# Does excess P encourage hair algae?



## Franks (1 Jul 2016)

I know it's all a balance (fert/Co2/lighting) but I recently had some shop advice from a very knowledgeable sounding worker who kept a planted tank. He said our local water contains so much P and that by dosing a full NPK and Micro that this will boost P by such an amount that hair algae is generally promoted. He then told me thats why I have it (without me telling him!)

He went on to say my options to gain full control are to cut out dosing P or run RO water and use a full fert and as a last resort, stock the tank full of plants in such a way that they mop up this excess. 

I cant find anything on the net to support this excess P and hair algae evidence though. Does it sound plausible?

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk


----------



## Easternlethal (2 Jul 2016)

All algae use the same nutrients as plants. Even co2. But plants compete against algae and inhibit their growth in a variety of ways (not only by using up the nutrients). So a high P environment can have lots of algae and no plants or lots of plants and no algae. Of course if plants are losing the battle against P, people try to cut all nutrients from the water column to give plants an advantage through the substrate / roots.

However plants and algae need all nutrients so cutting one out successfully will mean they will also be unable to utilise the others.


----------



## ian_m (2 Jul 2016)

Due to dosing pump failure I ended up with 350ppm nitrate and 80ppm phosphate for a while. No effect on fish and absolutely no algae.

Generally adding more phosphate will reduce algae.

Never ever rely on your water report to alter your dosing, we see time after time people who invent their own dosing scheme based on their water report having plant nutrient issues and if plants suffer algae gets a foot hold.


----------



## rebel (2 Jul 2016)

I don't we can be sure either way. If you dose EI and have excellent co2 then no. Otherwise who knows. 

Concentrate on growing plants. 

Hair algae, I use algaexit and shrimp. 

Then back to more enjoyable aspect of growing plants.


----------



## Franks (2 Jul 2016)

I guess. So long as there is no deficiency but he was adamant that a big excess promotes hair algae. I have the tiniest amount so it raised an eyebrow.

I'm currently in a 'take all advice onboarding' approach since I'm a week into tuning my Co2 gas in. PH meter has just arrived and tank is filled with plants. Zero substrate space left! 

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk


----------



## dw1305 (2 Jul 2016)

Hi all,





Easternlethal said:


> But plants compete against algae and inhibit their growth in a variety of ways (not only by using up the nutrients). So a high P environment can have lots of algae and no plants or lots of plants and no algae.


I like a lot of plants, and I don't tend to have much filamentous algae. 

It is certainly true in natural waters that elevated levels of PO4--- tend to cause algal blooms, and we are talking about <"very low levels of PO4---">. 


Franks said:


> but he was adamant that a big excess promotes hair algae. I have the tiniest amount so it raised an eyebrow.


I don't know the answer, but the thing you have to remember is that physiologically green algae are very similar to higher plants.

From: <"The Tree of Life:Green Plants">





> Green plants as defined here includes a broad assemblage of photosynthetic organisms that all contain chlorophylls a and b, store their photosynthetic products as starch inside the double-membrane-bounded chloroplasts in which it is produced, and have cell walls made of cellulose (Raven et al., 1992). In this group are several thousand species of what are classically considered green algae, plus several hundred thousand land plants.


Because of this I can't see how conditions that favour the growth of the plants we want, don't also favour the growth of the plants we don't want.

cheers Darrel


----------



## zozo (2 Jul 2016)

I do not do any EI and use tropica ferts and or easy life profito and various tabs.. In my high tech i see green filamentous algae grow only on the glass i have to clean once a week, but no longer on the plants. 6 months ago this still was different and had several algae issues also hair algae on plants.. In my latest low tech i still have hair algae growing on the plants this tank is about 9 months old now and not all of the plants are fully established..

Experiencing algae come and go with the exact same fert regime i have no other guess than it is probably the plants establishment in health and or maturity preventing algae from getting a foothold on its leaves.. The times i had algae issues on plant leaves in my high tech i also experienced plants not realy doing great and holding back in growth. In the low tech i experience some what the same at the time, the plants which are the youngest and not yet established have the most hair algae on its leaves. First i had to battle off and wait out the diatom outbreak, then came the BBA, so did cut back the light and BBA fortunately is on it's detour again and now i see hair algae appearing instead.

Their probably (more obviously) is a correlation between fert availabilty and algae and if the plant is incapable of utilizing these ferts into good growth and health algae growth will probably excellerate and attack plants in trouble. For example still under developed rootsystem could be the cause of stagnation in the plants transportation abilities and there for not utilizing the ferts in the water column. So not taking up ferts but also not transporting antibodies back to protect them against algae attack. Something like that. 

There are articles enough to find from very experienced planted tank keepers stating very high P load but no algae.. Because they have very good establihed and healthy plants growing. Algae is always around, but not on the plants if all is healthy..


----------



## Easternlethal (5 Aug 2016)

dw1305 said:


> Because of this I can't see how conditions that favour the growth of the plants we want, don't also favour the growth of the plants we don't want.
> 
> cheers Darrel



A favourable environment is one thing but how plants take advantage of it is another. 

It's actually a gross generalisation to say all plants are physiologically the same. This is a hobby myth. Plants are different,  having evolved different root systems, stem, leaf composition etc. over millions of years to compete against each other. 

In a way,  saying all plants have chlorophyll so there's no telling is a bit like saying all animals on earth have arms and legs so they should all thrive. 

If It can rephrase the point a bit,  it's that it's still an open question as to whether it's possible to set up an aquarium to favour the physiological attributes of a group of plants vs another.


----------



## dw1305 (5 Aug 2016)

Hi all, 





Easternlethal said:


> Plants are different, having evolved different root systems, stem, leaf composition etc. over millions of years to compete against each other.


 Point taken, photosynthetic organisms occur in all habits where liquid water and light are available. I originally trained as a botanist, and the diversity of plant life, and the <"niches it exploits">, is just over-whelming. 





Easternlethal said:


> It's actually a gross generalisation to say all plants are physiologically the same. This is a hobby myth.


If we just look at photosynthesis it isn't. I can tell you that unequivocally. 

If you look specifically at the green plants <"Viridiplantae">, they all belong to the <"same clade"> and have a common ancestor, and all have the same basic physiology. 





Easternlethal said:


> In a way, saying all plants have chlorophyll so there's no telling is a bit like saying all animals on earth have arms and legs so they should all thrive.


No, it is important at a much more fundamental level than that, photosynthetic organisms are <"autotrophs"> and, again we know from conserved DNA that photosynthesis <"only evolved once">.  

cheers Darrel


----------



## Easternlethal (6 Aug 2016)

Photosynthesis, respiration, reproduction, life, death are biological processes and don't really contribute to or explain how plants and algae compete. Physiology is what does.


----------



## dw1305 (6 Aug 2016)

Hi all,





Easternlethal said:


> Photosynthesis, respiration, reproduction, life, death are biological processes and don't really contribute to or explain how plants and algae compete. Physiology is what does.


Yes that is exactly it. 

All the green plants have the same basic physiology, which they got from their common ancestor. If you look at their requirements for <"nutrients">, and their basic photosystems they are the same. Evolution (via natural selection) has moulded this basic tool kit to allow green plants (often in <"mutualistic"> or symbiotic relations) to exploit all environments with liquid water and light, but it can't change the tool kit.  





> <"Fundamental processes"> such as photosynthesis, respiration, plant nutrition, plant hormone functions, tropisms, nastic movements, photoperiodism, photomorphogenesis, circadian rhythms, environmental stress physiology, seed germination, dormancy and stomata function and transpiration, both parts of plant water relations, are studied by plant physiologists.


 When we supply abundant PAR and nutrients they can be utilised by all green plants. We need to provide conditions where the plants we want are favoured, not the ones we don't. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## rebel (6 Aug 2016)

I agree, hair algae is a difficult beast to beat at times. It's far too close to being a plant which we are trying to grow.

For the OP, it would be easy to check whether P causes hair algae. You need a few tanks with identical equipment, accurate calibrated measurement devices and some lab grade chemicals with known titrations etc. Ideally though, get some advice from a plant guy (say Botanist and chemist) to make sure your experiments are valid. Finally you need independent replication of your tests by other groups. I would love to see all that data!


----------



## hard determinist (6 Aug 2016)

dw1305 said:


> When we supply abundant PAR and nutrients they can be utilised by all green plants.


I don't agree on this. Some plant species are abviously adapted to special conditions, and don't evolved any physiological mechanisms to survive in other conditions. A good example of this is _Rotala wallichii_. On the other hand, you have many plant species that can successfully adapt to broad range of conditons, because they have evolved many physiological mechanisms to survive in these conditions. These are the ones we call "invasive", as they can survive neerly everywhere. A good example of this is _Rotala rotundifolia_. Both species are closely related, yet their demands are diametrically different. One plant will fail in most environments, while the other will be OK under most conditions. Under all conditions there is water, light, and nutrients. Explain this.


----------



## zozo (6 Aug 2016)

I have it in my tank, tho it's latent but it's definitely there.. And if for example take some clean looking moss out off my tank, put it in distilled water or tap water (doesn't make a difference) on the window sil.. It only takes a few weeks and i have a nice wig of hair algae growing in there.  Light??


----------



## Easternlethal (7 Aug 2016)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,Yes that is exactly it.
> 
> All the green plants have the same basic physiology, which they got from their common ancestor. If you look at their requirements for <"nutrients">, and their basic photosystems they are the same. Evolution (via natural selection) has moulded this basic tool kit to allow green plants (often in <"mutualistic"> or symbiotic relations) to exploit all environments with liquid water and light, but it can't change the tool kit.   When we supply abundant PAR and nutrients they can be utilised by all green plants. We need to provide conditions where the plants we want are favoured, not the ones we don't.
> 
> cheers Darrel



Let me give you an example.Some floating phytoplankton can outcompete rooted macrophytes because they are not limited to propagating by runners or shoots and have no need to make physiological features like cuticles. This means they can multiply faster but, being non rooted are subject to water movement. This is why we recommend having flow in the aquarium, because plants with root systems are not subject to water movement as much.

So understanding photosynthesis or just focusing on the parts of a plant that is used for photosynthesis doesn't really help. Macrophytes do a lot more than just photosynthesize.

Take a look at my other post which contains some more detailed articles about competition.
http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/...ake-restoration-techniques.41747/#post-449302


----------



## dw1305 (8 Aug 2016)

Hi all, 





rebel said:


> hair algae is a difficult beast to beat at times. It's far too close to being a plant which we are trying to grow.


That is what I'm saying.





hard determinist said:


> Some plant species are abviously adapted to special conditions, and don't evolved any physiological mechanisms to survive in other conditions. A good example of this is _Rotala wallichii_. On the other hand, you have many plant species that can successfully adapt to broad range of conditons, because they have evolved many physiological mechanisms to survive in these conditions.


I agree, natural selection has adapted plants to survive in all sorts of really hostile conditions and they often have very limited survivor-ship away from those conditions.

You can see the effects of this with global warming where <"alpine plants are retreating uphill"> as competition from less specialized plants becomes more important.  





hard determinist said:


> These are the ones we call "invasive", as they can survive neerly everywhere. A good example of this is _Rotala rotundifolia_. Both species are closely related, yet their demands are diametrically different. One plant will fail in most environments, while the other will be OK under most conditions. Under all conditions there is water, light, and nutrients.


That is right, plants that are easy to grow (or potentially invasive) have a wide ecological amplitude, and can take advantage of a range of conditions.

Plants that are adapted to nutrient poor condition may be extremely efficient at scavenging scarce resources in nutrient depleted soils, but poor competitors in more normal conditions. An example of this would be plants (and their associated symbionts) in the Protaceae, from SW Australia, South Africa etc which will poison themselves in soils with more than trace amounts of phosphorus <"Phosphorus toxicity in the Proteaceae: A problem in post-agricultural lands">.





Easternlethal said:


> Some floating phytoplankton can outcompete rooted macrophytes because they are not limited to propagating by runners or shoots and have no need to make physiological features like cuticles. This means they can multiply faster but, being non rooted are subject to water movement


Which takes us back to the OP's question, aquatic invasive plants can come from any part of the <"Viridiplantae">, it isn't whether they are "algae" or macrophytes that matters, it is whether they can utilise the nutrients (including light and CO2) that are supplied to them. 

If you grew a Tomato and a _Cymbidium_ orchid along gradients of nutrients and light, you would find that at low light and low nutrients the Tomato fails to grow and may well die, while the orchid will grow slowly, as you increase parameters the tomato will begin to show enhanced growth, and at least initially the Orchid will as well, but as parameters increase the orchid will begin to show light and fertilizer damage, before expiring. 

The same isn't true for the tomato, it will carry on growing vigorously at many times the nutrient loading that killed the orchid. 

If this was an aquatic situation, your "orchid" could be a plant like _Lobelia dortmanna_ or_ Chara _species_,_ and your "tomato" _Chlorella_ or _<"Typha latifolia">. _

There is a good summary of algae from oligotrophic and eutrophic conditions on the Lenntech web site <"General effects of eutrophication">.

cheers Darrel.


----------



## hard determinist (9 Aug 2016)

dw1305 said:


> Natural selection has adapted plants to survive in all sorts of really hostile conditions and they often have very limited survivor-ship away from those conditions ... Plants that are easy to grow (or potentially invasive) have a wide ecological amplitude, and can take advantage of a range of conditions. Plants that are adapted to nutrient poor condition may be extremely efficient at scavenging scarce resources in nutrient depleted soils, but poor competitors in more normal conditions.


I think that this is very important piece of knowledge, that is being very much overlooked among hobbyists. It seems that even among aquarium plants there are some species that are adapted to nutrient poor conditions, but lack some physiological mechanisms that would protect them from being poisoned by too much nutrients. Thus, when we try to grow these plants in EI fertilized tanks they do poorly, and it's obviously not any CO2 issue. In some cases the growth rate may be boosted (by higher nutrient levels), but their overall shape is poor and shows many kinds of deformations.


----------



## rebel (9 Aug 2016)

hard determinist said:


> I think that this is very important piece of knowledge, that is being very much overlooked among hobbyists. It seems that even among aquarium plants there are some species that are adapted to nutrient poor conditions, but lack some physiological mechanisms that would protect them from being poisoned by too much nutrients. Thus, when we try to grow these plants in EI fertilized tanks they do poorly, and it's obviously not any CO2 issue. In some cases the growth rate may be boosted (by higher nutrient levels), but their overall shape is poor and shows many kinds of deformations.



The problem is that there seems to exeptions to this idea. For example Tom and his UG.....


----------



## hard determinist (9 Aug 2016)

rebel said:


> The problem is that there seems to exeptions to this idea. For example Tom and his UG.....


What exceptions are you speaking about? Did you do any controlled experiments to prove your point? Or Tom?


----------



## roadmaster (9 Aug 2016)

Believe many of the aquatic plant's we grow or attempt to grow submerged ,aren't found completely submerged in nature except maybe during the rainy season.
This may be why some plant's grow better than other's independent of dosing schemes.
Light energy,CO2 or lack thereof,temperatures,along with nutrient's must all favor a particular plant for it to perform well No?


----------



## dw1305 (9 Aug 2016)

Hi all,





hard determinist said:


> It seems that even among aquarium plants there are some species that are adapted to nutrient poor conditions, but lack some physiological mechanisms that would protect them from being poisoned by too much nutrients.


I think there definitely will be some, and that they are likely to be plants that aren't commonly produced commercially.

You could look at families to give some idea of whether plants are likely to either not be able to utilise high nutrients, or alternatively be damaged by them. Most of the mosses and ferns might be examples, but families like the Ericaceae, Bromeliads, Orchids and Proteaceae don't have any aquatic members.

It won't be a perfect fit because "hard determinist" has already found that _Rotala wallichii _and _Rotala rotundifolia _have different requirements, although they both belong to the same genus. 

Families worth investigating would be:
Araceae 
Eriocaulaceae 
Isoetaceae
Hymenophyllaceae
Lentibulariaceae
Pteridaceae etc.

cheers Darrel


----------



## hard determinist (9 Aug 2016)

I think it would help a lot if we know the water & sediment parameters of these species in their natural habitat. This may give us a right direction of where to look. For example, Taiwanese rivers seems to have rather alkaline pH (7.5 to 8.5),  hardness of 7-10°dGH, dissolved oxygen >7 mg/L, 2-10 mg/L NO3, and 0.2-0.3 mg/L PO4 (from natural to highly influenced waters). But I don't know other parameters, and I don't even know if these parameters are common for the R.wallichii's habitat. Also, Taiwan is not the only natural habitat for R.wallichii. But at least, it can direct us to alkaline pH, higher hardness, and lower nutrient levels to begin with. I think there are other aquarium species that may be adapted to some special (narrow) environment conditions, like some Alternanthera species, Pogostemon stellatus, Limnophila aromatica, Utricularia graminifolia (UG), and probably most of the so-called "Advanced" or "Hard" species. Unfortunately, there is probably no hobbyist there these days who would systematically study the specific demands of these species, so that we may know what envinronment is best for them (or what to avoid). The general advice I hear almost everywhere is EI levels of nutrients + high CO2. I don't believe this general advice can be applied to all species, or yield the best possible results. I can grow R.wallichii under EI levels of nutrients, and it gives me probably the highest growth rate, but the plants look terribly, and the growth is deformed. On the other hand, under high hardness, and alkalinity, together with low nutrient levels it gives me definitely the best look, although the growth rate is slower.


----------



## roadmaster (10 Aug 2016)

hard determinist said:


> I think that this is very important piece of knowledge, that is being very much overlooked among hobbyists. It seems that even among aquarium plants there are some species that are adapted to nutrient poor conditions, but lack some physiological mechanisms that would protect them from being poisoned by too much nutrients. Thus, when we try to grow these plants in EI fertilized tanks they do poorly, and it's obviously not any CO2 issue. In some cases the growth rate may be boosted (by higher nutrient levels), but their overall shape is poor and shows many kinds of deformations.



Agree that some plant's have adapted to grow in nutrient poor condition's lest they die.
But something also overlooked by some hobbyist's, is the fact that not everybody using Estimative index struggles with a particular plant.(as you suggest above)
Just because you do, or a dozen do,does not negate those who have no such issues .
I suppose one can argue that some have issues and just don't know it, but one cannot say that all who dose EI have the problem's you are seeing.
Same maybe applies with CO2. Just because one claims that they have high CO2 does not mean it is properly  distributed through out the tank or is consistent for everyone.
Could still be an issue depending on a few variables .Cannot say it is obviously NOT  a CO2 issue for anyone other than you and your particular tank..


----------



## hard determinist (10 Aug 2016)

I don't negate nor question others success in growing R.wallichii (for example) in their tanks. But I don't have any reliable info about the real conditions present in these tanks. Someone may have success growing R.wallichii when dosing EI levels of nutrient, but to be honest, we know nothing reliable about the real nutrient levels in his tank. It is possible that some nutrients may precipitate in his tank (Fe, PO4), some nutrients may be bound by natural or artificial chelates, thus their actual concentration in water may be very low. Other factors may play role also, which he may not even notice. This is why the controlled experiments are so important.

You say, "Just because one claims that they have high CO2 does not mean it is properly distributed through out the tank or is consistent for everyone". But I may say, "Just because one claims that they dose high amount of nutrients does not mean these nutrients are really present in the water". So when someone says he grows R.wallichii under EI method, such statement has a poor information value.


----------



## rebel (10 Aug 2016)

hard determinist said:


> What exceptions are you speaking about? Did you do any controlled experiments to prove your point? Or Tom?


Do you?


----------



## hard determinist (10 Aug 2016)

rebel said:


> Do you?


Yes, I do.


----------



## rebel (10 Aug 2016)

hard determinist said:


> Yes, I do.


If you do, then the OP question, "Does P encourage hair algae" should be already answered. No need to discuss various hypothesis. 

More seriously, for the noobs watching, when a discussion is scientific, then science rules (evidence, consillience, peer review, validity, generalisability etc) apply. But when various ideas are being discussed, then on the internet at least, everyone can offer an opinion. Every opinion will be valid because the concepts will be evidence free-zones. It's not useful to ask for people to conform to scientific rules.

My suggestion/opinion was that Tom grew UG very well in his very high light EI dosed tank. This is just an anecdote, not evidence of anything. 

Thanks for providing your evidence though.


----------



## hard determinist (10 Aug 2016)

rebel said:


> If you do, then the OP question, "Does P encourage hair algae" should be already answered.


How is it? I was speaking "off-topic" about the demands of aquarium plants, not about P encouraging hair algae, so how could my comments give OP any relevant answer to his initial question?



> When a discussion is scientific, then science rules ... apply. But when various ideas are being discussed, then ... everyone can offer an opinion. Every opinion will be valid because the concepts will be evidence free-zones. It's not useful to ask for people to conform to scientific rules.


Why is it not useful? Is it more useful to give us anecdotal "evidences" over the scientific ones? Either we want to know the truth, or we want just empty talk. What's the use of your statement that "Tom grew UG very well in his very high light EI dosed tank"? Does it tell us anything about the true demands of this plant? No. Will this help someone if he experiences any problems? I doubt it. It tells us only that UG can grow well in one high light EI dosed tank under dozens of other unknown conditions. Tom explains his success by good CO2 management, but gives us only anecdotal evidence, not any scientific one. You can believe it or not. Again, it's based on the belief or luck, not on the real, reliable knowledge. I don't want to question Tom's experiences or anectodal evidences. But scientific evidences (true knowledge) are much more important and desirable for me to produce repeatable, systematic results. Tom may be producing repeatable, systematic results under some (his) specific conditions, which is not surprising. But someone else may experience problems under different conditions. And unless we know the real demands of our plants, we can't produce repeatable, systematic results in all tanks. You believe Tom's explanation so much that you are unable to accept the possibility that other people may experience problems even under perfect CO2 management (in other words, that CO2 management may not be the key element with some plants).

My point was to point out that without knowing the real demands of our plants, our success is dependent mostly on luck. Do we want to grow our plants based on the luck or based on the knowledge (facts)?



> Thanks for providing your evidence though.


My evidence and experiment results are published continuously on my website.


----------



## roadmaster (11 Aug 2016)

hard determinist said:


> I don't negate nor question others success in growing R.wallichii (for example) in their tanks. But I don't have any reliable info about the real conditions present in these tanks. Someone may have success growing R.wallichii when dosing EI levels of nutrient, but to be honest, we know nothing reliable about the real nutrient levels in his tank. It is possible that some nutrients may precipitate in his tank (Fe, PO4), some nutrients may be bound by natural or artificial chelates, thus their actual concentration in water may be very low. Other factors may play role also, which he may not even notice. This is why the controlled experiments are so important.
> 
> You say, "Just because one claims that they have high CO2 does not mean it is properly distributed through out the tank or is consistent for everyone". But I may say, "Just because one claims that they dose high amount of nutrients does not mean these nutrients are really present in the water". So when someone says he grows R.wallichii under EI method, such statement has a poor information value.



You may say whatever you wish, but it does not help other's,nor does it make you right without question.
If one adopt's a dosing scheme (any scheme), then they know what amount's of nutrient's they are adding and that are present in the water at the time they dosed them along with those that may come naturally to the system (fish waste,fish food's)
Now if one ask's.. can can they dose less or more and achieve their desired result's ? Yes/maybe no.
Plenty of evidence that this is so.
EI method is a good place to begin, for it is unlikely for one to see deficiencies at the outset of planting their tank as a result.
This get's one closer to being able to provide for plant's while maybe substituting,reducing,increasing nutrient 's, for their water condition's or plant's as needed.
This is more difficult to do if the plant's are dying from the get go due to deficiencies.IMHO
EI method was/is not carved in stone as Dr. Barr has said many, many, times, but is hugely successful for many who have adopted it and then went on to post some of the photo's of tank's in the photo gallery here,and on other forum's I visit.(many adopt EI dosing scheme)
I'll float my stick with the method that produces the best result's for me, which is modified version of EI for my low tech affair's however unscientific it may be to the geek's  with the horned rim glasses, and pocket protector's, that appear all too often with no useful number's as to what might be too much or too little in the way of providing nutrient's ,but are all too quick to declare that EI method is  the boogey man.
Without number's..all one can say is the sky is high,and the Ocean deep.
It is just too simple for them and an irritant, that so many seem to be able to have good to great success with very little science involved ,which leaves them feeling irrelevant to seething at times as evidenced by their disdain for EI and it's creator (though they often deny it).
Humorous to me ,but little help to new comer's seeking an easy way to provide for their plant's while exploring the scientific aspect's, and anomaly's at their leisure.


----------



## hard determinist (11 Aug 2016)

roadmaster said:


> ...to the geek's  with the horned rim glasses, and pocket protector's, that appear all too often with no useful number's as to what might be too much or too little in the way of providing nutrient's ,but are all too quick to declare that EI method is  the boogey man.


Roadmaster, you seem to be really blinded by a hatred towards me or people who are EI-restrained. Whatever I say, you interpret as EI-criticism or Tom-criticism (which is downright wrong). I am not attacking EI or Tom. I do some growth experiments with aquarium plants. I use different nutrient concentration in each tank. I don't care if in one tank the nutrient concentration is close to EI levels or not. I use 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 ppm NO3 + other nutrients in my experiments. I don't want to describe all the parameters here, as this post is clearly off-topic, but I want to say/explain something to you (although I doubt it has any positive impact on your hatred/blindness). As I said, my goal is to find out the true demands of aquarium plants - at least the ones I decided to study. Some of them grow really good even under very high nutrient levels (32 ppm NO3), others seem to be harmed by higher nutrient levels. For example, R.wallichii grew well under 2 ppm NO3, but under higher nutrient levels it showed a deformed growth. I don't know what nutrient is causing this demage, but I try to find it out. Also, the plant showed obvious improvement when I increased the total hardness. Now its growth is quite good, and it has a nice red coloration. Also, under higher nutrient levels it's loosing its red color, and becomes green. These are some of my observations so far. My concern is to gather some serious information that can help us to know its demands, so that we can have systematic success in growing it. I don't care if you hate me or are trying to put down my sincere effort to find something out, and share it with the ones who want to listen. You were the troll who provoked me so much with your hatered and perverted twisting and misinterpreting my words, that I finally decided to delete all my posts on plantedtank.net (http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...-promote-algae-growth-toxic-aquatic-life.html + the one about the growth experiment), which earned me a lifetime ban. This is your work, this is what you do with people whom you hate. Also, you are the main reason why I don't share my experiment results publically anymore, but only to registered users on my website.


----------



## roadmaster (11 Aug 2016)

I ain't blind nor do I hate anyone or anything, except Beet's. 
I interpret what I read  with sincerity, and attempt to speak my truth as I know it.
Cannot speak to how other's might interpret what has been written by me or you.They shall have to speak their truth.


----------



## rebel (11 Aug 2016)

hard determinist said:


> How is it? I was speaking "off-topic" about the demands of aquarium plants, not about P encouraging hair algae, so how could my comments give OP any relevant answer to his initial question?
> 
> 
> Why is it not useful? Is it more useful to give us anecdotal "evidences" over the scientific ones? Either we want to know the truth, or we want just empty talk. What's the use of your statement that "Tom grew UG very well in his very high light EI dosed tank"? Does it tell us anything about the true demands of this plant? No. Will this help someone if he experiences any problems? I doubt it. It tells us only that UG can grow well in one high light EI dosed tank under dozens of other unknown conditions. Tom explains his success by good CO2 management, but gives us only anecdotal evidence, not any scientific one. You can believe it or not. Again, it's based on the belief or luck, not on the real, reliable knowledge. I don't want to question Tom's experiences or anectodal evidences. But scientific evidences (true knowledge) are much more important and desirable for me to produce repeatable, systematic results. Tom may be producing repeatable, systematic results under some (his) specific conditions, which is not surprising. But someone else may experience problems under different conditions. And unless we know the real demands of our plants, we can't produce repeatable, systematic results in all tanks. You believe Tom's explanation so much that you are unable to accept the possibility that other people may experience problems even under perfect CO2 management (in other words, that CO2 management may not be the key element with some plants).
> ...


Hiya HD, is your evidence peer reviewed? Otherwise it's just your personal anecdotes. Same as my comments. At least with my comments, I declare they are anecdotes. Both our comments are useless in a scientific discussion. 

Anecdotes are really useful in the hobby. For example, since Tom ( or Harry) has grown UG in a high nutrient environment means that someone else can also try. Again, this would useless as scientific knowledge. But it's useful for the hobby.

I am really keen to see your anecdotes though; that's because I am charitable and curious. Others won't be so kind to you. Remember you are communicating with humans...treat them like you would apwant to be treated.


----------



## hard determinist (11 Aug 2016)

rebel said:


> Hiya HD, is your evidence peer reviewed? Otherwise it's just your personal anecdotes. Same as my comments.


My results are not peer reviewed. But are you serious about that every result that did not passed through peer review process has exactly the same value as your anecdotal statements? Is there really no difference between the value of any data? If so, than what is your measure to judge information? Feelings? Belief? Blue eyes of the one who utters them? PhD degree? Number of posts in the forum or "guru" status? Is there no difference between subjective observation with poor supportive data vs. well documented controlled experiment? And do you think it is a good idea to talk down any effort to do some systematic work (experiments) like you and roadmaster do? Don't you really want to know something, or your only goal is to put down everyone who doesn't share your world's view?


----------



## rebel (11 Aug 2016)

hard determinist said:


> My results are not peer reviewed. But are you serious about that every result that did not passed through peer review process has exactly the same value as your anecdotal statements? Is there really no difference between the value of any data? If so, than what is your measure to judge information? Feelings? Belief? Blue eyes of the one who utters them? PhD degree? Number of posts in the forum or "guru" status? Is there no difference between subjective observation with poor supportive data vs. well documented controlled experiment? And do you think it is a good idea to talk down any effort to do some systematic work (experiments) like you and roadmaster do? Don't you really want to know something, or your only goal is to put down everyone who doesn't share your world's view?


Actually you ask a good question. There are different quality data and deductions. Science doesn't tell us how much data is required before we elevate a hypothesis to an established theory. But certainly  consilliece would be a requirement.

Since I haven't seen your data, I would assume it's an anecdote. Don't care whether you have phd or three of them. 

Share you data so that others can replicate them. That's how science works. While I am curious about the science, I am more interested about growing nice plants.


----------



## hard determinist (11 Aug 2016)

rebel said:


> Share you data so that others can replicate them. That's how science works.


Because of trolls like roadmaster I decided to share not any data publically anymore (I share them with people in my country only/mainly), because I don't want people like him to have access to them. Maybe one day I change my mind, but now I am too disappointed by such people and their hatred.

PS: I apologize the OP for this off-topic discussion.


----------



## roadmaster (11 Aug 2016)

Pffft!


----------



## rebel (11 Aug 2016)

hard determinist said:


> Because of trolls like roadmaster I decided to share not any data publically anymore (I share them with people in my country only/mainly), because I don't want people like him to have access to them. Maybe one day I change my mind, but now I am too disappointed by such people and their hatred.
> 
> PS: I apologize the OP for this off-topic discussion.


In that case, many thanks for your anecdotes. 

Rock on with P and algae dudes.


----------

