# Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience.



## Tim Harrison

Reading countless forum threads on low energy setups, water changes, fluctuating CO2 levels and algal blooms, I am amazed and somewhat despairing to discover that a direct and causal relationship between the above factors seems to have worked its way into aquarium folklore to the extent that it is now blindly accepted as actual scientific fact. 

There is an underlying philosophy at work here one that pervades many pursuits that are thought to be underpinned by science, and not least is our great hobby (obsession) maintaining a healthy planted tank. 

Unfortunately, it is more often than not, pseudoscience and not science that becomes conventional wisdom (accordingly conventional wisdom is often wrong) through nothing more than repeated use and familiarity, and then before too long we find ourselves preaching it as gospel no matter how scientifically implausible an idea it may be.

I think what is really going on is that we tend to associate truth with convenience and not necessarily scientific rigor. It is for example easy to blame the algae explosion in our lower energy tanks on the CO2 spikes supposedly associated with frequent and significant water changes than on poor husbandry. 

So although the science behind this theory is convincing I think it is complete and utter nonsense, and for several very good reasons, not least those below. 

1.	Yes gasses do get compressed in a high pressure environment such as a potable water delivery system (pipes) but where does this supposedly significant increase in CO2 come from once the water exits the tap in our homes?

2.	Surely the CO2 content of the water used to top up our tanks will be the same as it was at the beginning - in the reservoir - all that has happened is that the same amount of gas has re-equilibrated at atmospheric pressure? 
This is why the “unscrewing the lid on the fizzy pop bottle” analogy is so inappropriate, the levels of CO2 involved are hugely different.

3.	So where did all that extra CO2 come from – the extra CO2 that some pundits claim so upsets the balance of our tanks?
	Bacteria in the pipes? I hardly think so.

4.	For one thing if bacteria were so prevalent in our water supply system, as to make a significant contribution to its CO2 levels during transit, surely we’d all be dying of cholera and typhoid, or at the very least constantly mincing to the toilet with our butt cheeks firmly clenched...well surely we would...wouldn't we? 

5.	If the levels of CO2 were that high that they are capable of causing algal blooms and other mischief, wouldn’t our fish be gasping at the surface every time we did a water change? 

6.	Wouldn’t the daily fluctuations due to plant photosynthesis and respiration be of greater significance?

7.	And do fluctuating levels of CO2 actually cause algal blooms anyway? Has it ever been proven beyond all reasonable doubt using scientifically rigorous and statistically significant research? 

8.     And as for all this leaving the water to degas overnight, and doing secret water changes when the algae aren't looking...please do me a favour.

Anyway, I could go on but won’t. 

Regardless of the validity of the water change/CO2 theory I tend to think that if other parameters are well balanced a soil substrate/lower energy system should be robust enough to withstand the occasional temporary fluctuation without adverse effects. 

Mine obviously is since despite changing 30% - 50% of the water twice a week I haven’t had any algal blooms and what is more I barely have to clean the glass. Check out the photos in the links below if you don’t believe me.

And just to finish, a cautionary note regarding causality, it’s very often not what you think. Take for example the butterfly effect: 
Butterfly flaps wings and somewhere there’s a hurricane. 

I prefer the alternative scenario:
Pseudoscientist flaps mouth and somewhere there’s a storm in a teacup.


----------



## mvasingh

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*

 
Well said!

Mike


----------



## geaves

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*

 Now that I understand, having bookmarked your threads for continued future reference I find I get lost/confused by the 'applied science' on what is essentially growing immersed plants.


----------



## spyder

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*



			
				Troi said:
			
		

> doing secret water changes when the algae aren't looking...please do me a favour.



Can you eloborate on this one please. Don't you have a 2 hour "siesta" period to try and "confuse" your algae?


----------



## Tim Harrison

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*



> Troi wrote:
> doing secret water changes when the algae aren't looking...please do me a favour.





> Spyder wrote:
> Can you eloborate on this one please. Don't you have a 2 hour "siesta" period to try and "confuse" your algae?



Tricky little blighters!


----------



## ceg4048

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*



			
				Troi said:
			
		

> Reading countless forum threads on low energy setups, water changes, fluctuating CO2 levels and algal blooms, I am amazed and somewhat despairing to discover that a direct and causal relationship between the above factors seems to have worked its way into aquarium folklore to the extent that it is now blindly accepted as actual scientific fact.
> 
> There is an underlying philosophy at work here one that pervades many pursuits that are thought to be underpinned by science, and not least is our great hobby (obsession) maintaining a healthy planted tank.
> 
> Unfortunately, it is more often than not, pseudoscience and not science that becomes conventional wisdom (accordingly conventional wisdom is often wrong) through nothing more than repeated use and familiarity, and then before too long we find ourselves preaching it as gospel no matter how scientifically implausible an idea it may be.


As is often the case, one form of pseudoscience is cleverly used to attack another form of pseudoscience. At the end of the day, a real scientist would use a scientific method to test the validity of conventional wisdom. If anyone really wants to determine whether or not, for example, tap water contains high levels of CO2, why not simply beg, borrow or steal a CO2 meter and measure the tap's CO2 water content? Lacking an expensive meter, the only option left, which is not as accurate, is to measure the pH of the tap water as it exits the faucet and to let the water sit for an hour or so while taking regular pH readings. It will typically be discovered that the pH rises over time. This is attributed to the offgassing of the CO2 and subsequent reduction in Carbonic acid. I say "attributed" because, of course the pH test results do not verify or confirm that loss of Carbonic acid is responsible for the rise in pH. Only a CO2 meter will confirm this.



			
				Troi said:
			
		

> So although the science behind this theory is convincing I think it is complete and utter nonsense, and for several very good reasons, not least those below.
> 
> 1.	Yes gasses do get compressed in a high pressure environment such as a potable water delivery system (pipes) but where does this supposedly significant increase in CO2 come from once the water exits the tap in our homes?
> 
> 2.	Surely the CO2 content of the water used to top up our tanks will be the same as it was at the beginning - in the reservoir - all that has happened is that the same amount of gas has re-equilibrated at atmospheric pressure?
> This is why the “unscrewing the lid on the fizzy pop bottle” analogy is so inappropriate, the levels of CO2 involved are hugely different.
> 
> 3.	So where did all that extra CO2 come from – the extra CO2 that some pundits claim so upsets the balance of our tanks?
> Bacteria in the pipes? I hardly think so.


It's unbelieveable to me that people have a difficult time accepting that municipal water supplies are treated with CO2. It's also difficult to understand why the concept of underground bacterial action where ground water comes from, is so difficult to grasp. Am I living on a different planet, or has no one ever gone to a supermarket or restaurant and bought spring water in a bottle? Those bubbles in the bottle are CO2 bubbles. Supposed scientists don't know this? How did the CO2 get there? When we find the answer to that question, we will have an insight into the concept and possibility of groundwater CO2 accumulation. In fact, the high acidity cause by groundwater CO2 accumulation is often responsible for dissolving the calcium carbonate when that water flows through limestone deposits causing the water to dissolve the lime and causing the tap water to be unusually high in hardness.

Stalactites in underground caves is due to CO2 enriched groundwater dissolving the CaCO3. Any organic material through which the water passes prior to reaching the lime deposits will become enriched with CO2 due to microorganism respiration within that sediment.






If anyone is unsure as to whether CO2 is added to municipal water supplies, have a look at this typical scheme for gas treatment => http://www.elmemesser.lv/assets/media/2 ... dd6abd.pdf 
This gas treatment scheme is not all-encompassing and of course is used depending on the local conditions and water source. In any case this is how it can exist in the tap at higher than atmospheric levels.

Municipal water supplies are often loaded with CO2, because CO2 is used to process the water specifically because the Carbonic acid is a much safer acid to use than other toxic acids. The facility will often raise the pH to precipitate out carbonate salts an then add CO2 to lower the pH.  Tap water can contains up to about 50ppm. Again, carbonated spring water is usually found in well water supplies. Since the CO2 is added under pressure, and since the water is then pressurized in order to deliver it to the tap, the CO2 content remains high and remains under pressure. The pop bottle analogy is entirely appropriate even though the concentration of CO2 gas in cola is much higher than in tap water, the principle of higher gas pressure trapped in liquid suddenly escaping as a result of the lowering of the pressure after exiting the supply line is the same and so is entirely appropriate. In a non injected tank the CO2 concentration is around 8ppm, however, there is also an exception. High organic content in soil or leaf sediments produce CO2 as a result of bacterial action in the sediment. The CO2 will then escape the sediment and will be in the water column. There is a possibility therefore that in general the average CO2 concenration level is higher than that in a non organic sediment tank and therefore the CO2 "delta" is not as great when doing a water change. This is a supposition. I do not know the actual values so I cannot say.



			
				Troi said:
			
		

> 4.	For one thing if bacteria were so prevalent in our water supply system, as to make a significant contribution to its CO2 levels during transit, surely we’d all be dying of cholera and typhoid, or at the very least constantly mincing to the toilet with our butt cheeks firmly clenched...well surely we would...wouldn't we?


Pathogen treatment is independent of pH treatment.



			
				Troi said:
			
		

> 5.	If the levels of CO2 were that high that they are capable of causing algal blooms and other mischief, wouldn’t our fish be gasping at the surface every time we did a water change?


No, that's another pseudoscience tidbit I'm afraid. The speed at which hypercapnia shows it's effects takes longer than the time it takes for the CO2 to dissipate. Additionally, the water change percentage is not usually 100% so the concentration gets diluted but this still has an effect on the plants if they see a significant increase in the available CO2.



			
				Troi said:
			
		

> 6.	Wouldn’t the daily fluctuations due to plant photosynthesis and respiration be of greater significance?


No, sorry. More pseudoscience from a low tech perspective. The uptake rate in a non enriched tank is not as quick as in an enriched tank. the equilibrium rate from atmosphere to water modulates the fluctuations. Suddenly dumping large amounts of gas in the tank is different than the minor diurnal variations. Natural variations in CO2 concentration always occur. It is impossible to maintain exactly the same concentration to the nearest molecule, but plants are not affected by these minor variations.

[quote="Troi"7.	And do fluctuating levels of CO2 actually cause algal blooms anyway? Has it ever been proven beyond all reasonable doubt using scientifically rigorous and statistically significant research? [/quote]No. There is reasonable doubt. There is only strong correlation. It's easy to test though, but low tech armchair pundits just like to sit around throwing stones at the people who have already resolved the issues. It's very easy to get up off the buttocks, go buy some gas/equipment and intentionally vary the CO2 levels in the tank in order to observe the effects. There are lots of factors affecting CO2 instability, such as lighting, plant mass, temperature, mean daily baseline levels, flow and distribution and so forth, so in order to find correlation, one has to be able to freeze the values of all variables in order to detect the effcts of one variable.


Cheers,


----------



## Tim Harrison

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*



> It's easy to test though, but low tech armchair pundits just like to sit around throwing stones at the people who have already resolved the issues.



Woah Clive...it was only meant as a bit of light-hearted philosophy, but thanks for the detailed explanation anyway; even though you went off piste a bit it was still very interesting.

Here's what I found out...If the water is acidic (lower than 7), lime, soda ash, or sodium hydroxide is added to raise the pH. For somewhat acidic waters (lower than 6.5), forced draft degasifiers are the cheapest way to raise the pH, as the process raises the pH by stripping dissolved carbon dioxide (carbonic acid) from the water. 

Lime is commonly used for pH adjustment for municipal water, as it is cheap. Acid (hydrochloric acid or sulfuric acid) may be added to alkaline waters in some circumstances to lower the pH.

So accordingly regardless of whether the water is from a limestone groundwater aquifer or an open water lake by the time it gets to us it is fairly well homogenised particularly if it was acidic in the first place since it is stripped of its CO2 by degasifiers.


----------



## dw1305

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*

Hi all,
I'm unconvinced about the "fluctuating CO2" hypothesis as well,  have a look at this thread, as it may be from before you joined us <http://www.ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=17798>. 

I think you can explain the additional amount of CO2 in the tap water pretty well by "_Henry's Law_" and temperature.


> _At a constant temperature, the amount of a given gas that dissolves in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid."_





From <http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html>

So assuming that the tap water is both colder than the tank water and under-pressure in the water main (which I think is going to be true all of the time) it will hold more CO2 in equilibrium, without the need for an additional source of CO2.

I also think that nearly all UK tap water comes out of the tap at well over pH7 as the water companies are very concerned with keeping inside the very tough EU limits for heavy metals, and are injecting NaOH (and adding orthophosphates PO4-) to ensure that no lead (Pb) or copper (Cu) ends up in solution. I assume they use NaOH, as it gives you most bang for your buck.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Antipofish

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*



			
				geaves said:
			
		

> Now that I understand, having bookmarked your threads for continued future reference I find I get lost/confused by the 'applied science' on what is essentially growing immersed plants.



You can bookmark ALL of someones threads  ? Including future posts ?


----------



## geaves

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*



			
				Antipofish said:
			
		

> geaves said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that I understand, having bookmarked your threads for continued future reference I find I get lost/confused by the 'applied science' on what is essentially growing immersed plants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can bookmark ALL of someones threads  ? Including future posts ?
Click to expand...


You can bookmark any thread, once the thread is bookmarked you can go back and review it, re read it or keep for further reference. I've bookmarked some of Troi's threads, and threads where Darrel has posted re the duckweed index, for me due to the information that's on here bookmarking helps me build a sort of reference library on how I want to set up and run a planted tank. Plus if there's something that's not quite sunk in to start with I can go over it again, the bookmark option is at the bottom of each thread along with the subscribe option.

*Edit, also the bookmarked threads show in your control panel and will show any unread posts to that thread.


----------



## darren636

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*

bba on plant tips- one day later co2 runs out. (two months later) bba on plant tips, a day later co2 runs out....


----------



## plantbrain

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*



			
				dw1305 said:
			
		

> are injecting NaOH (and adding orthophosphates PO4-) to ensure that no lead (Pb) or copper (Cu) ends up in solution. I assume they use NaOH, as it gives you most bang for your buck.
> 
> cheers Darrel



And these add hydroxide alkalinity (as opposed to carbonate alkalinity, making those pH/KH charts messy and well, not particularly useful). PO4 also can affect alkalinity. 

Often times they do lime softening where they raise the pH to 10.1 or 10.2 to remove Calcium (Carbonate), then they add CO2 to drop the pH back down. Sometimes they blend with hard water in what's called partial lime softening and this drops the pH back down also, but the water is loaded inside a sealed system and cold, so all dissolved gas is much higher than our tank's temps. 

Some folks seem to do okay with water changes on a non CO2 tank, I find them unneeded.
Many have tried water changes on anon CO2 enriched tank only getting algae over and over, fairly consistently.
This would suggest it is not CO2 independent of other factors.

But perhaps light intensity + CO2, or something else. 

Also, the variation we are talking about is small, much smaller than the variation for the CO2 gas enrichment folks.
Things change in non CO2 systems much slower, but that's a good thing for most aspects.

A change from 0ppm to say 3-4ppm is a dramatic change for a non CO2 enriched tank.
A change from 40ppm to 45ppm is not for a CO2 enriched tank.

The type of plants also makes a large difference, some are weedy and will take up the light and start photosynthesizing at a much lower light intensity than other species. If the community of plants is fairly equal with light and CO2, then there's likely more even growth.

Willa  one time change make a lot of difference? No, not much really, but consistent water changes might remove the ferts, but in the case with soil or ADA As etc......the plants still have nutrients.

Still, if you do not NEED to do the water change and are looking for a lower labor method, then it goes without saying and it works well.


----------



## sWozzAres

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*

Wouldn't a non CO2 tank that is fully stocked, or over stocked never reach equilibrium because the fish are constantly pumping CO2 into the water. Therefore a water change would result in a considerable drop in CO2. Tanks without many fish wouldn't have the same problem.

I know a guy that always had way too many fish, they were always dying, non CO2, big WC every other week and he constantly had tons of BBA all over his plastic plants and decor. Had to bleach it off all the time.


----------



## dw1305

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*

Hi all,
I've never added CO2, so I don't have any practical experience of the differences between non-CO2/CO2 added tanks.


> I know a guy that always had way too many fish, they were always dying, non CO2, big WC every other week and he constantly had tons of BBA all over his plastic plants and decor. Had to bleach it off all the time.


 I think that would be a pretty common finding. If you have a non-planted tank with low maintenance, a heavy fish load and enough light for plant growth, you end up with fantastic BBA growth. Our local pet shop, where they must kill more fish than they sell, has particularly gruesome BBA covered tanks, with the pea gravel looking like it has been coated with fake fur. 


> And these add hydroxide alkalinity (as opposed to carbonate alkalinity, making those pH/KH charts messy and well, not particularly useful). PO4 also can affect alkalinity.


 This has been a major problem on some of the other forums I visit. A lot of people in the N and W of the UK, now have an alkaline supply with a high pH, but no carbonate buffering. With apologies for the cross-post, but have a look at this one <http://www.plecoplanet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8904&page=2>.

There are some UK water treatment details here: <http://www.staffs.ac.uk/schools/sciences/consultancy/dladmin/zCIWEMPOTWAT/Activity5/act5.html>

cheers Darrel


----------



## plantbrain

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*

Overstocked tanks of any type have lots of issues, the algae is likely more helpful in that example  

With CO2 enrichment, it's added for a few reasons: mostly to prevent CO2 competition and differences in uptake between plant species and within plant species. By adding non limiting CO2 for all plants, this competition is removed. 

We can now grow any species easily together. This also falsifies the allelopathy claim as the plants all do exceptionally well no matter which combination or % is used. Individuals might have troubles with a species or two together....but if you ask the community of plant aquarist about the 2 species, someone has grown them well together on most forums, many ways to not have a plant do well, but if they do well together....then that claim is out the window.

Plants adapt well to low CO2. This is a large enzymatic cost however, the Rubisco concentration is greatly increased in leaf tissue vs the CO2 enriched tank. Same with low/limiting nutrient levels, but nowhere near the cost for CO2 acquisition.

If the concentrations vary environmentally a great deal, this "confuses" the plant and it tries to adapt and often stunts as a result if the changes are too great. This is not toxicity as some assume. It's stability. 

Often times, the aquarist will simply dose less and it's not that less was better necessarily...........but rather they provided stability. If the CO2 dosing was poor..........and not corrected/assumed to be correct when it was not.......then limiting a nutrient would provide a stronger limitation than say CO2............then they see improvement and think that less is best and that adding non limiting nutrients causes algae, regardless of the evidence from other hobbyists.

However, adding more nutrients to NON CO2/Excel enriched system also does not cause algae if the CO2 is well adapted and stable systems are tested. A mucked up algae ridden system is not by the very definition a stable system.........but folks with such tanks think they can test and use kits to analyze their woes based on myths.

It's a bit of a problem in the hobby.

Still, a plant can handle limiting CO2 conditions well and some species are particularly good at it. The CO2 is highest at pre dawn and then drops near zero after a few hours of light. A wet/dry filter might provide more stable but lower CO2 for a non CO2 tank(say 1-2ppm vs say 3-5 ppm for pre dawn measures, but those drop after 2-3 hours tops to near zero).

Whereas the wet/dry will remain pretty close to the 1-2ppm range most of the day light cycle.
Seems that the 1st few hours(1-2) is the most critical time though. Same for CO2 enriched tanks also actually.
There is evolutionary support since this is the most competitive time for plants after a limiting resource, and for low light so they can start photosynthesizing before the other plants and nab all the limiting CO2.

Thanks for the post on the local water issues........always interesting and good to compare. I have been lucky here in the SF Bay area due to a wide range of tap waters being used and to compare growth.
This use to be a huge issue and question, debates raged on this topic, but these days, not so much.


----------



## Tim Harrison

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*



> .........but folks with such tanks think they can test and use kits to analyze their woes based on myths.
> 
> It's a bit of a problem in the hobby.



I find this aspect of the hobby really intriguing, and the above quote kind of sums up in a nutshell what I was trying to highlight (rightly or wrongly) using the low energy/water change – unstable CO2/algae hypothesis. 

I am fascinated by the complex and often unique synergistic biochemical interactions that are constantly at work in our tanks…

…but even more so by some of the spurious conclusions that even scientifically trained observers have drawn over the years to explain why, for instance, algae have mounted a surprise offensive whilst they weren’t looking.

And I include myself in that, but thankfully I kept some of my more outrageous theories on causality private and just as well because a far more sensible and simple theory is often just around the corner.


----------



## dw1305

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*

Hi all,


> the algae is likely more helpful in that example


 Yes, I spend a lot of time on other forums explaining to people that "biofilm" is often helpful in the tank, and that "plants" (in the widest sense, including all photosynthetic organisms) are visible symptom that conditions are suitable for plant growth, and that the algae, duckweed etc is actually performing the useful task of turning nitrates into plant matter, but it often doesn't make any difference. Usually soon after this, they post back that since they got the UV light, or put an LED strip in rather than the fluorescent light, and their algae problems have ended. They then recommend this to every-one else. After that things usually either go silent, or they post that their fish are ill or dead, and the whole sorry scenario starts again with them then recommending nitrate reduction resins, a bigger, better filter etc to every-one who will listen, until the next episode of fish death.

I even get this from people with formerly planted tanks, who suffer night time fish death, correlate this with night time oxygen usage/CO2 production by the plants, and then get rid of their plants. Usually things are OK for a while until the dead fish are replaced, or the fish (and bioload), grow and the string of fish deaths etc begins again.



> ....By adding non limiting CO2 for all plants, this competition is removed. This also falsifies the allelopathy claim as the plants all do exceptionally well no matter which combination or % is used. Individuals might have troubles with a species or two together....but if you ask the community of plant aquarist about the 2 species, someone has grown them well together on most forums, many ways to not have a plant do well, but if they do well together....then that claim is out the window


I'm another allelopathy sceptic, there are 2 main reasons for this.
The first is why would plants develop allelopathy? when the majority of them have symbiotic relationships with micro-organisms (bacteria, actinomycetes, fungi etc,) that have been waging chemical warfare on each other since they evolved. Evolution isn't like that, it can't plan for the future, natural selection works on the genes that are already there. Richard Dawkins calls it "_Climbing Mount Improbable_", by which he means that an organism can't go back down hill in evolutionary terms ("become less fit"), even if there is a loftier peak they could then climb near by.

The second is less theoretical, and is just that if allelopathy was common in plants, you would find plants with no obvious competitive advantage in situations where they receive abundant nutrients, PAR etc. and  it just doesn't happen. This isn't true of other situations and if you go to say a coral reef, a lot of the corals etc are waging very obvious chemical warfare with one another, and all sorts of small, slow growing, organisms are occupying prime sites. 



> Plants adapt well to low CO2. This is a large enzymatic cost however, the Rubisco concentration is greatly increased in leaf tissue vs the CO2 enriched tank. Same with low/limiting nutrient levels, but nowhere near the cost for CO2 acquisition.


 I don't know enough about plant physiology to really pass any useful comment, but I can see that that abundant CO2 and nutrients will allow the plant to turn more of the PAR into Rubisco. I did find this paper from when I was a student, but I have no idea how general a finding this is, or what research has been done since. 

Campbell, W. _et al_ (1988) "Effects of CO2 Concentration on Rubisco Activity, Amount, and Photosynthesis in Soybean Leaves" _Plant Physiol._ *88* pp1310-13. 


> Soybean plants grown at elevated CO2 concentrations had heavier pod weights per plant, 44% heavier with 660 compared to 330 microliters of CO2 per liter grown plants, and also greater specific leaf weights. Ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (rubisco) activity showed no response (mean activity of 96 micromoles of CO2 per square meter per second expressed on a leaflet area basis) to short-term (-1 hour) exposures to a range of CO2 concentrations (110-880 microliters per liter), nor was a response of activity (mean activity of 1.01 micromoles of CO2 per minute per milligram of protein) to growth CO2 concentration (160- 990 nucroliters per liter) observed. The amount of rubisco protein was cu as growth CO2 concentration was varied, and averaged 55% of tde $1 leaflet soluble protein. Although CO2 is required for activation of robisco, results indicated that within the range of CO2 concentrations used (110-990 microliters per liter), rubisco activity in soybean leaflets, in the light, was not regulated by CO2.





> Whereas the wet/dry will remain pretty close to the 1-2ppm range most of the day light cycle.


I'm a lot more secure with this one, we weren't particularly interested in CO2, so I don't have any empirical measurements, but as oxygen is much less soluble than CO2, and this is true for oxygen.Because of  I'm fairly confident that the large gas exchange surfaces of wet and dry trickle filters will deliver stable levels of all gases including CO2.

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*

Hi all,
Just found that this Ph.D thesis - "ADAPTATION AND ACCLIMATION OF POPULATIONS OF _LUDWIGIA REPENS_ TO GROWTH IN HIGH- AND LOWER-CO2 SPRINGS" is available from <http://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/E0/00/09/94/00001/lytle_s.pdf>. So hopefully that should have some figures for _L. repens_ at least.

_cheers Darrel_


----------



## sWozzAres

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*



			
				dw1305 said:
			
		

> I'm another allelopathy sceptic, there are 2 main reasons for this.
> The first is why would plants develop allelopathy? when the majority of them have symbiotic relationships with micro-organisms (bacteria, actinomycetes, fungi etc,) that have been waging chemical warfare on each other since they evolved. Evolution isn't like that, it can't plan for the future, natural selection works on the genes that are already there. Richard Dawkins calls it "_Climbing Mount Improbable_", by which he means that an organism can't go back down hill in evolutionary terms ("become less fit"), even if there is a loftier peak they could then climb near by.


Dawkins is a science extremist, I got most of his books, he is ace but very one dimensional, the way he doesn't understand religion for example and his lack of philisophical insight, he is very reductionist. Anyway before I go off on one, genetic drift allows organisms to effectively move from one hill to another across the genetic landscape without having to "go downhill".


----------



## Morgan Freeman

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*

I find aquarium science interesting but I try not to actually apply it in this amount of detail to my tanks. What I mean by this is simply taking each tank on it's own terms and following a very broad set of guidelines which have been demonstrated to work. If something is working, it's working and no amount of theoretical assertions are going to change that, but if something starts to go wrong then I'll break out the science and start looking into what's happening.

Reading thread's like this I get the feeling that many of us are overcomplicating what is in essence, a fairly simple hobby. Plants need light, co2 and nutrients. We can spot co2 and nutrient deficiencies and we can estimate approximate lighting levels. It doesn't really need to be more complicated than that.


----------



## Tim Harrison

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*



> ...many of us are overcomplicating what is in essence, a fairly simple hobby.



Agree completely, I think that sometimes we all have a tenancy to over complicate matters, but by the same measure delving in to the science of it all is part of the enjoyment for some hobbyists.

I think the main thrust of the issue I was trying to raise is that sometimes we tend to mistakenly attribute cause and effect on what amounts to nothing else but hearsay.


----------



## sWozzAres

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*

There is a "causal chain", a series of events that go all the way back to the big bang. Every event is both a cause AND an effect - since each cause is actually an effect from a previous cause and by the same token each effect is actually the cause of another effect.  :? 

What the more scientifically oriented people try to do, is uncover the "direct cause" for a particular effect. The closer two events are on the "causal chain" the more direct or more accurate is the conclusion that "x caused y". In order to "get closer" they work on the molecular/atomic level and take the "causal chain" metaphor literally. This is the reductionist approach and it's conclusions are limited in scope - say in a petri dish. The results can be applied to our tanks with variable success.

On the other hand, the more casual tank owner isn't concerned with molecules. He works with light duration, nutrient concentration dosing, quantity of fish etc In terms of the "causal chain" he has many more events between x causing y.

Some might say that the scientists view of the "causal chain" is more valid than the casual users view because it's more direct and must therefore be more accurate. This isn't neccessarily true, both views are equally valid within their own context.

A tank is not a petri dish, it's a complex dynamic system. A "causal chain" is only a chain in a limited context, in a tank effects have more than one cause and causes have many effects. The chain merges into a complex web of interaction.

The way I see it, generally speaking, the casual users context is less accurate but more useful, the scientists context is more accurate but less useful. The problems come when people mix up their contexts.

"Hearsay" or anecdotal evidence is still evidence and just as valid as scientific evidence or "proof". The problem is that anecdotal evidence is typically presented with assumptions and without knowing what these assumptions are it's difficult to assess it's validity. Science suffers the same problem but to less a degree.

Anyway Troi, the situation is this, you aren't convinced that fluctuating CO2 causes BBA because you change 30-50% of your water each week and don't have BBA. Well, if you take anyone that has BBA and trace the "causal chain" back to the big bang! you will probably discover that somewhere along the way, there is a change in CO2. This doesn't mean change in CO2 is THE cause, it just means that it's one of many events that lead to BBA. BBA comes from fluctuating CO2 but the reverse is not always true - fluctuating CO2 doesn't always cause BBA. Complex web of interaction in a complex dynamic system, all tanks are different. People look for THE one cause because they want to understand and the easiest way to understand is to simplify. Simplifying has limits. Some algae are easy to defeat, other's like BBA and GSA have multiple causes hidden amongst the complex web of cause and effect - probably due to their non trivial life cycles.

Anyway for what it's worth, I think that BBA is caused by multiple events - at least depletion of CO2 followed sometime later by it's return. Anecdotally, I've only ever had an outbreak when my CO2 runs out and I've not noticed for a couple of days. Perhaps depletion causes spore release which then germinate when CO2 returns. You don't get BBA because your CO2 never gets fully depleted. Depletion could happen in any corner of the tank which might be why people have minor BBA that never results in an outbreak. But hey, what do I know, I'm a casual user and I'm fully prepared to change my mind tomorrow - in the meantime, I will continue to keep the lights off when my CO2 runs out!


----------



## plantbrain

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*



			
				sWozzAres said:
			
		

> The problem is that anecdotal evidence is typically presented with assumptions and without knowing what these assumptions are it's difficult to assess it's validity. Science suffers the same problem but to less a degree.



Well, some use both methods, and rather than seeking cause, they seek to falsify what they can test.
This seems to work with a higher degree of certainty and within the hobby fairly well.
Searching for the cause itself...........may not.



> Anyway Troi, the situation is this, you aren't convinced that fluctuating CO2 causes BBA because you change 30-50% of your water each week and don't have BBA. Well, if you take anyone that has BBA and trace the "causal chain" back to the big bang! you will probably discover that somewhere along the way, there is a change in CO2. This doesn't mean change in CO2 is THE cause, it just means that it's one of many events that lead to BBA. BBA comes from fluctuating CO2 but the reverse is not always true - fluctuating CO2 doesn't always cause BBA. Complex web of interaction in a complex dynamic system, all tanks are different. People look for THE one cause because they want to understand and the easiest way to understand is to simplify. Simplifying has limits. Some algae are easy to defeat, other's like BBA and GSA have multiple causes hidden amongst the complex web of cause and effect - probably due to their non trivial life cycles.
> Anyway for what it's worth, I think that BBA is caused by multiple events - at least depletion of CO2 followed sometime later by it's return. Anecdotally, I've only ever had an outbreak when my CO2 runs out and I've not noticed for a couple of days. Perhaps depletion causes spore release which then germinate when CO2 returns. You don't get BBA because your CO2 never gets fully depleted. Depletion could happen in any corner of the tank which might be why people have minor BBA that never results in an outbreak. But hey, what do I know, I'm a casual user and I'm fully prepared to change my mind tomorrow - in the meantime, I will continue to keep the lights off when my CO2 runs out!



Good post there and well stated.

But back to falsification, you can vary the other complex variables like light, NO3, PO4, etc and falsify those as singular causes, or cook up any number of combinations you suspect. This could take awhile, but you can rule out many other species of algae and interactions along the way for each nutrient.

Then perhaps measuring O2, or filtration type etc, or current, or tap water differences between sites etc.
At least this way, you can rule singular causes and start looking at the more complex. If you cannot falsify something, then.......well.............we sort of tentatively accept and drag our knuckles on that one and sheepishly accept it till proven wrong.

We can also use over all plant growth concepts such as very high light = the highest demand for resources......CO2 and nutrients etc..........and apply those to the system to see results faster/more immediately/more strain, whereas they might appear slow and subtle in a low energy lower light/non CO2 approach.

Basically choosing the most susceptible, sensitive cases, much like when miners used the Canary in a cage for toxic fumes.

A combo of methods and observations(anecdotes) seem to work the best. We need to be able to corroborate theory/test etc........in the field (our aquariums). So we have to try it and see. Some things are not simple, sometimes we just over looked something really simple  

Done this many times.


----------



## Tim Harrison

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*



			
				sWozzAres said:
			
		

> There is a "causal chain", a series of events that go all the way back to the big bang....in the meantime, I will continue to keep the lights off when my CO2 runs out!



Good post and I enjoyed reading it. 

Just by way of general discussion, I don’t think that any scientist worth their salt these days expects to explain complex systems in solely reductionist terms…that is if they ever really did. It has long been recognized that complex systems are more than the sum of their parts. And these days even particle physics seems to have more in common with divinity than it does with its original reductionist framework.

But then things are often turned on their head. I know that when ecology was in its infancy and very woolly around the edges (still is in truth) many ecologists attempted to legitimize it by adopting quantitative reductionist methods commonly used in physics with varying degrees of success - the nature of the raw data was often too qualitative to be realistically quantifiable. Sociologist and psychologist did the same for their respective fields of endeavor. 

As mentioned it’s really horses for courses. Sometimes, a solely reductionist approach is appropriate and can provide the answers we need, even as far as aquarium phenomena are concerned, and Tom has illustrated this quite eloquently by describing how he applies the scientific method of falsifying hypotheses. 

However, it’s really just a question of scale; the scope of reductionism isn’t just confined to the Petri dish. Answers gained from a reductionist methodology are often the first step of a holistic approach or when trying to model complex systems. This is especially so in ecology which incorporates quantitative analytical tools but also recognizes quality as a vital feature of the world it studies.

Personally I have always recognized quality as every bit as important as quantity in the world in which we live. I don’t require a theory to be validated by falsifying hypothesis to see that perhaps it contains at least some truth. But by the same measure I always approach such theories with healthy skepticism and try to assess them critically. 

So essentially, we are in agreement, and to put it in to the context of our example - water changes on their own in a low energy system do not necessarily cause fluctuating CO2 levels (if indeed they do at all) that are significant enough to cause algal blooms ; but sometimes work in synergy with other factors to perhaps do so. But until someone identifies the exact "causal web" responsible we will never know for sure. Meanwhile, if it works for you, continue to keep the lights off when the CO2 runs out.


----------



## OllieNZ

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*



			
				Troi said:
			
		

> So essentially, we are in agreement, and to put it in to the context of our example - water changes on their own in a low energy system do not necessarily cause fluctuating CO2 levels (if indeed they do at all) that are significant enough to cause algal blooms ; but sometimes work in synergy with other factors to perhaps do so. But until someone identifies the exact "causal web" responsible we will never know for sure. Meanwhile, if it works for you, continue to keep the lights off when the CO2 runs out.



I think there are 2 main reasons fluctuating co2 levels from water changes in a low tech dont cause bba blooms. First is the frequency of the fluctuations ie once or twice a week, as opposed to constantly unstable in a poor example of high tech. Second is the big bang, poor plant health = algae. If your low tech is anything to go by you have very healthy plants and all your water changes are doing is removing algal spores. If your plants are not healthy you will get algae, it dosent matter if you have a high or a low tech. 
I've never tried intentionally inducing algae so Tom if you would be so kind. Are you able to induce algae in a tank full of healthy plants?


----------



## sWozzAres

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*

For BBA that grows on the edges of leaves, your probably right in that the plant can resist it as long as it's healthy.

Unfortunately, BBA also has an affinity for static surfaces, ie wood, plastic, rubber etc. so plant health in this case is irrelevant - at least in terms of resisting attachment. Interestingly it won't grow on glass and I suspect this is because the spore can't settle in order to germinate - smooth surface with nowhere to get lodged.

BBA experiences alternation of generations so it has two types of spore, carpospore and tetraspore. It's the former that's more interesting because apparently it remains with it's parent plant (gametophyte) until the plant deteriorates - then it germinates. I am guessing that the deterioration of the gametophyte is due to loss of CO2, making it lose structural integrity.

I've had background levels of BBA in my new tank for a couple of months. It was strands, dotted around here and there. I've left it alone - you know what they say, keep your friends close but your enemies closer   but after a couple of months decided to nuke it all with excel, double dosed for a week. A couple of weeks later it returned, only this time it was small tufts.

This is interesting because of alternation of generations, basically the gametophyte releases carpospores which germinate and grows into a tetrasporophyte which releases tetraspores that germinate and grow into a gametophyte again - thereby completing the life cycle.

I am thinking that the strand/hairy type BBA was the gametophyte, that got nuked by the excel leaving carpospores littered about. These survived the excel but then germinated into a tetrasporophyte which was the tufty looking BBA.

However, since BBA gametophytes and tetrasporophytes are isomorphic, they should look the same - they did look very similiar but you could tell the difference so this could also be due to fact that of the 300 or so species of BBA, there are I think 30 or so that are freshwater. So it might be that I've had different species which further complicates matters when your trying to nail down a cause because different species can have different causes


----------



## sWozzAres

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*



			
				Troi said:
			
		

> Just by way of general discussion, I don’t think that any scientist worth their salt these days expects to explain complex systems in solely reductionist terms…that is if they ever really did. It has long been recognized that complex systems are more than the sum of their parts. And these days even particle physics seems to have more in common with divinity than it does with its original reductionist framework.



I couldn't agree more, emergent phenomena. Chemistry emerges from physics, biology emerges from chemistry, technology emerges from biology. What emerges from technology, hmmm? It's almost as if each level of emergence creates a new layer of reality with it's own entities and rules of interaction. One level can't be explained in terms of, or reduced to the level that it emerged from. So it' s more than the sum of it's parts, mysteriously you seem to get something more than you put in! The mind can't be reduced to the brain, society can't be reduced to people, people can't be reduced to cells etc etc

So back on topic, the casual users "level of reality", that of dosing nutrients, water changes, fish load can't be explained in terms of molecules, atoms and their interactions. It seems there will always be a disconnect between the world of the scientist and the world of the casual user, one that's impossible to bridge. 

Anyway just rambling, I think you will probably find this interesting http://jap.physiology.org/content/104/6/1844


----------



## dw1305

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*

Hi all,


> Reading thread's like this I get the feeling that many of us are overcomplicating what is in essence, a fairly simple hobby. Plants need light, co2 and nutrients. .............A combo of methods and observations(anecdotes) seem to work the best. We need to be able to corroborate theory/test etc........in the field (our aquariums). So we have to try it and see. Some things are not simple, sometimes we just over looked something really simple


 I agree with the other posters, in all likelihood we aren't going to be able to quantify all the factors that make a difference, but if we could accurately record what we did, over time we may build up a big enough database to draw up some general guidelines. But for me the real problem is that we can't accurately measure many of the parameters we are interested in, so what we surmise may not actually be borne out by the data.

I think one of the problems is that people get too hung up on following a set methodology and this can place people in an invidious position, where they may want to follow the _Walstad method_ etc., and feel that they shouldn't change the water etc., even though their fish keeping experience tells them to. 

*BBA*


> BBA experiences alternation of generations so it has two types of spore, carpospore and tetraspore. It's the former that's more interesting because apparently it remains with it's parent plant (gametophyte) until the plant deteriorates - then it germinates. I am guessing that the deterioration of the gametophyte is due to loss of CO2, making it lose structural integrity.
> 
> I've had background levels of BBA in my new tank for a couple of months. It was strands, dotted around here and there. I've left it alone - you know what they say, keep your friends close but your enemies closer, but after a couple of months decided to nuke it all with excel, double dosed for a week. A couple of weeks later it returned, only this time it was small tufts.
> 
> This is interesting because of alternation of generations, basically the gametophyte releases carpospores which germinate and grows into a tetrasporophyte which releases tetraspores that germinate and grow into a gametophyte again - thereby completing the life cycle.
> 
> I am thinking that the strand/hairy type BBA was the gametophyte, that got nuked by the excel leaving carpospores littered about. These survived the excel but then germinated into a tetrasporophyte which was the tufty looking BBA.
> 
> However, since BBA gametophytes and tetrasporophytes are isomorphic, they should look the same - they did look very similiar but you could tell the difference so this could also be due to fact that of the 300 or so species of BBA, there are I think 30 or so that are freshwater. So it might be that I've had different species which further complicates matters when your trying to nail down a cause because different species can have different causes


I was thinking about alternation of generation in Red algae the other day (tetrasporophyte petrocelis generation of _Mastocarpus stellatus_), but I'd never really thought about it in terms of the Red algae in the Aquarium. 

However, I think you might have the answer here to the differing types of BBA, but that it isn't the generations that differ in morphology, it is the sexes. 

Based upon this <http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag...icroscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artmay99/gbalgae.html> which led to:

Júnio, O & Vis, M. (2005) "Reproductive ecology of the freshwater red alga _Batrachospermum delicatulum_ (Batrachospermales, Rhodophyta) in three tropical streams." _Phycological Research_ *53* pp. 194–200.



> Batrachospermum delicatulum ...... Physical and chemical parameters and the spatial placement of thalli were investigated along with the reproductive characteristics of the gametophytic phase. ..... All specimens examined were dioecious. The ratio of male/female plants was relatively low (0.5 to 1.3) and male plants tended to occur as clumps (two or three plants together). High reproductive success was observed, as indicated by the occurrence of 100% fertilized (carposporophytic) female plants.


cheers Darrel


----------



## sWozzAres

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*



			
				dw1305 said:
			
		

> However, I think you might have the answer here to the differing types of BBA, but that it isn't the generations that differ in morphology, it is the sexes.



Ah! Of course, that makes more sense   

Starting to bug me now though why after the excel I only saw the one sex reappear. We are talking about half a dozen small tufts but no strand/hair type anywhere.


----------



## dw1305

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*

Hi all,


> However, I think you might have the answer here to the differing types of BBA, but that it isn't the generations that differ in morphology, it is the sexes......Ah! Of course, that makes more sense


It is really no more than a guess, but I'll see if I can find out some more about the actual species involved in the aquarium. Some-one I used to work with is a Phycologist at the NHM, (and she works on the marine Rhodophyta), so she may be able to put us in contact with some-one who knows some more. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## sWozzAres

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*

Genus Audouinella

Species will be on this page somewhere
http://www.algaebase.org/search/genus/d ... s_id=32946

most are marine

I can dig out some pics on google and none show carpogonium and spermatangium on the same plant. Might have to get the microscope out at the weekend


----------



## plantbrain

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*

Spores can be asexual also, there is often no need to complete the entire life cycle for such pest, aquatic weeds spread mainly via asexual propagation. 

Sheath's text is good for general stuff on Audouinella. Generally found in flowing waters, CO2 tends to be in the 5-10ppm ranges from what I've read.

Amano told me he suffered 10 years with this alga, I suffered about 3 years. 
We both went after the issue the same way however: we focused on the plant growth and trimmed our way out of the issue. Both cases we added more and more CO2.

Life histories can be useful in learning more about it, but I do not think it'll help many hobbyist.

Our goal is not to learn to grow algae, not to learn 101 ways to kill algae, I did not get into this hobby to do that.
Our goal is deceptive and simple: to grow plants well. So focus there, then algae is really not that big an issue.

Healthy plants = little algae issues.

You can do this a few ways, why they work will be more related to the plant health and the indirect responses of the algae and the spore types to plant density/light/health etc.

The fast flowing water.........mid range of CO2 might be a key factor. BBA is very common in tanks that do those ranges of CO2/good flow etc. We took BBA covered rocks out a tank once, set them on a porch over the winter for 6 months, added them back, the algae grew back. 

Killing BBA on non live things is a rather simple affair, plant leaves? I just trim it off. So does Amano. 
This works well if the growth(thus the good care and focus on plant growth) rate is decent and the leaves grow in and do not get covered.

This way you export and remove all the new settling germlings on the older plant leaves. A few cycles beats the alga back and have a pretty clean tank. Some non CO2 folks use Excel/Easy carbo etc for a few weeks/months and kill it and enhance growth for a while.

Then return to non Carbon enrichment.

For folks using CO2, excel and Easy Carbo helps in the same way.
Easy carbon and Excel does NOT kill or reduce green algae.

I've also noted that many folks with high fish loading had BBA, but the plants often where not taken care of and the higher the fish loading, the more they added current and blew off the CO2 they added, so they had that same 5-10ppm range of CO2. It was not the ferts/nutrients, it was the CO2 and they added a lot more current to prevent low O2 for the fish.

Discus owners are commonly prone to this.


----------



## sWozzAres

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*



			
				plantbrain said:
			
		

> Life histories can be useful in learning more about it, but I do not think it'll help many hobbyist.


Exactly right, youv'e said in a much shorter succint way what we were describing earlier in the thread - the scientist can have thousands of pages of detailed information about life history/biology/triggers and even a map of the genome but when you add all of this up and transfer it to the hobbyist, all it amounts to is what we already have - stop CO2 fluctuating.


----------



## sWozzAres

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*



			
				dw1305 said:
			
		

> However, I think you might have the answer here to the differing types of BBA, but that it isn't the generations that differ in morphology, it is the sexes.



Darrel,

Reference http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/26399/1/13(1)_P57-76.pdf

They look at two marine species _Audouillella alariae_ and _Rhodochortoll repens_ and realise that they are actually the gametophyte and tetrasporophyte of the same species.

The gametophyte has both male and female gametangia on the same thallus - so it's both male and female at the same time.

The tetrasporophyte forms a tuft and has no hairs.



> The gametophyte is composed of a unicellular base and 1-3 (-4) erect filaments with  hairs





> The tetrasporophyte is composed of a multicellular base and erect filaments without hairs



Looking at my tank last night I do now have one bit of strand/hair type. Not very scientific but it seems to fit the original hypothesis - the tufts that appeared after the excel treatment are now producing spores that are germinating into hairy gametophytes.


----------



## sWozzAres

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*

Also   

Reference: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...#v=onepage&q=Audouinella life history&f=false

_Audouinella investiens..._



> The haploid gametophytes are hermaphrodite and therefore bear spermatangia as well as carpogonia



Regarding light...



> it has been found that tetraspores are formed only in short day conditions





> with 8h of light per day, tetraspores are formed, with 16h they are not



suggesting that light is another way to combat BBA and feeds into what we were saying earlier about multiple causes since 10h light could stop BBA even if you have fluctuating CO2 in a non CO2 tank


----------



## sWozzAres

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*

Troi, this might go a long way in answering your question as to why you don't get BBA in your non-CO2 tank



> I call the method low energy but perhaps it is really not that low energy since I used ferts (TNC) about the equivalent of 1/10th - 1/5th full EI, reasonably good lighting (*12 hr/day*, 1.5 watts of T8 per imp gallon, with reflectors) and an Eheim Pro canister filter that turns over 750 litres/hr - the tanks capacity is 90 litres, and I change 30% - 50% of the water twice a week.



Your 12 hr/day light period is stopping the BBA tetrasporophytes forming spores, thereby halting it's life cycle.  

This could be a hypothesis that using Tom's falsification process can easily be tested. Just put your lighting down to 6hr and see what happens


----------



## sWozzAres

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*

I've scanned alot of BBA threads in the algae section and as far as people have said, all of those who have BBA outbreaks have 10 hours or less of lighting.

Still you can't expect people to up lighting to 12 hours to combat BBA but I've also found this talking about _Audouinella botryocarpa_

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/11263508709429378



> Night-breaks of 1 h in a 16 h night prevented tetrasporangial reproduction and a critical daylength of 10 h was found at 10°C.



So perhaps having lights on for 1 hour in the middle of the dark period will also halt the life cycle.


----------



## plantbrain

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*



			
				sWozzAres said:
			
		

> plantbrain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life histories can be useful in learning more about it, but I do not think it'll help many hobbyist.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right, youv'e said in a much shorter succint way what we were describing earlier in the thread - the scientist can have thousands of pages of detailed information about life history/biology/triggers and even a map of the genome but when you add all of this up and transfer it to the hobbyist, all it amounts to is what we already have - stop CO2 fluctuating.
Click to expand...


Well maybe it's a CO2 stability issue, maybe not.

Maybe it's just the 1st 30 min or 120 minutes that are important for CO2 and the rest of the day be over a wider range.
Maybe adjusting the light slowly is a better way, maybe it's something we have not considered? 

Maybe light photo period has an effect, I'm doubtful.


----------



## sWozzAres

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*



			
				plantbrain said:
			
		

> Well maybe it's a CO2 stability issue, maybe not.
> 
> Maybe it's just the 1st 30 min or 120 minutes that are important for CO2 and the rest of the day be over a wider range.
> Maybe adjusting the light slowly is a better way, maybe it's something we have not considered?
> 
> Maybe light photo period has an effect, I'm doubtful.



If fluctuating CO2 is the only "evidence" then surely fluctuating pH is a more likely "cause". Each tank will have a different pH for the same 0ppm CO2.


----------



## sWozzAres

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*

Is the colour of the BBA related to temperature?



> The most significant differences in pigment content were related to temperature



http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract


----------



## Tim Harrison

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*

Great discussion, and some fascinating papers, thanks guys.


----------



## dw1305

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*

Hi all,


> Is the colour of the BBA related to temperature?


 Not sure,  I know for the marine reds that they tend to be redder in low light and darker in high light, and that if the red seaweed from the lower shore end up higher up the shore (in a rock-pool for instance) they tend to bleach white.

cheers Darrel


----------



## sWozzAres

*Re: Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience*

The local LFS has blue BBA. Thought it looked quite cool.  8) 

Colour seems to be species specific.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09670269500650991

Different species also have different preferences for temperature and flow.

It seems blue BBA has invaded Japan recently probably "through the vector such as ornamental macrophytes" 

http://www.aquaticinvasions.net/2009/AI_2009_4_4_Kato_etal.pdf


----------

