (28 May 2013)

got 2 problem areas in my tank . the hairgrass in the front , whilst growing well is collecting hair algae , and the hygro corymbosa stricta rear left has started to disintigrate/melt away in the last couple of days. im leaning towards co2/flow being the problem but im seeing fantastic growth in other plants in the same areas as the affected ones . for example the _Hydrocotyle leucocephala directly in front of the stricta is throwing out lots of healthy new growth regularly . the L aquatica and rotala right beside the hairgrass are doing very well too (rotala cant be seen in the pic , its between ludwigia and aquatica and a week ago was 3 inches tall , its now almost 12 ! ). the ludwigia around the wood , i trimmed the tops off 2 days ago , and it has sent out loads of new side shoots , which again are lush and healthy . could it be that ive got 2 random dead spots that arent getting co2/ferts ? _

_ei dosing , 2x24w t5 on for 6.5 hours , combined turnover of circa 200 lph , 125L tank . pic is for showing general layout to show where the plants im refering to are . _

__
_iphone b by mark pettican, on Flickr_


----------



## Henry (28 May 2013)

I think the Eleocharis would benefit from being spread out into smaller clumps. This tends to encourage more side-shoots, since the roots aren't crowded.

How long has the Hygrophila been in the tank? Is it possible that it is emersed growth that is just starting to react to being submersed? The stems tend to feel quite firm on emersed growth.


----------



## plantnoob (28 May 2013)

hygrophila has been in almost 2 weeks . no new growth at all , just melting away . got 2 more pots of hairgrass coming , so when that arrives and i plant it i will thin the rest out into smaller bits


----------



## plantnoob (29 May 2013)

got some new 4dkh bromo blue for the drop checkers , as mine had gone off .  co2 levels are good , so im thinking it must surely be a distribution/flow issue . here is the hygrophilia in question . ( new liquid in drop checker , hadnt been in long which is why its still dark green )


melting by mark pettican, on Flickr


----------



## plantnoob (29 May 2013)

drop checkers with new liquid been in for around 3 hours now . as the colour shows , the amount of co2 isnt the problem .


co2level2 by mark pettican, on Flickr


co2level by mark pettican, on Flickr


----------



## ceg4048 (29 May 2013)

plantnoob said:


> drop checkers with new liquid been in for around 3 hours now . as the colour shows , the amount of co2 isnt the problem .


You are fooling yourself.
Hair algae is caused by poor CO2.
Melting is caused by poor CO2.

Hair algae does not care what your dropchecker says, and neither do your plants.

Cheers,


----------



## plantnoob (29 May 2013)

i was thinking it was the distribution ? could really use some good advice as to rectifying the situation please , as i seem to be just peeing in the wind here


----------



## tomh (29 May 2013)

I have stumbled across this thread as I was about to post a photo as I have exactly the same issue with green algae forming on my grass just like yours, if I clean it it appears in about 2 days but it is only on the grasses. I am pretty new to this myself but I have been told several times that it is due to my tank not being planted heavily enough and that more plants will use up the nutrients before the algae can, therefore over powering the algae. I have maybe 300% the plants that you have so there maybe something in that as you dont appear to have that much.

As for the melting of the leaves I found the chart, but since this is my first post I cannot insert a link yet....... I googled 'nitrogen deficiency in planted tank' and went to the first link. This shows an image of a plant with all sorts of deficiencies and suggests a deficiency in phosphates in your case from what I can see, possibly because of the lack of fish... again I am learning myself as I go along so I am sure there are a lot more experts on this than me.  


Also, to me your drop checkers are suggesting that you are injecting too much co2 as they should be green rather than yellow... however, ceg4048 appears to  know his stuff from the forums so again I may be wrong.

I would be interested to know how to solve the green algae though..... I had a lot of black hair algae but 5 Amano shrimps in my 200lt tank cleared it up in 48hours but they wont go near the green algea or indeed the grass maybe because they are out in the open and exposed.


----------



## plantnoob (29 May 2013)

its black hair algae im suffering from on the grass .  doubt very much its a nutrient defficiency , as im dosing ei , so plenty of nutrients in the tank at all times .  no such thing as too much co2 as far as plants are concerned  its fauna that will suffer there . im almost certain that its a flow/distribution problem . i have got an idea to try and solve it but could use some advice on the idea before i go out and spend more money  . 

thinking 1200lph powerhead connected via hose to a co2 reactor , then back out into the tank via a fluu length spraybar along the rear wall .  gotta be honest its all getting a bit frustrating now !


----------



## Henry (29 May 2013)

I'm pretty convinced it's emersed growth that is melting. Lack of CO2 tends to present itself as pinholes, ESPECIALLY in Hygrophila species. It also looks like there is healthy new growth at the top of the stems. Algae in your hairgrass is certainly a flow issue though. If not lack of CO2, then it is debris building up in it. Do you have anything that can pick at it to keep it clean?


----------



## tomh (29 May 2013)

i took my grass out and rubbed it off and then replanted it, but its back again, i have upped my co2 this evening. Personally i have a 1000lph pump and a 1600lph powerhead so have a fast flow and the algae only collects on the grass which is in the fastest flowing area. I did only put the powerhead in at the weekend though so may still disappear.


----------



## plantnoob (29 May 2013)

ive got 10 cherry shrimp in the tank , although they dont go near it . i did consider some amano shrimp , but id rather eliminate the issues in the tank than mask them with clean up crew . what do you think to the proposed reactor setup mentioned?

tomh , i also have well over 10x turnover in the tank , but i dont think the flow is efficient / even enough


----------



## tomh (29 May 2013)

i have high phosphates in my tap water so was struggling with algae, the amano accompanied by some flying foxes do a great job at keeping everything tidy, well apart from the grass but its green algae that I have in that situation.


----------



## plantnoob (29 May 2013)

i am planning some amano shrimp to go with the cherries , but as a pretty addition rather than a sollution to algae control


----------



## ceg4048 (30 May 2013)

There are as many ways to have poor CO2 as there are the number hobbyists. What you need to do is to go down the list of possible indirect causes until you arrive at the solution that works for you. I totally agree that shrimp should be used as ornaments and not as a solution to the algal bloom, because shrimp cannot possibly solve the problem of poor CO2, and neither can they solve the indirect causes such as poor flow/distribution.

It's a short list. The better solutions arise in in the following order:
1. Is there too much light? Reduce the lighting intensity immediately when you have an algal bloom. Too much light is the preeminent causal factor that drives the demand for CO2 and nutrients. Either remove/disable a bulb or find some way of obscuring the light either via floating plants or an external obfuscation.

2. Examine flow and distribution. Do you have approximately 10X flow rating? If not, consider upgrading either the filter or the supplemental pump(s). If the flow rating is sufficient then consider the distribution method. You may need to rearrange the location of the outlets and pumps. Observe the plant leaves to ensure that they are gently rocking in the "breeze". Ensure that all outlets are pointing in the same direction and that there is even energy across the width of the tank.

3. Examine gas diffusion technique. An injection rate increase is called for. This has to be accomplished carefully if there are fish in the tank. If there are no fish in the tank then the increase can be done immediately and it can be as high as necessary to satisfy the plants demand for CO2. How is the diffusion being accomplished? If by in-line device. make sure that the tubing of the inlet and outlet spuds are not restricting flow, i.e. the internal diameter of the spuds should be no smaller than the ID of the filter outlet spud. If the diffusion method is in-tank then experiment with relocation of the the diffuser, such as below the spraybar or possibly even being fed directly into the inlet of the supplemental pump.

4. Supplement the injection with any of the liquid carbon products, at least in the short term.



tomh said:


> i have high phosphates in my tap water so was struggling with algae, the amano accompanied by some flying foxes do a great job at keeping everything tidy, well apart from the grass but its green algae that I have in that situation.


High phosphates have absolutely nothing to do with algae. In fact, it is much more likely that if you think that, then you don't have enough phosphate and you should immediately implement a dosing program that includes PO4.



tomh said:


> Also, to me your drop checkers are suggesting that you are injecting too much co2 as they should be green rather than yellow... however, ceg4048 appears to know his stuff from the forums so again I may be wrong.


Yes, regrettably, you are wrong. Algae never results when the CO2 is too high. The only reason the expression "too much CO2" is even relevant is because too much CO2 is toxic to fish, never to plants.



tomh said:


> ...that more plants will use up the nutrients before the algae can, therefore over powering the algae...


This can never happen and we suggest that you abandon this line of thought because it always leads to disaster. Plants can never compete with algae for nutrients. Algae are predatory and they wait for the plants health to fail, then they attack. They can easily feed on the nutrients being released by the plant leaves as the leaves disintegrate.


Cheers,


----------



## tomh (30 May 2013)

thanks for this information, i agree my statement about too much co2 was wrong in this case, i was thinking about the fish. from you comments it appears that a lot of the information on the internet is misleading, ie. regarding phosphates and algae growth against plant growth.

just one last thing regarding the 'melting' of plantnoobs plants and it being a co2 circulation problem, it looks like a new tank and its not heavily planted so surely they grow without any co2 injection?


----------



## ceg4048 (30 May 2013)

Hi,
   There is only a distant relationship between heavily planted tank startup and the use of CO2. The relationship is limited to the effect on flow/distribution.

Having a high plant mass at tank startup helps to suppress algal blooms mainly because of the symbiotic relationship between plants and bacteria. The more plants in the tank, the more quickly the bacterial populations in the sediment and filter rise. Plants eject organic waste into the environment. The waste products include not only proteins and amino acids, but also carbohydrates, such as sugars. When the tank is mature, these waste products become problematic because their high volume and high rate of production by the plants, however the problem is exactly the opposite with a new tank. At startup, there are not enough carbohydrates, not enough microorganism population and diversity. This results in unstable production rates of various chemicals, such as ammonia, in the water column which contributes to triggering algal blooms.

High plant biomass support and accelerate the microorganism population growth and diversity by ejection of the sugars, as well as ejection of Oxygen by the roots into the sediment. High healthy plant mass also uptake ammonia from the water and sediment and so remove a potential trigger for algal blooms.

In the OP's case, as in many cases, tanks are started with healthy plants grown terrestrially at a nursery where the plants are able to accrue and store energy reserves in the form of sugars and other starches. When placed in the tank they can grow for weeks using these food reserves but at some point they need to produce sugar using water and CO2 to replenish the reserves. High light causes fast growth, but that also means that the sugars are used up faster to fuel the fast growth. If either water or CO2 is not in abundance the sugar production stalls and the plants starve to death. That is exactly what is happening in this tank. The solution is to reduce the growth rate demand by lowering the light and to increase the production of sugar by improving the availability of CO2.

Cheers,


----------



## plantnoob (30 May 2013)

thganks ceg .

going through that list 1 by 1  ,

light , 2x24w t5s  on a 125L tank . comes out a 0.384 watts per liter .  now i thought this was sensibly low ( maybe i was wrong) . feel free to correct me , but if light was the cause i would have expected the larger leaved/ slower growing plants to be affected by algae . these are not . in fact they are doing nicely . leading me more towards number 2 as the culprit.

flow / distribution  , combined turnover is a touch over 10x but it cant be even . standard eheim spraybar left end of rear wall , 1400lph circulation pump centre of rear wall , going at full chat .  today im going to order the bits for the planned new injection/distribution setup mention earlier in this thread . to try and acheive a steady , even , circular flow along the entire length of the tank.

diffusion technique . not ideal at the moment tbh . i did have an up atomiser on the filter outlet , but didnt like 2 things . 1stly the "7up" effect , and 2ndly try as i may i seemed to be losing too much gas to the surface , so i put it on the inlet a few days ago  , which as we know isnt ideal , hence i am switching to a reactor .  ( had the hair algae issue before i did this by the way )

injection rate is 3bps , have checked all connections for leaks/restrictions and all is good there . fish are showing no signs of discomfort , so i could probably creep that up a bit  , but i wonder if once i get the reactor and full length spraybar set up if i will need to or not , so distribution is 1st on my list at the moment .

would you agree from what im reporting , that my problem is a combination of injection/diffusion method and uneven flow/distribution?


----------



## ceg4048 (30 May 2013)

Well it's very difficult to pinpoint exactly what the trouble is because they are all related. On the one hand, the light level you report is in fact sensible - unless everything else is wrong - then it becomes non sensible for the moment. As I mentioned, if you want to have an immediate impact on arresting the growth of the algae and melting, then the wisest course of action is to at least temporarily reduce the light intensity until the other problems are fixed.

Distribution may be and issue, and as I mentioned, looking at he movement of the leaves and using small bits of paper or other debris to chart the movement can sometimes help to visualize the flow.

As far as the diffusion, it may be that placing the diffuser at the filter inlet solves the problem, or it might have been better to reinstall the Up. A 7up effect is certainly the lesser of evils. The gas that you can see is not necessarily the gas that does the work. Gas that's dissolved can't be seen and that is the important contribution. The mist that arises from the atomizer may even do a better job if it makes contact with the leaves. I think it was a mistake to give up on the atomizer so quickly.

You really need to take many pH measurements, before, during and after the photoperiod to get a better understanding of just how effective your injection methods are. It may be that the timing of the gas is poor. getting a reading every half hour or every hour at least would illuminate how the CO2 is behaving. The solution might be a simple readjustment of gas on/off timing. Generally, for water of medium to high alkalinity, dropping the pH by about one unit within an hour of lights on does the trick. The problem could easily be there and not necessarily in flow/distribution.

Cheers,


----------



## plantnoob (30 May 2013)

the co2 comes on 2 hours before lights on and gos off 1 hour before lights out . il get a test kit and take some ph readings over the day next time im going to be at home all day . as for plant movement , its best described as "patchy" ie some moving nicely , others less so .

as for the lights , both tubes are on the same switch , but i guess i could remove the reflectors if that would make much difference


----------



## ceg4048 (30 May 2013)

Hi,
Yes, removal of the reflectors will make some difference. All things begin with the light intensity. Whenever there is a plant health problem decrease in lighting intensity is the most effective step, even if it's just by 10%-20%.

Cheers,


----------



## plantnoob (30 May 2013)

right , reflecters removed , powerhead , reactor , clear acrylic tube , flexible hosing and elbows ordered . hopefully the combination of all these will help things along


----------



## zanguli-ya-zamba (31 May 2013)

ceg4048 said:


> In the OP's case, as in many cases, tanks are started with healthy plants grown terrestrially at a nursery where the plants are able to accrue and store energy reserves in the form of sugars and other starches. When placed in the tank they can grow for weeks using these food reserves but at some point they need to produce sugar using water and CO2 to replenish the reserves. High light causes fast growth, but that also means that the sugars are used up faster to fuel the fast growth. If either water or CO2 is not in abundance the sugar production stalls and the plants starve to death. That is exactly what is happening in this tank. The solution is to reduce the growth rate demand by lowering the light and to increase the production of sugar by improving the availability of CO2.
> 
> Cheers,



Hi sorry to hijack your thread mate, but I have been reading it and a question came to my mind about what Clive is saying there. 
I totally agree what you are saying there about adaptation from emerge to submerge form, and that a the start plants (emerge) are relying on theirs stock when they are flooded. So as you said if you put these plants in a high light tank at the start the will need a high rate of sugar production, supported by CO2 and water and that if CO2 is not enough, sugar production will not be optimum for that level of light. Ok I understand that and it is  totally logical. 
So the question is the following. 
Say you have a tank running for 5 month and light is "strong" like 80 micro mole and you decide to introduce new plants, like me having a pond with a lot emerge plants and say I want to creat a carpet of glosso or HC. That means for better result for the new plants, it will be better to reduce the light intensity for at least 3 weeks for better adaptation ? 
I know that that is not the only thing that will improve adaptation and result there is also flow CO2 and planting in very small batches. 
But reducing light intensity when introducing emerge plants to a mature tank is an important key for success ?? 
If I am asking that its because I have never seen this advice in the forum and I think it s a really important point to know 

Thanks for your time and sorry for the hijack 

Cheers


----------



## zanguli-ya-zamba (31 May 2013)

Hope that I made my self understandable ?? Haha


----------



## ceg4048 (31 May 2013)

zanguli-ya-zamba said:


> But reducing light intensity when introducing emerge plants to a mature tank is an important key for success ??


Hi Zanguli,
   Yes absolutely, this is one of the most important keys and it explains why so many hobbyists have problems at tank startup. They don't realize that the differences between the physical properties of emmersed leaves and submerged leaves mean that newly flooded plants have an extra obstacle to overcome ad are less efficient at gathering nutrients and especially gathering CO2. Emmersed leaves are therefore more prone to CO2 starvation. So it follows that since those leaves will uptake less CO2, compared to a submersed leaf at that same location, the lighting should be reduced to compensate for the loss of CO2 uptake efficiency.

More info on the physiological differences between emmersed and submersed leaves:
Diatom dilemma... | UK Aquatic Plant Society
Cause of death? | UK Aquatic Plant Society

Cheers,


----------



## AshRolls (31 May 2013)

As a follow on question to your intensity points ceg4048.... In the absence of being able to reduce lighting intensity directly at the lights themselves (T5 bulbs in fixed height hood etc) is the use of floating plants a workable substitute?


----------



## zanguli-ya-zamba (31 May 2013)

Hi yes exactly you can use floating plants for that reason !!

cheers


----------



## ceg4048 (31 May 2013)

Also, don't rule out other methods such as placing objects to block the light, such as darkened acrylic or even cheese cloth. These can be just temporary until the plants are strong enough to deal with higher lighting intensities.

Cheers,


----------



## plantnoob (31 May 2013)

bits ive ordered should arrive early next week .  ive got a 1200lph powerhead (adjustable flow) , a tmc aquagro 1500 co2 reactor , 5 metres of  12/16mm clear hose , 1 metre of 12mm clear acrylic tube ( spraybar)  and 2 12mm elbow connectors .  in the meantime , reaflectors are removed , as previously mentioned , the disintigrating hygrophila has been removed and a large waterchange carried out . the melted hygrophila will be replaced with something else once i get flow/co2 sorted and a healthy balance restored in the tank .


----------

