# 10 planted tank myths



## madlan (26 Jul 2011)

Excellent article George   

http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/c ... p?sid=4176


----------



## George Farmer (27 Jul 2011)

Thanks very much. Glad you like it!

That article was published a good while ago in the magazine. Good to see it online now and it will hopefully clear up a few issues that have recently been discussed on UKAPS about a recent article on fighting algae...


----------



## Brenmuk (27 Jul 2011)

Excellent - I can see this being one of those articles that will be referenced over and over.


----------



## ghostsword (29 Jul 2011)

Brenmuk said:
			
		

> Excellent - I can see this being one of those articles that will be referenced over and over.



It is an excellent article, a very good reference for a lot of people.


----------



## glueyporchtreatment (2 Aug 2011)

I agree with Mr. Farmer on all but 2 points. The article itself contains the important caveats:

_5. Aquarium plants require loads of light
Hobbyists seem to be growing what used to be regarded as difficult species in tanks with very relatively low light. Providing the plants are sufficiently fed via good nutrients and circulation then most species can be successfully grown with two T8 fluorescents with reflectors or an equivalent._

I honestly haven't seen any tanks with 'difficult' species that only have 2 T8 bulbs.

and then in item #7: *Many of today’s aquascapers like to grow relatively demanding plants so they will require higher levels of lighting, and therefore have a higher carbon and other nutrient requirement...........*

one paragraph later: *To do this they need high-energy systems and the associated equipment. While it’s possible to have a successful and long-term planted aquarium without resorting to ‘modern’ growing methods, it does make it easier and is essential for some species.*


And of course the much more controversial issue:

_10. Nitrates and phosphates cause algae in the planted tank.

 However, since the early 1990s, many hobbyists have been adding nitrates and phosphates via dry chemicals to their planted tanks and some companies are producing liquid fertilisers containing nitrates and phosphates._

And this proves what exactly?? 

Some people chain smoke their entire lives and don't get cancer. Does that refute the scientific evidence that says otherwise??

And if nitrates and phosphates were unproblematic, why would the same article contain the following comments???:

*. Add a comprehensive liquid fertiliser daily — one also providing nitrogen and phosphorous if you have low fish stock — and an additional source of carbon, either from liquid carbon or CO2 gas.*

*However, adding these nutrients is not always appropriate in every case. If not heavily planted and a high fish load, sufficient nitrates and phosphates for the tank’s well-being may already be present in your water.*


I'm not trying to be a pest, and as I mentioned, I agree on all the other points, but I think a little clarification is needed to clear up these contradictory points.


----------



## George Farmer (2 Aug 2011)

Thanks for the feedback, all.

I will reply fully when I return from holiday.


----------



## nry (2 Aug 2011)

I use two T8's and happily grow all sorts of things, HC included


----------



## dory (2 Aug 2011)

Good article, my dear sir. Happy to see this online and happy that someone has challenged the existing myths when it comes to tanks. I had only *2 bulbs* back when I had a planted tank in my 
flat in Paris, but admittedly didn't really grow too many plants in there (had troubles with dedication and maintenance of the hobby, especially when I began moving countries). 

glueyporchtreatment, I believe he means that while they normally don't cause algae, this comes to being used adequately, and thus the advice if your tank is heavily planted or has a high fish load. I don't believe you can really compare that to who gets cancer and who doesn't, although I do agree it is not a scientifically proven theory (yet I don't think George was trying to pass himself off as a scientist). But when it comes to challenging very popular myths based on little proof, wherever there is more proof would surely be the *winner *for me.


----------



## madlan (2 Aug 2011)

Something similar would be great for the articles section here - Most of the information in I slowly gathered from various threads, a basic thorough list like that would have been great!


----------



## Johno2090 (2 Aug 2011)

Great Article, I agree with you on all points and I don't see anything "contradictory" Its a pity that CEG is hiding away from this until George gets back I always enjoy his posts!

Nice one GeorgeF


----------



## glueyporchtreatment (2 Aug 2011)

dory said:
			
		

> glueyporchtreatment, I believe he means that while they normally don't cause algae, this comes to being used adequately, and thus the advice if your tank is heavily planted or has a high fish load. I don't believe you can really compare that to who gets cancer and who doesn't, although I do agree it is not a scientifically proven theory (yet I don't think George was trying to pass himself off as a scientist). But when it comes to challenging very popular myths based on little proof, wherever there is more proof would surely be the winner for me.



Yes, well put. George's article is clearly aimed at the general population of hobbyists, not planted tank specialists, so I'm not asking for hard data  since it would be far beyond the scope of the article. At the same time, a journalist shouldn't be making claims contradicting current scientific theory (this is in regards to N, P and algae) in a non-technical article. Now, I think George did a good job of giving some lip service to the caveats, like stating that supplemental N and P may be unnecessary in a tank with fish, but going so far as to say that nitrogen and phosphate don't cause algae is statement that should not be made by a journalist of Mr. Farmer's caliber, particularly in an article written for inexperienced hobbyists.


----------



## ceg4048 (2 Aug 2011)

glueyporchtreatment said:
			
		

> I agree with Mr. Farmer on all but 2 points. The article itself contains the important caveats:
> 
> _5. Aquarium plants require loads of light
> Hobbyists seem to be growing what used to be regarded as difficult species in tanks with very relatively low light. Providing the plants are sufficiently fed via good nutrients and circulation then most species can be successfully grown with two T8 fluorescents with reflectors or an equivalent._
> ...


Which of course does not mean that it hasn't been done. Difficult plants typically are slow growing species and the reason for using higher light intensities have to do with accelerating the growth rates. There are no species which require high intensities, but we are impatient and we want the tank to "fill in" quickly. This is entirely consistent with the entries: 


> item #7: *Many of today’s aquascapers like to grow relatively demanding plants so they will require higher levels of lighting, and therefore have a higher carbon and other nutrient requirement...........*
> 
> one paragraph later: *To do this they need high-energy systems and the associated equipment. While it’s possible to have a successful and long-term planted aquarium without resorting to ‘modern’ growing methods, it does make it easier and is essential for some species.*


High light is essential if you intend to enter an aquascaping contest 4 months from now and if you need to get the tank filled in and presentable. Adding high light then requires high everything else.



			
				glueyporchtreatment said:
			
		

> And of course the much more controversial issue:
> 
> _10. Nitrates and phosphates cause algae in the planted tank.
> 
> ...


It proves exactly that commercial fertilizer companies realize their msitakes of not using NPK in their products, rendering these products useless.



			
				glueyporchtreatment said:
			
		

> Some people chain smoke their entire lives and don't get cancer. Does that refute the scientific evidence that says otherwise??


If someone smokes and does not get cancer it's because the person has a genetic permutation that resists the biological processes that results in cancer. It might be of great value to study these people who resist the effects that other have.

Likewise, if someone adds NPK to a tank, and if the tank resists algae then it would be of great value to study those tanks in order to determine why the tank resists algae. George Farmer adds copious amounts of NPK to his tanks and his tanks do not get algae. I add copious amounts of NPK to my tanks and my tanks do not get algae. Other people avoid NPK like the plague and yet their tanks continually suffer algae. What this means is that we do not yet full understand what causes algae and that we should try to understand why adding NPK to a tank results in no algal blooms. 



			
				glueyporchtreatment said:
			
		

> And if nitrates and phosphates were unproblematic, why would the same article contain the following comments???:
> 
> *. Add a comprehensive liquid fertiliser daily — one also providing nitrogen and phosphorous if you have low fish stock — and an additional source of carbon, either from liquid carbon or CO2 gas.*
> 
> ...


The answer is very simple: If sufficient NPK is already in the tank adding more becomes expensive and unnecessary. Adding more NPK causes more growth than the hobbyist might have intended, which then requires more pruning and maintenance than intended. If maintenance is ignored and growth rates not held in check the tank becomes a victim of it's own success and this leads to other problems which can then lead to algal blooms.

In fact these points are not contradictory at all. It is the reader who lacks the knowledge of plant husbandry to make sense of it all. The article is excellent and all of us here live by these tenets. As a result, we have a higher degree of success than most. What the reader needs to do is to implement these concepts and to learn plant husbandry as a whole, not as isolated points. It is often not possible to determine what causes a phenomenon, therefore it is necessary to take a different tack. That means, by process of elimination we can often determine what does not cause the phenomenon.

Following this logic, if I add high quantities of nutrients to a tank and the tank completely avoids algal blooms then there is scientific evidence that refutes what others have postulated. I therefore have proof that nutrients alone cannot be the cause of algae. On the contrary, it is very easy for me to demonstrate that LACK of nutrients can be correlated to an algal bloom.

Through our efforts, we have demonstrated a very high correlation between poor nutrition, poor CO2 and high lighting with algal blooms. It is suggested that you study the threads on this website for further details.

Cheers,


----------



## ghostsword (2 Aug 2011)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> In fact these points are not contradictory at all. It is the reader who lacks the knowledge of plant husbandry to make sense of it all. The article is excellent and all of us here live by these tenets. As a result, we have a higher degree of success than most. What the reader needs to do is to implement these concepts and to learn plant husbandry as a whole, not as isolated points.



Well said. 

The article is perfect for the audience that will read it, and presents it in a very informative way. Possibly one of the best articles about keeping planted tanks on the magazine, and should be published every now and then.  

A great article, well balanced.


----------



## glueyporchtreatment (2 Aug 2011)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Following this logic, if I add high quantities of nutrients to a tank and the tank completely avoids algal blooms then there is scientific evidence that refutes what others have postulated. I therefore have proof that nutrients alone cannot be the cause of algae. On the contrary, it is very easy for me to demonstrate that LACK of nutrients can be correlated to an algal bloom.
> 
> Cheers,



I wouldn't be using terms like 'scientific evidence' unless a scientist has actually published your findings in a peer reviewed journal. It's very important to distinguish between real science and the pseudo-science that is promulgated on internet forums and blogs. 


@George: I hope you aren't viewing my comments as an attack on your journalistic integrity nor that of Practical Fishkeeping as a whole. Overall, I've found your articles in PFK to be excellent, and I wish we had more writers of your caliber publishing in the US based aquarium magazines. But I must admit that as soon as I read your comments on myth #10 I thought I was reading something written by 'Lord'  Monckton......


----------



## viktorlantos (2 Aug 2011)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Which of course does not mean that it hasn't been done. Difficult plants typically are slow growing species and the reason for using higher light intensities have to do with accelerating the growth rates. There are no species which require high intensities, but we are impatient and we want the tank to "fill in" quickly.



Actually i do not agree with this. There are many plants which will not survive in mid light tanks. And most of the factory sets come with even lower lighting. So telling them they can grow anything is not a good idea.

In the past 6 months we've seen nearly all of the Tropica range in our plant holder tanks. Using 2 T5 tubes shows as pretty well which plants grows well with it and which plants not survive even the first 4-8 weeks. We're using there CO2 reactors, EI ferts, good reflectors etc, so all other factors are ok.

There are many demanding plants and they need more light. Throwing them to your tank and have something to put them in shade will make it even worst. Of course tank height any many other factors are there, but for a regular user with an average lighting i would not recommend many plants.

Even vallis nana struggle with low light. They grow small and die off after a while. But other plants like Ludwigia Arcuata, Didiplis Diandra, Rotala Wallichii and many others will not survive with low light. And this is not about contest and rush.


----------



## ceg4048 (2 Aug 2011)

glueyporchtreatment said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be using terms like 'scientific evidence' unless a scientist has actually published your findings in a peer reviewed journal. It's very important to distinguish between real science and the pseudo-science that is promulgated on internet forums and blogs.


Yes I absolutely agree with this, however, the fact still remains that there is a demonstrated correlation between high NPK and low algal mass, especially under high lighting. Whether this is can be considered legitimate science or pseudo-science, no scientist who believes that NPK are associated with algal blooms have yet been able to offer a scientific reason why Georges tanks do not have algae even though his tanks are loaded with NPK.

Scientific instruments are not available to us on a regular basis so we are forced to use less sophisticated implements, which may certainly have less precision, however, the results are undeniable.Phosphates and Nitrates do not cause algae in aquariums. This has been shown to be true whether the tank is in the USA or in Uruguay.

I'm not really sure about the Lord Monckton reference as we're not debating global warming, but what we are saying may sound revolutionary based on what hobbyists at large have been duped into thinking. We believe that it is precisely because of this belief, supposedly with the backing of scientists, that so many tank around the world are plagued by algal blooms.



			
				viktorlantos said:
			
		

> Actually i do not agree with this. There are many plants which will not survive in mid light tanks. And most of the factory sets come with even lower lighting. So telling them they can grow anything is not a good idea.


Hi Viktor,
   I appreciate what you're saying mate, and it's certainly true that some plants have a higher LCP than others, however, whether that LCP can be obtained with a bank of T8 is the question. Depending on the required PAR the particular T8 may be too low while the T5s can actually be over the top. We don't have the ability to infinitely vary the PAR so it's entirely possible that one set of bulbs can be too low while the other set be so high as to cause problems unless CO2 and nutrient loading is spot on. As NRY mentioned above he has been able to grow HC with T8. Again, we don't know the PAR or the distances, or the flow and so forth so it's difficult to compare.

I'm pretty sure that Georges point is that the average beginner is told that he/she needs "lots of light" and so they automatically provide too much light without understanding the consequences. That's where the trouble starts. It's not that I don't believe what you said about your tests, it just that I'd like to see more information about what energy levels are actually reaching the plants. This goes the same for those like NRY who report success with difficult plants using T8. What were the specific energy levels?

Cheers,


----------



## plantbrain (3 Aug 2011)

glueyporchtreatment said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be using terms like 'scientific evidence' unless a scientist has actually published your findings in a peer reviewed journal. It's very important to distinguish between real science and the pseudo-science that is promulgated on internet forums and blogs.
> 
> 
> @George: I hope you aren't viewing my comments as an attack on your journalistic integrity nor that of Practical Fishkeeping as a whole. Overall, I've found your articles in PFK to be excellent, and I wish we had more writers of your caliber publishing in the US based aquarium magazines. But I must admit that as soon as I read your comments on myth #10 I thought I was reading something written by 'Lord'  Monckton......



I'll take you up on them apples then:

http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/LWTEAMFOL ... ophyte.pdf

Paper clearly states a lack of correlation between N and P and algae.

Sampling 319 Lakes(more than any other I've ever seen), and that had plants, and a relatively high % of plant surfac coverages, and semi tropical to warmer lakes, shallow etc, much like our aquariums in most ways versus northern, temperate deep water lakes with low % aquatic plants.

How about Philips et al, 1978???
Well cited, but bias as all heck.......left out the P and N fraction from the macrophytes, but measured the N and P in the water phytoplankton.....adding that N and P from the macrophtyes, we find no correlation.

Science?

Where's yours?
I see no citations for support of your claim, nor any of these bohos claiming algae and nutrients etc and plants.....
We can add these and not get algae, how can you defend falsified evidence that is specific to the system we use?

Does not need to be peer reviewed, it 's frigging common sense. We do not state why the effects are the way they are, just why they cannot be, there's a big difference.


----------



## plantbrain (3 Aug 2011)

2bulb aquarium with medium low light, at 60 micromols:






All uit takes is a few folks to falsify the claim, it does not state why or why not other folks cannot grow them at higher light, only what the result is and refutes and calls into question the claim, when comparing lighting, you need  a statrdard method and unit, PAR meters are useful here.

Watt/Gal bulbs etc....nope.

Meters are widely used and available, many reef folks use them.
Plant folks have also for the last fe wyears and have made huge strides in the balance between light, CO2, ferts etc over a wide range of brands like ADA, etc.


----------



## viktorlantos (3 Aug 2011)

Thanks for your feedback guys. Unfortunatelly only a few guys with hassle with par meters. So this way still confusing to the majoroty guys and new hobbists. Also there are no clear instructions about which plant could be held with xx micromols.

Clive, rather then push people to the high light tanks what i am saying is letting them know they probably can't grow some plants. I am more on that side to use what you have and align the rest of the stuff to that including plants.

As many stuff in this hobby this isn't a simple yes or no of course. I can grow HC with a 30cm nano with 2 small lamps in our gallery, but using the same plant in a 45cm height 240L tank and using only mid light there and the plant will look very different or will die off. Of course with a par meter i could identify easily how much light it gets on the bottom in both tank, but i only can measure it if i succeed somewhere. So at least i have a working example on a specific plant.

On the other side if someone wants a glosso carpet and we tell them it can be grow with lower light they will wait and will expect the result. However when the plant will not form a carpet and the single plantlets will grow up to 5-10 cm they will be dissapointed.

So it's safer to say that some plants need more lights and offer those which perform well with an average tank. Much better to say, then offer the demanding ones and see them strugling and dying.

Tom, do you have a reference where plants requirement include micromols? I would love to use that too.


----------



## dw1305 (3 Aug 2011)

Hi all,
I think it is a good article, and George is to be applauded for it. I spend a lot of time on other forums trying to persuade people that the single factor that has the most importance, in terms of water quality and long term tank maintenance, is active plant growth. 

I also agree with "Glueyporch", assuming that sufficient PAR is supplied *the potential for plant growth is increased by the addition of macronutrients* (including a carbon source), and when I say plants, I am covering the whole range of photosynthetic organisms.  

Light drives phtotosynthesis, and photosynthesis drives growth, but as I've grown aquatic plants fairly nutrient poor under 400W SONT growlights in a glasshouse with high ambient light, I'm also not convinced that high light necessarily causes problems, when not linked to high NPK and CO2 levels. 

I think that, as long as you are prepared to have a "low tech - low nutrient - low productivity" aquarium, nutrient reduction is a valid technique of planted aquarium management. I also think that for the majority of "non-specialist" planted tank keepers it is a better option than EI. 

Why is it a better option? because any changes happen more slowly, and this stability gives the aquarium keeper more chance to find out what has gone "wrong". 

Would I trade stability, a more limited range of plants and some periphyton development for an "all singing, all dancing" High Tech tank? I'm not an aquascaper, so no, I would choose stability every time.

cheers Darrel


----------



## ceg4048 (3 Aug 2011)

Hi Darrel,


			
				dw1305 said:
			
		

> I also agree with "Glueyporch", assuming that sufficient PAR is supplied the potential for plant growth is increased by the addition of macronutrients (including a carbon source), and when I say plants, I am covering the whole range of photosynthetic organisms.


The problem with lumping all autotrophs together is that they each will have different mechanism. So it's easy to say that Growth Potential is increased for all with increasing nutrient concentration, but what we are saying is that the triggers are not the same for algae as they are for Macrophytes. The mechanisms are similar but not exactly the same. Algae have the spore and vegetative states. The only analog you could compare with Macrophytes would be stem and flower. It's really difficult to predict, for example under what conditions a submersed macrophyte would flower. Nutrients alone would not necessarily do it but may be part of the trigger equation. It appears to be a similar story with algal blooms, because they bloom from spores. 

Nutrients alone will not trigger a bloom. Once the bloom occurs the nutrient concentration may be a factor in rate of growth, so that's where the "potential" would come in, and I'm not even sure that it does because I've seen some brutal algal blooms in nutrient starved tanks, which leads me to believe that algae don't even care that much about nutrient concentration even in the vegetative state. We've shown that they certainly don't care when they are in the spore state.

I think people don't pay enough attention to the transitive nature of algae and the existence of the two states. We've observed that plant health, more so than just plant growth, is a stronger factor in determining whether or not there is a bloom. The path to plant health lies in availability of those very same nutrients others decry.

In your tank, I'm fairly certain that despite your claim of low nutrients, that there would be plenty of nutrients in the sediment due to reclamation of plant biomass from decaying tissue, food and fish waste. There may even be nutrients in the tap you use for water changes as well, although I don't really know that, and of course that wouldn't be true if you're using RO. As you mention, the long term stability of the tank allows the plants to adapt to the lighting levels, to become better CO2 gatherers, and allow shading or other adaptations to the light energy. But I'm pretty sure that did not happen overnight. 

It's a similar story with Viktors observations:


			
				viktorlantos said:
			
		

> ...As many stuff in this hobby this isn't a simple yes or no of course. I can grow HC with a 30cm nano with 2 small lamps in our gallery, but using the same plant in a 45cm height 240L tank and using only mid light there and the plant will look very different or will die off. Of course with a par meter i could identify easily how much light it gets on the bottom in both tank, but i only can measure it if i succeed somewhere. So at least i have a working example on a specific plant.


Viktor I reckon a lot has to do with CO2/flow/distribution. It's easy to get good flow in a 30cm nano but not very easy to get good flow in a 240L behemoth. Here is D. diandra and P. stellata under a low light condition. The nutrient loading was, as usual for me, quite massive. Flow/distribution was excellent. Now, fair enough, I got bored and added huge levels of light, causing the stelleta to smother the diandra into oblivion.






There's plenty of evidence that these plants don't _need_ massive lighting, but that they definitely have a higher LCP than say, that of a fern, or a moss. As I always say, difficult plants are difficult because they require better flow and more CO2, not just because they have a higher LCP.

Cheers,


----------



## GreenNeedle (3 Aug 2011)

It comes back down to the question:  Are the high light plants or are they actually high CO2 demand plants (which in most cases is pushed up at the same time as the light is increased.  I make no secret that I favour the latter description here and think that if the CO2 was pushed up and the lights left alone you would end up with Tom's result (if you know what you are doing)

I think you're missing the point of the article a little Viktor.  It's not a 'guide on how to gain success'.  Its not to be used as a 'it says here that this can happen so it should for me.  Its quite simply dismissing the myths within the hobby that we are know are false.

Like Tom says.  You can grow supposed highlight plants under very low light.  So there's no point in the article saying that 'some people can'  it is purely dismissing the myth rather than giving a breakdown of how many people can do it.

A Goalkeeper can score a goal from his own six yard box 120 yards away.  1000 people can try it though and what would the result be?  However we have to say that it is possible.  We can never say that it can't happen because the 1 in a million (Pat Jennings springs to mind) has shown it is possible and therefore that is what the article points out.

Andy


----------



## plantbrain (3 Aug 2011)

viktorlantos said:
			
		

> Tom, do you have a reference where plants requirement include micromols? I would love to use that too.



Nope, I got something better, a light CO2 curve, Troels and Ole likely got a few of these maybe? Maybe not.........

See figure 6.

Not easy to make and not much $ for research, but it's where most of the action is I believe.

http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/58/6/761.full.pdf

Here you can see at low light, that the plants are EXTREMELY competitive for what? CO2.
So they can start photosynthesizing asap, and suck out all the CO2.

This way in natural systems, they beat out the other species.
This is what drives evolution in aquatic FW, low light and good CO2 uptake.

when we add CO2, this removes the competitive interactions...........so we can easily grow many different plant species together, in non CO2 systems, we also trim and can remove, but often, we see a dominate species in sucgh systems, rarely a wide range of diversity, if so....it's either a large system with few plant % total biomass, or CO2 enriched springs..........

Regarding light and low CO2/high CO2, low light./high light,. Troels and Ole put out this article which I've linked MANY times:

http://www.tropica.com/advising/technic ... light.aspx

So there's some research references that offer support for what George stated.

I do not find anything that George stated problematic at all, and he questions these things.........which is not bad.
We do not know many things, but basing them on poor assumptions is even worse IMO.


----------



## plantbrain (3 Aug 2011)

dw1305 said:
			
		

> I think that, as long as you are prepared to have a "low tech - low nutrient - low productivity" aquarium, nutrient reduction is a valid technique of planted aquarium management. I also think that for the majority of "non-specialist" planted tank keepers it is a better option than EI.
> 
> Why is it a better option? because any changes happen more slowly, and this stability gives the aquarium keeper more chance to find out what has gone "wrong".



I agree, and from a simple success %, it's the highest % success rates with folks if they follow the advice. but they love the CO2 dope...........



> Would I trade stability, a more limited range of plants and some periphyton development for an "all singing, all dancing" High Tech tank? I'm not an aquascaper, so no, I would choose stability every time.
> 
> cheers Darrel



As I often state, no one method will meet all goals of the aquarist.
Many that are very passionate about plants and scaping however will want to garden and those will collectoritus disease also seek CO2............

Same with Reef folks wanting to frag SPS corals, you can grow them with less light, but colors lack and growth rates are slower. Plants? I'm less sure about more light giving better color vs simple developmental time for Chl a/b masking the reds etc. I've run some tanks with moderate low light and actually measured it with the meters and found most nice well scaped tanks are about 40-50micromols over the sediment. 

These are tanks in the top 20 of the ADA contest.
Curiously, my own tanks sit in this same range.

I do think there is a lot to be said for good light management for goals whether it be CO2 or no CO2 methods.

You can still do a darn good job scaping without CO2 or Excel/easy carbo, my own Bettea macrostoma tank:








So a nice looking scape and novel technique, methods can be done there as well.


----------



## flygja (5 Aug 2011)

I have to agree with Viktor regarding light. It's true that medium lighting can probably grow most plants, but some plants really need higher intensity lighting in order to reach their full potential. For example, turning plants like Rotala sp red and Ludwigia inclinata verticillata var Cuba orange/pinkish. I managed to get my hands on a PAR meter recently and checking my LIV var Cuba stem, it only starts turning reddish in its veins at ~200 umols. That's quite a lot of lighting. 

I personally feel that a nice glosso/HC carpet in CO2-injected tanks is not considered difficult these days due to the wide-spread availability of nutrient-rich substrates, CO2 equipment, big filters and good lighting technology.

All this is based on my own experience with my own tanks. I don't consider myself an expert in any way.


----------



## Gary Nelson (5 Aug 2011)

A great article and some very useful info in all these reply posts too.


----------



## plantbrain (7 Aug 2011)

flygja said:
			
		

> I have to agree with Viktor regarding light. It's true that medium lighting can probably grow most plants, but some plants really need higher intensity lighting in order to reach their full potential. For example, turning plants like Rotala sp red and Ludwigia inclinata verticillata var Cuba orange/pinkish. I managed to get my hands on a PAR meter recently and checking my LIV var Cuba stem, it only starts turning reddish in its veins at ~200 umols. That's quite a lot of lighting.
> 
> I personally feel that a nice glosso/HC carpet in CO2-injected tanks is not considered difficult these days due to the wide-spread availability of nutrient-rich substrates, CO2 equipment, big filters and good lighting technology.
> 
> All this is based on my own experience with my own tanks. I don't consider myself an expert in any way.



Here's the same plant you imply needs 200 micromol growing here at 50 micromols, nice lawn of HC and plenty of pantanal. Cuba is even easier........





It's about 120 here near the surface.




But the bottom of the tank is still 40-50.............and the W/liter or Gal is pretty low, well under 2w/gal.


----------

