# Excess nutrient doesn’t cause algae growth?



## Nont (15 Feb 2022)

Hi everyone,

I’m a bit confuse on this one. In another thread I want some recommendation on house plants that can quickly remove nutrients from the water and @erwin123 told me that nutrients doesn’t cause algae? This is a something I’ve never heard and I’ve been thinking about these questions for a while now:

1. Why doesn’t excess nutrients cause algae growth
2. Why do osmocote that come out of the substrate cause algae bloom?
3. Why do we need to plant heavily from the start or use the floating plants? Isn’t it too steal nutrients from algae?


Cheers


----------



## arcturus (15 Feb 2022)

Natthanon said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I’m a bit confuse on this one. In another thread I want some recommendation on house plants that can quickly remove nutrients from the water and @erwin123 told me that nutrients doesn’t cause algae? This is a something I’ve never heard and I’ve been thinking about these questions for a while now:
> 
> 1. Why doesn’t excess nutrients cause algae growth


Very short answer. Nutrients are a necessary condition for algae, but not a sufficient condition. You would need additional factors, often related to an incorrect balance between light, CO2 and nutrients (for example, too much light for the available nutrients). The rapid fluctuation of CO2 or nutrient levels also causes instability. If plants are growing healthy they can keep up their natural defences against algae. This is why algae often start appearing on slow growing plants or unhealthy plants and not on healthy plants.

If excess nutrients caused algae, then the only possible fertilization method would be the "lean" method, which provides plants with the minimum required amount of nutrients.


Natthanon said:


> 2. Why do osmocote that come out of the substrate cause algae bloom?


Mostly because of a rapid increase in the concentration of nutrients. This effect can be mitigated if there is sufficient plant mass to absorb those nutrients and ample water circulation inside the tank.


Natthanon said:


> 3. Why do we need to plant heavily from the start or use the floating plants? Isn’t it too steal nutrients from algae?


Plants will need a significant amount of time to adapt to a new tank. They will be weak during this phase until they start growing at a steady rate. This means that opportunistic algae can explore these weaknesses. Moreover, tanks are unstable during the first months. The more plants you have, the higher the capability of the system to remain stable and to deal with unwanted substances in the water (such as ammonia). This helps keeping algae in check. Floating plants have direct access to atmospheric CO2 (this means they do not need CO2 injection and even with CO2 injection they would have access to +10x more CO2 than submersed plants). They also receive the maximum light input from the lamps. So, they are in the best position to consume the excess nutrients in the water column and to grow fast, thereby countering algae growth.

In any case, (most) algae are plants and thrive in the same environment - they are actually much more efficient than higher plants. They will be competing with the higher plants, and they are not a sign that something is wrong... the only problem is that we often want to grow other type of plants than algae


----------



## dw1305 (15 Feb 2022)

Hi all,
edit: What @arcturus just said.


Natthanon said:


> Why doesn’t excess nutrients cause algae growth


I think plenty of nutrients encourages the growth of <"all photosynthetic organisms">. If you just look at the <"Green Algae">  they have the same <"photosystems and basic physiology"> as all the plants you want to grow, and I can't see how conditions that favour the_ "plants you want to grow"_ don't also favour the plants "_you don't want to grow"_ (the algae). 

Personally I use <"slow growing plants">, <"floating plants"> and <"low nutrients"> in tanks with a <"lot of tank janitors">, and that <"keeps the algae under control">.

Other (@Roland  , @Geoffrey Rea etc) will have found high tech "sweet spots" where they can grow the "_plants  they want_".

cheers Darrel


----------



## brhau (15 Feb 2022)

dw1305 said:


> I can't see how conditions that favour the_ "plants you want to grow"_ don't also favour the plants "_you don't want to grow"_ (the algae).


I've been thinking the same thing. I've read a lot of posts saying that healthy plants discourage algae because the algae predate on unhealthy plants. It makes some sense, but doesn't explain to my why algae grow on nonplant surfaces or in plant-free aquariums. Are these different algae? Do unhealthy plants favor growth of algae away from the plant? Would love some references to threads that discuss this. I know EI works and that you can dose heavily and still avoid algae. But I can't reconcile the explanation. In the elephants/mice analogy, it would seem to me that adding more peanuts would favor both animals.

Thanks


----------



## arcturus (15 Feb 2022)

brhau said:


> I've been thinking the same thing. I've read a lot of posts saying that healthy plants discourage algae because the algae predate on unhealthy plants. It makes some sense, but doesn't explain to my why algae grow on nonplant surfaces or in plant-free aquariums.


Plants are known to release <allelopathic substances>. These _might _interfere with algae growth on the surface of healthy plants (citation needed...) Can these substances reach such a concentration that will affect the whole tank? No idea. If these substances play a role, then this could justify why plant-free surfaces would be more prone to get algae. Plants with damaged tissue also be providing additional substances that either promote algae growth or just feed the algae. Again, citation needed. There are other possible factors, such as higher exposition to light or presence of minerals on the hardscape (but this fails to explain why the glass is often affected). In plant-free aquariums I think the explanation could be simpler, because we would just need the sufficient conditions for algae growth to be met since plants are out of the equation. 



brhau said:


> Do unhealthy plants favor growth of algae away from the plant?


These plants would leach substances into the water due to cell/tissue damage. If the concentration of such substances in the tank is relevant or not is a good question. Another question is if these substances actually remain in the vicinity of the plant because of water flow/circulation.


brhau said:


> Would love some references to threads that discuss this.


There are scientific studies on this topic. Several focus on bacterial blooms due to eutrophication. Let's let the plant experts give their input.


brhau said:


> I know EI works and that you can dose heavily and still avoid algae. But I can't reconcile the explanation. In the elephants/mice analogy, it would seem to me that adding more peanuts would favor both animals.


I also find this to be a paradox. For example, <eutrophication processes> are linked to excess nutrients (often nitrites and/or phosphates). But there must be other triggers at play, since a given concentration of those nutrients will not automatically cause a algae or bacterial bloom. Light surely plays a major role: algae cultures are promoted using a combination of nutrients and specific light spectrum and intensity. I consider this to be a fascinating topic


----------



## MichaelJ (15 Feb 2022)

brhau said:


> I've been thinking the same thing. I've read a lot of posts saying that healthy plants discourage algae because the algae predate on unhealthy plants. It makes some sense, but doesn't explain to my why algae grow on nonplant surfaces or in plant-free aquariums. Are these different algae? Do unhealthy plants favor growth of algae away from the plant? Would love some references to threads that discuss this. I know EI works and that you can dose heavily and still avoid algae. But I can't reconcile the explanation. In the elephants/mice analogy, it would seem to me that adding more peanuts would favor both animals.
> 
> Thanks



I've had a lot of near plant-less tanks over the years - mostly keeping big cichlids. The main trigger for algae always appeared to be organic waste buildup.  I was not as disciplined back then with water changes as I am now, and I always got algae in one shape or another when I didn't keep up the maintenance.  Weakened plants provide an excellent _substrate_ for algae to grow but in lieu of weak plants, algae will grow on  rocks/wood or the interior of the glass etc.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## jaypeecee (15 Feb 2022)

arcturus said:


> I also find this to be a paradox. For example, <eutrophication processes> are linked to excess nutrients (often nitrites and/or phosphates). But there must be other triggers at play, since a given concentration of those nutrients will not automatically cause a algae or bacterial bloom. Light surely plays a major role: algae cultures are promoted using a combination of nutrients and specific light spectrum and intensity. I consider this to be a fascinating topic


Hi @arcturus 

It is a _very_ fascinating topic and that's why I started to take a deep interest, firstly in Cyanobacteria and, more recently, BBA. I have accumulated many scientific papers on both these topics and would be happy to put a list together for you. Light plays a very important part in what we're discussing, not least because of a phenomenon known as the photoreduction of iron. At which point, I must go and join my wife for coffee time!

JPC


----------



## brhau (15 Feb 2022)

arcturus said:


> Plants are known to release <allelopathic substances>. These _might _interfere with algae growth on the surface of healthy plants (citation needed...) Can these substances reach such a concentration that will affect the whole tank? No idea. If these substances play a role, then this could justify why plant-free surfaces would be more prone to get algae.


It's an interesting idea. You might expect to see plants inhibiting each other's growth in this case. The article proposes that the HDAC inhibitors are released by the roots into the soil. So they could theoretically go into the water column, especially for plants that grow roots above the substrate.



arcturus said:


> Plants with damaged tissue also be providing additional substances that either promote algae growth or just feed the algae. Again, citation needed.


Would love a citation if you come across it. Curious what these substances are.

Cheers


----------



## arcturus (15 Feb 2022)

brhau said:


> It's an interesting idea. You might expect to see plants inhibiting each other's growth in this case. The article proposes that the HDAC inhibitors are released by the roots into the soil. So they could theoretically go into the water column, especially for plants that grow roots above the substrate.


The question is if the concentration of these inhibitors in the water column has any significance. In a natural environment, these substances would be often diluted in large volumes of water. So, from an evolutionary perspective, it makes more sense for a plant to have developed localized mechanisms, rather than mechanisms that require dispersion in water. But this conjecture is likely wrong...


brhau said:


> Would love a citation if you come across it. Curious what these substances are.


Have a <look at this article>. It describes some of the metabolites, toxins, and others substances that leach out of a damaged plant. This is about terrestrial plants but the mechanisms aquatic plants should be rather similar, at least when they are in emersed form.


----------



## jaypeecee (15 Feb 2022)

Hi @brhau & @arcturus & Everyone

Are you all aware that Diana Walstad dedicates a whole chapter of her book* to the topic of allelopathy?

JPC

* _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_


----------



## arcturus (15 Feb 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @brhau & @arcturus & Everyone
> 
> Are you all aware that Diana Walstad dedicates a whole chapter of her book* to the topic of allelopathy?
> 
> ...


I am not sure there is consensus on that matter. Tom Barr (on barrreport.com) linked to studies <like this>.

But at least some recent articles seem to point in the same direction as Walstad.


----------



## jaypeecee (15 Feb 2022)

arcturus said:


> I am not sure there is consensus on that matter.


Hi @arcturus 

Now, where have I heard that before?! 

JPC


----------



## brhau (15 Feb 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> Are you all aware that Diana Walstad dedicates a whole chapter of her book* to the topic of allelopathy?


This is like when the teacher asks if you actually did the reading before class.  I'll check it out.



arcturus said:


> But at least some recent articles seem to point in the same direction as Walstad.


I just came across that as well, in addition to <this one>. The article isn't free, but the experiments were conducted in water. Apologies if you've already linked to this above-- your two links on eutrophication aren't working in my browser.

Cheers


----------



## MichaelJ (15 Feb 2022)

arcturus said:


> I am not sure there is consensus on that matter. Tom Barr (on barrreport.com) linked to studies <like this>.


At least for allelopathy between plants, I agree...  back in the day _they_ always said... _oh you cant plant crypts next to so and so,  or this crypt next to that crypt_...  Never occurred to me that there were any truth to that to an extent that it mattered - and my current tanks are a total hodge-podge of countless different crypts with lots of other plant species and all are healthy.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## plantnoobdude (15 Feb 2022)

MichaelJ said:


> At least for allelopathy between plants, I agree... back in the day _they_ always said... _oh you cant plant crypts next to so and so, or this crypt next to that crypt_... Never occurred to me that there were any truth to that to an extent that it mattered - and my current tanks are a total hodge-podge of countless different crypts with lots of other plant species and all are healthy.


I don't think it matters much in tanks with regular water changes TBH. high tech tanks usually vacuum the substrate quite often and frequent water changes should minimise allelopathic chemical accumulation. if you had a low tech tank that very rarely got water changes, then it might be a different story.


----------



## PARAGUAY (15 Feb 2022)

Tropica say dosing their products (AFAIK they only have 2 liquid fertilisers premium and specialists) can cause algae if too much is added. EI dosing for CO2 aquariums care has to be taken as we know if everything else isn't right algae beckons. I thought in a YT Green Aqua tutorial they warned of excess nutrients causing algae. George Farmer doses double treble rec. dose Tropical Specalised but we know he's knows what to dose and when.


----------



## plantnoobdude (15 Feb 2022)

PARAGUAY said:


> Tropica say dosing their products (AFAIK they only have 2 liquid fertilisers premium and specialists) can cause algae if too much is added


it's because specialised uses nh4/nh3 as N source. overdosing can sometimes cause algae. nothing to worry much about if using no3 though.


----------



## erwin123 (16 Feb 2022)

The whole point behind Estimative Index is to dose in *Excess *so that plant nutrients never becomes a limiting factor.  Numerous successful EI tanks show that excess nutrients do not cause/trigger algae.

The 3 things that matter most are:
(1) optimised CO2 (stable pH drop from lights on to lights off)
(2) good water flow, especially at substrate level
(3) clean tank (regular water change, vacuum substrate etc).

Worrying about dosing too much or too little, is not in the Top 3

Heres a good description of EI:








						The Estimative Index Of Dosing, Or No Need For Test Kits
					

The Estimative Index of Dosing, or No Need for Test Kits




					barrreport.com


----------



## swyftfeet (16 Feb 2022)

You know as crazy as I might begin to sound here, I only  noticed BBA in my journal tank when the moneywort started struggling and dying.

BBA is not poisonous to wildlife it’s just ugly in our little experiments.

This might be just natures way of trying to make things habitable for other life.    I’m not trying to go on some theological rant, I’m merely saying this planet has a way of trying to do things, maybe the appearance of BBA no matter whether your in AUS , UK or USA, France or Denmark.  It’s always right there to start in our tanks when the chemistry/conditions are ripe for it in our water.

I’d be super happy to be able to avoid it, I’d love to know the science behind it.  But the only conclusive thing about it is it will show up anywhere anytime in almost everyone’s tank except for the folks who’ve really got their recipie working.  They also tend to be the same ones who are the most fastidious with tank maintenance and cleaning… It’s the only thing I’ve seen anyone say is it’s due to some unbalance: light ferts water quality etc.

Maybe the trigger is simply some part of the chemicals released when plant death occurs.  Could be trimmings in established tanks or the struggle of new tanks and plant melt.

 I think it’s more like a sentinel lymph node when you’ve got cancer.  It’s just showing up to let you know your “soup” isn’t cooking perfectly but nature wants our life of some form to grow so it’s gonna substitute it’s pinch-hitter simplistic oxygen creator for us.

 One thing we know about BBA is it’s black and it can outcompete our lovely green stuff.  That means it’s meant to absorb every damn bit of visible light, every color on the spectrum and it can live in terrible water chemistry.   That in itself should tell smarter people than me something, but I don’t know what it means.

Edit: I guess I just described alleopathy from a point of ignorance, as I just looked it up after typing this all out :-/


----------



## erwin123 (16 Feb 2022)

I never had, and still don't have BBA in my low tech tank for some reason. 

Most the plants in my low tech tank come from my high tech tank in the form of excess cuttings, and I'l sure that plenty of BBA spores come over. But they never grow in my low tech for some reason. 

Apart from CO2, my low tech and high tech tanks are very similar. They use the same tap water, same fertiliser, same substrate. Previously I would say my water change routine was the same but for my low tech i've gotten lazy because I WFH less and only do WC for low tech every 2 weeks...

I do have GDA and a little bit of GSA in my low tech however.


----------



## Happi (16 Feb 2022)

@Natthanon 
Both Algae and plant require the same nutrients for growth weather you have it or not in your aquarium.


----------



## Nont (16 Feb 2022)

Never thought this thread would have this much replies, Thanks all for answering my confusion and share different thoughts. Especially the alleopathy part, I never read about them before.


Cheers


----------



## MichaelJ (16 Feb 2022)

erwin123 said:


> Most the plants in my low tech tank come from my high tech tank in the form of excess cuttings, and I'l sure that plenty of BBA spores come over. But they never grow in my low tech for some reason.


Stable CO2 and/or low(er) light intensity in your low-tech might be the main reasons you don't see BBA. 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## jaypeecee (16 Feb 2022)

swyftfeet said:


> I’d love to know the science behind it.


Hi @swyftfeet

There is a lot of free information about BBA on the Internet. Some of it is in the form of scientific papers, some is in the form of articles and there are books about Red Algae/Rhodophyta. It is fascinating stuff.


erwin123 said:


> But they never grow in my low tech for some reason.



There are some important clues in your tank.

May I ask - what is your tank water pH and KH?

Are you able to test for iron in the tank water?

What lighting are you using and how is it set up - photoperiod and intensity?

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (16 Feb 2022)

brhau said:


> Do unhealthy plants favor growth of algae away from the plant?


Hi @brhau 

Healthy plants release organic compounds into the water column. And, it appears that unhealthy plants release even more organic compounds into the water column. So, one could infer that a build-up of dissolved organic compounds may be one of the factors that cause algae. Somehow, we need to methodically investigate and eliminate the many variables that may contribute to algae growth. Personally, I've wondered many times where the statement "excess nutrient doesn't cause algae growth" originated. If anyone knows, perhaps they could let us all know. If there's any truth in this statement, where is the scientific evidence? Does anyone know? As this would be of interest not just to we aquarists but limnologists, ecologists and aquaculturists, then it shouldn't be too difficult to answer.

JPC


----------



## brhau (16 Feb 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> Personally, I've wondered many times where the statement "excess nutrient doesn't cause algae growth" originated. If anyone knows, perhaps they could let us all know. If there's any truth in this statement, where is the scientific evidence?


Hi @jaypeecee,

I guess it depends on what your definition of "cause" is.  The only evidence I've seen offered so far in this forum (and I haven't come close to reading it all) is the observation that many aquarists dose their tanks with EI and don't have algae. What this shows is that excess nutrients aren't _sufficient_ for algae. It does not address whether or not excess nutrients are _permissive_ for algae, but require an additional set of inputs.

-B


----------



## MichaelJ (17 Feb 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @brhau
> 
> Personally, I've wondered many times where the statement "excess nutrient doesn't cause algae growth" originated. If anyone knows, perhaps they could let us all know. If there's any truth in this statement, where is the scientific evidence? Does anyone know? As this would be of interest not just to we aquarists but limnologists, ecologists and aquaculturists, then it shouldn't be too difficult to answer.
> 
> JPC


Hi @jaypeecee  I hear you... but since we lack that rigorous theoretical and throughly tested and extensively peer reviewed scientific evidence that you ask for (I don't think that will happen anytime soon specific to our hobby), we have to rely on the the empirical justification made by many in the community.  From experience, I believe that the nutrients we provide to our tanks,  almost exclusively as in-organic compounds, won't cause an algae problems.  The "nutrients" provided by organic waste  (fish, food and plant waste)  _might_ _cause_ or exacerbate an algae problem.  If you have a lot of organic waste buildup, due to lacking maintenance, I can see (I'm not entirely sure though) how you _might_ compound an established algae problem with the dosing,  otherwise not.

I would like to hear from someone running a stable  mature _squeaky clean_ planted low-tech tank at low light intensity dosing full EI levels of fertilizers who still suffers from an actual algae problem?  That would be an interesting, if not disruptive, situation to explore and learn from.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Happi (17 Feb 2022)

According to scientists the algae they grow in the lab is grown with fertilizer weather it's organic or inorganic, they use the same chemicals that we use in our hobby to grow the plants.









						Algal Culture Media
					

Recipes for algal culture media used at The UTEX Culture Collection of Algae.




					utex.org
				




You can decide which algae you want to grow simply by using inorganic chemicals listed in these recipes for different algae.

Also, It would be false to say that "all EI dosed tanks are algae free" and actually any tank in general.

Here is the recipe for cyanophycean, also known as cyanobacteria:








						Cyanophycean Medium
					

UTEX Cyanophycean Medium Recipe | UTEX sells complete media at 1X concentration.




					utex.org
				



Apparently the recipe uses KNO3, K2HPO4 the inorganic salts.


----------



## MichaelJ (17 Feb 2022)

Happi said:


> Also, It would be false to say that "all EI dosed tanks are algae free" and actually any tank in general.


Hi @Happi, I absolutely agree with that, and of course my point is if you avoid the waste buildup, moderate your light to the available CO2 levels, keep parameters stable, your plants will thrive and algae will not... As for fertilizer, you can do it "lean" or you can do it "fat" (EI) and obtain great results either way as you have shown.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Happi (17 Feb 2022)

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Happi, I absolutely agree with that, and of course my point is if you avoid the waste buildup, moderate your light to the available CO2 levels, keep parameters stable, your plants will thrive and algae will not... As for fertilizer, you can do it "lean" or you can do it "fat" (EI) and obtain great results either way as you have shown.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


I believe the OP wants the exact answer weather the nutrients causes algae or not. The answer is YES. It can be backed by scientific approach and evidence. 

Far as organic goes, ofcource it's best to keep them low in our aquarium.


----------



## MichaelJ (17 Feb 2022)

Happi said:


> I believe the OP wants the exact answer weather the nutrients causes algae or not. The answer is YES.


Of course @Happi... Its just not a very meaningful question without being qualified/defined,  as it depends on the constituents of the nutrients.  It's akin to asking if nutrients kills people... and the answer would be YES as well, if all the nutrients you get is saturated fat from French fries and fried pancakes   But anyway... I dont see a disagreement here either way.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## erwin123 (17 Feb 2022)

Happi said:


> I believe the OP wants the exact answer weather the nutrients causes algae or not. The answer is YES. It can be backed by scientific approach and evidence.
> 
> Far as organic goes, ofcource it's best to keep them low in our aquarium.


OP's question as reflected in the thread title is whether *excess *nutrients causes algae.

My own experience is "No."  I was previously dosing 2.5ml/day of APT EI into my tank, and currently only dosing 0.9ml/day.   I think 2.5ml/day was clearly '*excess' *_(i.e. it was the manufacturer's recommended dosing, but the EI philosophy is to dose 'excess' to prevent nutrients from being a limiting factor)_ . If excess dosing causes algae, then a reduction of the dosing should reduce the amount of algae, but the truth is, I'm scraping the same amount of GDA off the glass every week, and my Lily Pipe turns greens with algae after a month or so, despite a 60%+ reduction in water column dosing 😅


----------



## MichaelJ (17 Feb 2022)

erwin123 said:


> OP's question as reflected in the thread title is whether *excess *nutrients causes algae.
> 
> My own experience is "No."  I was previously dosing 2.5ml/day of APT EI into my tank, and currently only dosing 0.9ml/day.   I think 2.5ml/day was clearly '*excess' *_(i.e. it was the manufacturer's recommended dosing, but the EI philosophy is to dose 'excess' to prevent nutrients from being a limiting factor)_ . If excess dosing causes algae, then a reduction of the dosing should reduce the amount of algae, but the truth is, I'm scraping the same amount of GDA off the glass every week, and my Lily Pipe turns greens with algae after a month or so, despite a 60%+ reduction in water column dosing 😅


Agreed.   I used to pummel both my tanks with "nutrients" ... weekly 25 ppm of NO3, 10 ppm of PO4 +40 ppm of K and God knows how much traces.... at least 2ppm of Fe, without having any algae. I did dial down my dosing - slowly! -  for the sake of my livestock (TDS) and in no small part due to @Happi and others insights on actual nutrients requirements, and needless to say, I still don't have algae. I am still working on dialing down my dosing, but I am doing it in ridiculously small steps to give the plants and livestock time to adapt.  Both my tanks are very clean (some might say hysterically  clean) and the light levels are low (+12 hours/day though) and I do go out of my way to avoid  fluctuating  water parameters - including letting my WC water de-gas CO2 before using it.  It all works very well and appears to be very consistent with the experiences of other hobbyists following a similar  regime.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Ria95 (17 Feb 2022)

If it's 40 or 5mg/L NO3 being tested  in the water column it's still _excess_ nutrients sitting there in the water column ready for the algae to take up. EI approach proposes a relatively straightforward way to keep all the nutrients in excess at suitable concentrations rather than play nutrient limitation of the week. Algae  handle low nutrient concentration pretty well. Plants may do better with substrate supplementation when the nutrients in the water column are kept low.

It's even worse, say you really want no excess (as in no nutrients) in the water column,  0 on the test kit often may _not_ mean an actual 0 mg/L. This is why the saltwater hobby required kits with even lower detection levels, and we have low range PO4 test kits in the freshwater. At one point in the PO4 limitation  era  the paranoia and fear of nutrients got so bad that people were concerned about PO4 trace contamination of the activated carbon they used in their tanks... reason why you see some activated carbon packages with "PO4 free" in a old-school bubble.
So algae starvation by nutrient limitation may not be the best strategy in a planted tank. Luckily algae and plants also compete for space and light and ultimately dominance of the ecosystem. There is also a great algae predator lurking around making sure the aquarium is maintained


----------



## MichaelJ (17 Feb 2022)

Ria95 said:


> At one point in the PO4 limitation era the paranoia and fear of nutrients got so bad that people were concerned about PO4 trace contamination of the activated carbon they used in their tanks... reason why you see some activated carbon packages with "PO4 free" in a old-school bubble.


Oh boy @Ria95  I remember those days… I suffered from Phosphate paranoia as well - completely ridiculous. Now I routinely dose 5 ppm weekly (down from 10 ppm).  

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## jaypeecee (17 Feb 2022)

Hi @Natthanon, @arcturus & Everyone,



arcturus said:


> The rapid fluctuation of CO2 or nutrient levels also causes instability.



Returning to the small matter (!) of DIC* stability, this will be coupled with water pH and KH. I've read conflicting information about preferred pH values for BBA. If I remember rightly*_, Audouinella hermanii and A. pygmaea _are the most likely species of BBA in our tanks_. _And, again, if I remember rightly_*_, these species prefer slightly acidic water (i.e. pH < 7.0). In other words, they prefer CO2 to bicarbonate and carbonates. Now, what happens at night when the aquarium lights and CO2 go OFF? Then, aquarium lights + CO2 turn ON the following morning? The pH will fluctuate significantly, won't it? And, BBA can grow in near darkness.

@arcturus, what would you consider to be 'rapid fluctuation'?

* DIC = Dissolved Inorganic Carbon

* I will check these

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (17 Feb 2022)

brhau said:


> I guess it depends on what your definition of "cause" is.


Hi @brhau 

Yes, I try to avoid using that term. At least, in the singular. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking 'one cause, one effect', isn't it? I know that I do it - and then I have to give myself a ticking off!

JPC


----------



## Andy Pierce (18 Feb 2022)

Happi said:


> @Natthanon
> Both Algae and plant require the same nutrients for growth weather you have it or not in your aquarium.


I'm not sure that is strictly speaking true in all cases, and specifically there is data (Anderson MA and Morel FMM. 1982. The influence of aqueous iron chemistry on the uptake of iron by the coastal diatom Thalassiosira weissflogii. Limno. Oceanogr. 27:789-813) that chelated iron can be utilised by higher plants and cannot be utilised by algae.  I'm doing a high-phosphate experiment along those lines and starting to believe it.


----------



## Nont (18 Feb 2022)

I’m really enjoy reading this discussion, keep it coming guys


----------



## jaypeecee (18 Feb 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> And, again, if I remember rightly_*_, these species prefer slightly acidic water (i.e. pH < 7.0). In other words, they prefer CO2 to bicarbonate and carbonates.


Hi Everyone,

I need to correct myself here. The two species mentioned in post # 36 are to be found in habitats where pH < 8.5 and their preferred form of inorganic carbon is bicarbonate (Necchi and Zucchi, 2001). In other words, they prefer alkaline water, NOT acidic water as stated immediately above. It would be very interesting to hear back from others about this. If you have BBA in your tank(s), _please_ measure the water pH and post your findings on this thread. I hope that the OP, @Natthanon doesn't mind my requesting this on his/her thread. If necessary, I'll try to correct this.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (18 Feb 2022)

Andy Pierce said:


> I'm doing a high-phosphate experiment along those lines and starting to believe it.


Hi @Andy Pierce 

Sounds interesting. Please keep us updated.

JPC


----------



## swyftfeet (18 Feb 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> I need to correct myself here. The two species mentioned in post # 36 are to be found in habitats where pH < 8.5 and their preferred form of inorganic carbon is bicarbonate (Necchi and Zucchi, 2001). In other words, they prefer alkaline water, NOT acidic water as stated immediately above. It would be very interesting to hear back from others about this. If you have BBA in your tank(s), _please_ measure the water pH and post your findings on this thread. I hope that the OP, @Natthanon doesn't mind my requesting this on his/her thread. If necessary, I'll try to correct this.
> 
> JPC


between 7.6 and 8.0 with BBA.   I cant reliably make  out the differences in the high pH color.  but it its def registered at or above 7.6 on the  PH test and light brown tan on the high ph range test.


----------



## jaypeecee (19 Feb 2022)

swyftfeet said:


> between 7.6 and 8.0 with BBA. I cant reliably make out the differences in the high pH color. but it its def registered at or above 7.6 on the PH test and light brown tan on the high ph range test.


Hi @swyftfeet 

Many thanks for the feedback.

Your pH measurement and the fact that your tank has BBA growth correlates with the scientific research. That's not to imply that pH is the only factor that contributes to BBA.

Which pH test kit did you use? And, it would also be useful to know the tank water alkalinity/KH. Is this something you would be able to do?

Thanks for your cooperation.

JPC


----------



## swyftfeet (19 Feb 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @swyftfeet
> 
> Many thanks for the feedback.
> 
> ...


I used the api freshwater master drop kit....  I also have some API test strips to measure:

GH  >=  180   (180 was the highest mark and it was that dark or darker, dont have drop kit for this)
120 < KH   <=180     (meaning fell somewhere closer to 180 than 120 but couldnt discern, dont have drop kit for this)
pH   ~= 7.5  (Drop kit indicates equal or higher than 7.6)
N02   =   0     (drop kit agrees with stick)
0 < NO3 < 20   (Couldnt discern on stick,  drop kit said 5ppm).

The actual city tested values for my tap are available in my journal


----------



## jaypeecee (19 Feb 2022)

Hi @swyftfeet

Thank you _so_ much!

That's useful data. 

Is the BBA growing on hardscape or other plant(s)? I am less interested in your tank lighting as BBA can grow in near-darkness. They can also adapt to the light spectrum unlike plants. And, chances are that all the nutrients they need are available to them in your tank water.

I am hoping to obtain more data from other UKAPS members. But, I need to think about the best way to do this instead of hijacking someone else's thread. Once again, apologies @Natthanon!

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (19 Feb 2022)

erwin123 said:


> I never had, and still don't have BBA in my low tech tank for some reason.


Hi @erwin123 

May I ask what your water KH and pH measurements are? Any time day or night should be OK but during daylight hours would probably be best. As you refer to your tank as 'low tech', I assume you are NOT injecting CO2. Would that be correct?

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (19 Feb 2022)

MichaelJ said:


> Stable CO2 and/or low(er) light intensity in your low-tech might be the main reasons you don't see BBA.


Hi @MichaelJ 

I want to 'home in' on what is meant by 'stable CO2'. As I mentioned elsewhere, CO2 is normally switched OFF at night and switched ON the following morning. During this time, CO2 concentration will vary/drop. Added to this, lighting level goes from bright light to darkness and back to light again. I don't have access to a data-logging pH meter but that would reveal what happens to pH overnight. But, I think I know of one UKAPS member who does have such a pH meter so I'll PM that member.

JPC


----------



## John q (19 Feb 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> these species prefer slightly acidic water (i.e. pH < 7.0)





jaypeecee said:


> I need to correct myself here. The two species mentioned in post # 36 are to be found in habitats where pH < 8.5





jaypeecee said:


> Your pH measurement and the fact that your tank has BBA growth correlates with the scientific research.


Just to play the devils advocate on this one its fair to say the scientific "evidence" is at best at odds with itself.


jaypeecee said:


> They can also adapt to the light spectrum unlike plants


Why do  we assume plants can't adapt to different light spectrums? Is this the concensus of scientific research? 

Again being contentious here to tease out debate.


----------



## jaypeecee (19 Feb 2022)

Hi @John q 


John q said:


> Just to play the devils advocate on this one its fair to say the scientific "evidence" is at best at odds with itself.


Sorry, John. My bwain hurts*. Would you please elaborate on the above? Most of my grey matter is on a 'go-slow'!

* John Cleese in _Monty Python's Flying Circus_

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (19 Feb 2022)

John q said:


> Why do we assume plants can't adapt to different light spectrums? Is this the concensus of scientific research?


Hi again, @John q 

Yes, treat yourself to a copy of Diana Walstad's _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_. Then all will be made clear. Fundamentally, it's because aquatic plants don't have the accessory pigments phycoerythrin, phycocyanin and siphonoxanthin. 

JPC


----------



## swyftfeet (19 Feb 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @swyftfeet
> 
> Thank you _so_ much!
> 
> ...


growing only on the wood pictured in my journal which is a root section cut from driftwood I found in a local freshwater stream, unknown species.


----------



## swyftfeet (19 Feb 2022)

Its mostly concentrated at the upper part of the tank   I just scrubbed it all off today with a toothbrush so its not visible but its near but not directly in the path of the bubbles coming out of the sponge filter.  I highlighted where it first appeared.


----------



## jaypeecee (19 Feb 2022)

Hi @swyftfeet 

I read recently that BBA tends to grow where there is water flow. I'll see if I can locate the source of that information. The explanation given was that the flow carries nutrients into the BBA (Red Algae). The article/paper mentioned the flow of phosphate. The location that you have highlighted is obviously a region of high flow. So that probably explains why the BBA has taken hold in that region of your tank.

Your feedback is proving very useful.

Once again, thank you.

JPC


----------



## hypnogogia (19 Feb 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> If you have BBA in your tank(s), _please_ measure the water pH and post your findings on this thread.


I have a little.  pH is 6.5


----------



## jaypeecee (19 Feb 2022)

hypnogogia said:


> I have a little. pH is 6.5


Hi @hypnogogia 

Ah, interesting. Thanks for that. May I ask a couple of additional questions? How was pH measured? Calibrated pH meter/narrow-range liquid test kit? Would you mind also checking KH?

JPC


----------



## dw1305 (19 Feb 2022)

Hi all, 


jaypeecee said:


> Fundamentally, it's because aquatic plants don't have the accessory pigments phycoerythrin, phycocyanin and siphonoxanthin.


........... but all <"photosynthetic organisms"> have <"Chlorophyll A">,   inherited from the <"Cyanobacterial symbiont"> that became the organelle "the chloroplast".




cheers Darrel


----------



## hypnogogia (19 Feb 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> Ah, interesting. Thanks for that. May I ask a couple of additional questions? How was pH measured? Calibrated pH meter/narrow-range liquid test kit? Would you mind also checking KH?


Calibrated pH probe.  KH is 2.


----------



## jaypeecee (19 Feb 2022)

Hi @dw1305 

Of course. Without chlorophyll a, there wouldn't be any photosynthesis in algae, plants, Cyanobacteria.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (19 Feb 2022)

hypnogogia said:


> Calibrated pH probe. KH is 2.


Thanks yet again, @hypnogogia.

I can't remember if you are injecting CO2. With a measured pH of 6.5, KH of 2dKH and a little algae, you are, perhaps on the border of BBA and no BBA. Let's pursue this tomorrow if that's OK - by which time, I will have given my aging brain a rest!

JPC


----------



## brhau (19 Feb 2022)

I had BBA for many weeks in a tank whose pH varied from 6.5 - 7.2, depending on when in the week it was. Immediately after weekly water changes with peat-filtered water, it was 6.5, climbing steadily toward 7ish by the end of the week. In that span, dKH ranged from 2 - 3. I measured with the API test kits.

The BBA specifically liked the anubias, driftwood, and sponge filter. Very low flow in the tank. Worth noting that the anubias were very healthy and happy, and one of them even bloomed a few times. If we need to point the finger at unhealthy plants, there were some surface floaters that were not terribly pleased with my setup.

At some point, I got tired of the BBA, removed the affected items and treated them with hydrogen peroxide. That killed the bulk of it, and I started dosing and spot treating with Excel after that. Between Excel and reducing the light, the BBA was basically under control after that. Hope this helps, somehow.


----------



## MichaelJ (20 Feb 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @MichaelJ
> 
> I want to 'home in' on what is meant by 'stable CO2'. As I mentioned elsewhere, CO2 is normally switched OFF at night and switched ON the following morning. During this time, CO2 concentration will vary/drop. Added to this, lighting level goes from bright light to darkness and back to light again. I don't have access to a data-logging pH meter but that would reveal what happens to pH overnight. But, I think I know of one UKAPS member who does have such a pH meter so I'll PM that member.
> 
> JPC



Hi @jaypeecee    My participation is a bit sketchy at the moment as I’m down in Arizona visiting the in-laws and going on an excursion for native killifish habitats. It’s very exciting actually.  I hope to get some cool pictures to share.   The creek we went to yesterday had cichlids! 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## John q (20 Feb 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @John q
> 
> Sorry, John. My bwain hurts*. Would you please elaborate on the above? Most of my grey matter is on a 'go-slow'!
> 
> ...


Hi Jpc,
Certainly, my suggestion that the scientific evidence is at odds with itself is based on a couple of things. In this study that you linked in a previous thread.
(PDF) Photosynthetic performance of freshwater Rhodophyta in response to temperature, irradiance, pH and diurnal rhythm

It states that these algal types do better in ph 8.5 or 6.5. It then goes on to reference the sheath 1984 article that suggests the occurrence of freshwater red algae is more prevalent when the ph is less than 6.5.
So we have 2 studies suggesting different opinions.

Diana Walstad goes on to say that certain algae are better adapted to alkaline water than aquatic plants.





Diana notes that red algae may not have this alkaline advantage, and even suggests that it eventually dies off when placed in her hard water alkaline tanks.

So we have three experts, one suggests red algae thrives in high ph water, another says it dies in a high ph environment, and the last one says it thrives in low ph values. To me this science is at odds with itself.



jaypeecee said:


> Yes, treat yourself to a copy of Diana Walstad's _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_. Then all will be made clear. Fundamentally, it's because aquatic plants don't have the accessory pigments phycoerythrin, phycocyanin and siphonoxanthin.


You've probably already worked out I have a copy of her book.
OK so algae can adapt to certain wavelengths of light better than plants, I've learnt something there.

I think the point I was trying to make is our plants will adapt to the light we give them, and personally think trying to find a particular spectrum of light that favours the plants and not the algae is futile.

Keep up the research John, I genuinely find these posts interesting 👍


----------



## dw1305 (20 Feb 2022)

Hi all,


John q said:


> OK so algae can adapt to certain wavelengths of light better than plants, I've learnt something there.


This is certainly true of the Red Algae (Rhodophyta) in marine situations on rocky shores, where the lowest occurring photosynthetic organisms are Red Algae. I think this is because the <"phycoerythrin is intercepting the "blue" photons">, after all the other light has been attenuated.   If they end up in deep, permanent rock pools they may survive, but  tend to bleach of colour. They also are rapidly lost if water quality declines or silt load increases.

You can <"see them"> on the stipes of <"_Laminaria hyperborea_"> , which is only exposed on the lowest of low spring tides.






John q said:


> I think the point I was trying to make is our plants will adapt to the light we give them, and personally think trying to find a particular spectrum of light that favours the plants and not the algae is futile.


That is my thought, it is the "_they are all plants_" argument.  

I don't have an answer, but I'm personally unconvinced that any of fluctuating dissolved gas levels, too much light, not enough flow etc <"are really the reason">.  I keep coming back to this photo, from <"PlanetCatfish: repeat spawning of _Dekeyseria picta_">.





cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee (20 Feb 2022)

John q said:


> Diana Walstad goes on to say that certain algae are better adapted to alkaline water than aquatic plants.


Hi @John q

Unfortunately, Table X-4 does not include any red algae.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (20 Feb 2022)

John q said:


> OK so algae can adapt to certain wavelengths of light better than plants, I've learnt something there.


Hi @John q 

We need to be more specific than what you stated above - namely, freshwater _red_ algae can use light that cannot be used by aquatic plants. That's simply because plants do not have the accessory pigments that are required to capture these wavelengths. For example, red algae capture light at 565nm using phycoerythrin. This also happens to be the peak response of the human eye. It corresponds to green/yellow.

JPC


----------



## dw1305 (20 Feb 2022)

Hi all,


jaypeecee said:


> namely, freshwater _red_ algae can use light that cannot be used by aquatic plants. That's simply because plants do not have the accessory pigments that are required to capture these wavelengths. For example, red algae capture light at 565nm using phycoerythrin.


John, that isn't entirely true, higher plants use that wavelength of light *less efficiently*, but they can still use it. This is the <"relative quantum efficiency curve for higher plants">.






> _......... Sometimes one may hear that plants don’t use green light for photosynthesis, they reflect it. However, this is only partly true. While most plants reflect more green than any other in the visible spectrum, a relatively small percentage of green light is transmitted through or reflected by the leaves. The majority of green light is useful in photosynthesis. The relative quantum efficiency curve (Photo 1) shows how efficiently plants use wavelengths between 300 and 800 nm. Green light is the least efficiently used color of light in the visible spectrum......_



I'd see the situation of light as similar to the situation of the <"one-legged Irishman"> in the <"all day buffet"> with regard to nitrification and plant uptake of fixed nitrogen. If a resource is available evolution will find a way to make use of it.

cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee (20 Feb 2022)

dw1305 said:


> I don't have an answer, but I'm personally unconvinced that any of fluctuating dissolved gas levels, too much light, not enough flow etc <"are really the reason">. I keep coming back to this photo, from <"PlanetCatfish: repeat spawning of _Dekeyseria picta_">.


Hi @dw1305 

But that's the dilemma, isn't it? In the absence of any conclusive response to the topic of this thread and the question, how do we minimize/eliminate unsightly algae from our tanks, my view is that we need to methodically eliminate all the potential candidates. And we're not there yet.

JPC


----------



## dw1305 (20 Feb 2022)

Hi all,


jaypeecee said:


> In the absence of any conclusive response to the topic of this thread and the question


Agreed, we have a <"number of threads">, but we don't have <"all  / any of the answers">.  I understand that people (and probably particularly scientists like yourself) will want to identify and isolate all the factors that govern algal growth, but I'm not <"sure it is possible"> and that searching for the <"magic bullet"> is just likely to lead to us going around, and around, in ever diminishing circles.

I'm both a pretty <"shoddy scientist"> and a pretty shoddy planted tank keeper, so I'm always willing to take the <"path of least resistance">, which me is to keep Ramshorn Snails and over time they will reduce the growth of BBA in all the places <"that they can graze">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee (20 Feb 2022)

dw1305 said:


> John, that isn't entirely true, higher plants use that wavelength of light *less efficiently*, but they can still use it. This is the <"relative quantum efficiency curve for higher plants">.


Hi @dw1305

I'm very familiar with the quantum efficiency curve and have used it many times. I suspect that the curve is 'smoothed over' and doesn't provide every little detail. But, I'll check it out.

JPC


----------



## dw1305 (20 Feb 2022)

Hi all,


jaypeecee said:


> quantum efficiency curve and have used it many times. I suspect that the curve is 'smoothed over'


Possibly, but I still think that most wavelengths of light will be utilisable. It is mainly because of the <"efficiency of evolution">, over the <"immensity of geological time">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## John q (20 Feb 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> Unfortunately, Table X-4 does not include any red algae.


I never said it did. What's your thoughts on red algae and ph? Sorry but I  need to pin you down on this.


jaypeecee said:


> We need to be more specific than what you stated above - namely, freshwater _red_ algae can use light that cannot be used by aquatic plants.


I'm being quite specific that light spectrum plays no part with regards to algae in our tanks. As you are a the proposer that it does I suggest you need to tell me a light spectrum that will grow plants and starve algae. Let me know and I'll gladly put it to the test.


----------



## dw1305 (20 Feb 2022)

Hi all,


John q said:


> I'm being quite specific that light spectrum plays no part with regards to algae in our tanks. As you are a the proposer that it does I suggest you need to tell me a light spectrum that will grow plants and starve algae. Let me know and I'll gladly put it to the test.


That is the one, it is back to <"Karl Popper">. If some-one produces a repeatable (by other researchers) experiment that shows that the <"speed of light in a vacuum">, (or <"absolute zero">) isn't absolute, then we need a new theory.


> ...........t_he criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability......_


Away from the physical sciences you can still apply Popper's rule. It was <"J. B. S Haldane"> who,  when asked "w_hat evidence could destroy his confidence in the theory of evolution_ " replied <"_Fossil rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian_">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## brhau (20 Feb 2022)

I agree with Darrel, it’s going to be difficult to find conditions that favor the plants we like, but not the ones we don’t like. If you add to that mix the fishes’ requirements, you can be painted into a bit of a corner.

I tend to tolerate some amount of BBA in my tanks, and no longer see it as a sign that something is “wrong.” In cases where it bothers me aesthetically, the only thing that has gotten rid of it is algicides. I always keep ramshorns unintentionally, as they tend to arrive with my plants. But usually that just means i see their tracks in the green algae. They don’t wipe their plates clean.


----------



## jaypeecee (25 Feb 2022)

John q said:


> What's your thoughts on red algae and ph? Sorry but I need to pin you down on this.





John q said:


> I'm being quite specific that light spectrum plays no part with regards to algae in our tanks. As you are a the proposer that it does I suggest you need to tell me a light spectrum that will grow plants and starve algae. Let me know and I'll gladly put it to the test.


Hi @John q

I've just spotted these 'requests' having not had much time on UKAPS recently due to ill health. Let me re-visit this and I'll try to get back to you in due course. In the meantime, you may be interested in looking at other updates I've made on one of the other BBA threads. This should be it:






						Red Algae/BBA - An Update
					

Hi @X3NiTH   Interesting stuff.  I recently discovered a water test lab group known as H2Olabcheck and, for the last three or four weeks, I've been planning to submit a water sample to them. They have a very good range of water parameters that they can test. Although there are some off-the-shelf...



					www.ukaps.org
				




JPC


----------



## John q (26 Feb 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> I've just spotted these 'requests' having not had much time on UKAPS recently due to ill health


No worries John, concentrate on your health, that's far more important than answering the above questions. 

Wishing you a speedy recovery mate.


----------

