How much carbon in natural waterways?

[zozo]

It didn't happen to me and others who have tanks exposed to sunlight.

Yes, i can conferm.. But also, remember 1 swallow doesn't make summer.. 🙂 It can very easily go the other way, the tipping point aint realy huge.
I also have such a outdoor sun lit tank which is relatively algae free.. But still it is relatively and it needs attention and if i don't give it the hair algae in it will grow as fast as all other plants and probably winning it in the end.

Thus maintenance and human input is inevitable, leaving it to nature only as far as we can speak from nature in a small closed system. ALgae likely will always win in the end..

Bottom line there is no 100% remidy against algae growth.. Adding CO² is often presented like that, but it isn't. The proper balance is more like the remidy and in this the proper maintenance is the key. Because the balance is not something standing alone it needs to be mainatined with our input.

I have such a natural pond near my home, it is crystal clear and teaming with aqautic plants, like hornwort, lily and curled pondweed. Butt looking closely it grows an equal amount of algae too.. In such a water body the algae plays a major role in mantaining that balance. It actualy is not only a foodsource for the life stock, but also since it has a different lifecycle than macrophytes it provides a major carbon source for the plants growing with it.

In our small artificial closed system it works completely different..

 

[tiger15]

Hi all, I should have linked in the Lenntech article <"General Effects of Eutrophication">, it shows the changes in algal assemblage as nutrient levels rise.

cheers Darrel

I don't think you can rely on eutrophication studies to manage glass box environment. While these studies are scientifically valid, they are not applicable to glass box environment. For example, the chart shows that at 1 ppm phosphate, phytoplankton will be 100% dominant. It has proven wrong that high phosphate (or nitrate) can lead to algae growth in glass box, rather the lack of phosphate (or nitrate) can lead to poor plant growth and algae invasion. Also, the concerns for outdoor environment are very different from glass box environment. Environmentalists primary concerns are floating and blue green algae that can suffocate waterways, potentially turn anoxic, and kill fish. They are not concerned for bba, gda or gsa attached to rock, wood and plants that aquarists care, and most creeks are too murky to support submerged plant growth anyway. On the contrary, if they can see attached algae, it is an indication of healthy creeks.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

For example, the chart shows that at 1 ppm phosphate, phytoplankton will be 100% dominant. It has proven wrong that high phosphate (or nitrate) can lead to algae growth in glass box, rather the lack of phosphate (or nitrate) can lead to poor plant growth and algae invasion.

I think my point would be that "algae" aren't single invasive entity, they are "plants you don't want" that have the same wide range of ecological requirements as the "plants you do want".

Environmentalists primary concerns are floating and blue green algae that can suffocate waterways, potentially turn anoxic, and kill fish.

I don't know about the USA, but in the UK, and even more so on mainland Europe, scientists are very interested in changes in the macrophyte and algal assemblages as indicators of eutrophication, long before we arrive at fish kill.

......and most creeks are too murky to support submerged plant growth anyway.

I think you might be looking at grossly modified water courses and assuming that is their natural state. Have a look at <"Nitrogen, phosphorus, and eutrophication in streams">, if you can't down-load a copy I have access to it and can email it. The key findings (from the abstract) are

....indicates (1) stream benthic chlorophyll is significantly correlated to both total N and total P in the water column, with both nutrients explaining more variance than either considered alone; (2) nutrients have increased substantially in many rivers and streams of the United States over reference conditions

On the contrary, if they can see attached algae, it is an indication of healthy creeks.

Yes and no, it is back to the reference above and Lenntech article, if you can identify the species in the algal assemblage, and quantify their relative abundances and total biomass, it will tell you a lot about the water quality.

cheers Darrel

 

[Aquahorti]

I would suggest reading the following article: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/75d0/c9e27c142d9f36b49733b0cb27bcf697ae82.pdf. You will find the answer to your question there, as well as mean nutrient levels.

 

[tiger15]

I would suggest reading the following article: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/75d0/c9e27c142d9f36b49733b0cb27bcf697ae82.pdf. You will find the answer to your question there, as well as mean nutrient levels.

Interesting findings but I want to caution borrowing limnology studies for planted tank management can be misleading. For instance, high phosphate is considered cause of eutrophication, but Barr and others found the lack of phosphate, rather than too much, is the cause of algae.

 

[zozo]

but Barr and others found the lack of phosphate, rather than too much, is the cause of algae.

That might be the difference in Nature vs. Aquarium, both are hardly comparable. And likely near impossible to artificialy recreat nature in a tank🙂 There might be other factors in combination with high phosphate causing the actual algae explosion the field researchers might have overlooked or just not measured (searched) for.. But than if regular measurments are consistant for 80% or alike with algae and water bodies eutrophic with high levels of phosphates. Than even still if an other ingridient also is needed, than still it's partialy true that without the phosphate it would be beter off regarding exesive algae development. 🙂 Maybe not the but a root cause..

 

[Aquahorti]

Interesting findings but I want to caution borrowing limnology studies for planted tank management can be misleading. For instance, high phosphate is considered cause of eutrophication, but Barr and others found the lack of phosphate, rather than too much, is the cause of algae.

Given that Barr doesn't measure parameters in the aquariums I find it hard to use the findings for anything, as there is no parameter control. Good science is good control over the parameters.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Given that Barr doesn't measure parameters in the aquariums

I think he he measured some of them initially, at <"UC Davis">.

I find it hard to use the findings for anything, as there is no parameter control. Good science is good control over the parameters.

The scientific method is the way forward, the problem comes because you have such a large number of interacting variables in the aquarium. You could cut down the replication required using a modelling approach, but it still needs a lot of time and money thrown at it.

Because of <"these difficulties"> we are really into the field of ecology, and ecologists would initially use a 5 day BOD and biotic index to attempt to quantify the trophic state of a lake etc. Neither test is really available to us, but we can use proxies to give us some estimation. I use the <"Duckweed Index"> and baseline conductivity measurement as proxies, neither is perfect but they give you a pretty good idea.

Have a look at <"Nitrates in water.....">

cheers Darrel

 

[Aquahorti]

That might be the difference in Nature vs. Aquarium, both are hardly comparable. And likely near impossible to artificialy recreat nature in a tank🙂 There might be other factors in combination with high phosphate causing the actual algae explosion the field researchers might have overlooked or just not measured (searched) for.. But than if regular measurments are consistant for 80% or alike with algae and water bodies eutrophic with high levels of phosphates. Than even still if an other ingridient also is needed, than still it's partialy true that without the phosphate it would be beter off regarding exesive algae development. 🙂 Maybe not the but a root cause..

How would plants requirements for growth be changed just by moving it from nature to an aquarium?
When we place plants in an aquarium we are tasked with providing them the best possible conditions, but when we take plants from vastly different biotopes and try and place them in the same environment we run into problems. All you need to do is look at the many problems seen around the world with invasive species, most plants are in some sort of balance with its surroundings but when something pushes parameters away from the equilibrium we see the overall composition change. It's the same in our aquariums, and I guess that is the beauty of EI, you run unlimited nutrients and via the water changes you reset it once or twice a week. The downside is the requirement for near constant maintenance and the tweaking while getting the aquarium grown in.
I am not home so I don't have access to my article library, but I'll give you some links to propper peer reviewed research on algae and growth of it.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

You will find the answer to your question there, as well as mean nutrient levels.

Thank-you, I was looking for that paper the other day.

cheers Darrel

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

When we place plants in an aquarium we are tasked with providing them the best possible conditions, but when we take plants from vastly different biotopes and try and place them in the same environment we run into problems.

I think this is a really valid point, you wouldn't grow <"orchids and Tomatoes"> in the same way.

There are some references in <"What are your nitrate......">.

cheers Darrel

 

[Aquahorti]

Hi all,I think he he measured some of them initially, at <"UC Davis">. The scientific method is the way forward, the problem comes because you have such a large number of interacting variables in the aquarium. You could cut down the replication required using a modelling approach, but it still needs a lot of time and money thrown at it.

Because of <"these difficulties"> we are really into the field of ecology, and ecologists would initially use a 5 day BOD and biotic index to attempt to quantify the trophic state of a lake etc. Neither test is really available to us, but we can use proxies to give us some estimation. I use the <"Duckweed Index"> and baseline conductivity measurement as proxies, neither is perfect but they give you a pretty good idea.

Have a look at <"Nitrates in water.....">

cheers Darrel

I have yet to see hard data from Barr, I looked for quite a while and just gave up after a couple of days of sifting through his posts.

I will continue to stick with using peer reviewed research and base my setups on that. When I started again in the hobby I was quite baffled by the strange theories in it, many of them contradicting established research. In the end I just gave up, and now I just run with balanced nutrients levels in the aquariums, trying to emulate nature as well as possible when having plants for different biotopes.

Thanks for the links, but again I prefer peer reviewed articles, not links to other threads that at some point ends up with hearsay.

 

[tiger15]

I have yet to see hard data from Barr, I looked for quite a while and just gave up after a couple of days of sifting through his posts.

I will continue to stick with using peer reviewed research and base my setups on that.

I have no qualm on the validity of the majority ecological studies which were conducted by qualified scientists, peer reviewed by reputable journals, and backed up by rigorous testing with unlimited funding . But the validity is applicable only to outdoor environment, not necessarily transferable to glass box environment that is very different.

Understandably, aquarium hobby lacks the resources to conduct similar caliber studies. Barr's studies are largely empirical. They get the results right, but lack rigorous scientific explanation nor hard data to back up. His studies were not peer reviewed by journals, but many hobbyists try and proved his approach work.

 

[zozo]

How would plants requirements for growth be changed just by moving it from nature to an aquarium?

Why does a tomato grown in the sun in organic soil have different and much beter taste than a tomato grown on rockwool under artificial ferts and light? Visualy we dont realy see it..
In controlled conditions we grow them bigger and at +/- 18 kilo p/m² according my farmer neighbour, but not as tasty as mother nature can do under the sun. Obviously to get 'm tath tasty the plant requires something we can not give it artificialy.. 🙂

Now i understand for ornamental plants and looks only we might be visualy satisfied and ask what's the difference.. I guess somewhere on a molecular level there probably is something realy different and in many casses also the looks of it. As for example i grew a Rotatala indica submersed in the garden it it grew Burgundy red, this is rarely to be seen in an indoor aqaurium. Personaly i'm not equiped to grow the same rotala like that indoors.

So i was merely try to say that in nutare there is on every level a much greater (bio)diversity etc in the chain of events parameters name it, it makes big difference in the big picture, we cannot replicate in a small closed system. Than comparing both and make conclusions is not realy that factual..

In this case i replied to the statement that phosphate eutriphication cuases algae growth in natural waters and the contradictive statement from people saying it can not be true because i can not replicate this in my aqaurium with an overload of phosphates. Ok, i understand this implies that maybe phosphate isn't the root cause, but likely a very important link in the event.. 🙂 Since regarding the field researchers and their reports there almost always is a relation between phosphate eutriphication and excesive algae growth in nature.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

I looked for quite a while and just gave up after a couple of days of sifting through his posts.

You could try contacting him directly, he is "@plantbrain" on this forum.

Thanks for the links, but again I prefer peer reviewed articles, not links to other threads that at some point ends up with hearsay.

I agree but I think that is more than a little unfair, in areas where there are peer reviewed papers we've tried to refer to them. This is linked in <"Testing parameters for ei....">

It is also difficult to find toxicity levels for just NO3, problem is that it is only really aquascapers who add it to their tanks in significant amounts. There is this paper: <"Comparing the effects of high vs. low nitrate on the health, performance, and welfare of juvenile rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss within water recirculating aquaculture systems">, where NaNO3 was added to the trout's water, that suggests that: ......study results provided strong evidence that relatively low NO3-N levels, 80–100 mg/L, were related to chronic health and welfare impacts to juvenile rainbow trout........

If you read through the forum you will see that there are linked papers for archaea based nitrification in aquarium filters etc.

Have a look at <"Bacteria/biological starter...">.

The problem, for a lot of other areas, is there aren't (m)any peer reviewed science papers specifically on aquariums, so you have to make "best guess" estimations based upon research in plant physiology, aquaculture, waste water treatment and personal experience.

cheers Darrel

 

[tiger15]

The problem, for a lot of other areas, is there aren't (m)any peer reviewed science papers specifically on aquariums, so you have to make "best guess" estimations based upon research in plant physiology, aquaculture, waste water treatment and personal experience.

cheers Darrel

Journals of limnology has the most relevant topics on aquatic ecology, flora and fauna. Walstad referenced limnology studies extensively in her Ecology book, so did Barr. Both conducted some personal experiments in glass boxes to support their findings.

https://www.jlimnol.it/index.php/jlimnol

 

[roadmaster]

Fluctuating temps,available O2 ,CO2, PossibleTree canopy cover(plants may see only a couple hours of direct light) ,sediment's, all fluctuate wildly in nature.Most of the plants we attempt to grow,often times do not grow completely submerged in nature.
I believe these factors and causes make comparison's and or difference's between nature, and our glass boxes of water ,significantly troublesome .

 

[zozo]

I believe these factors and causes make comparison's and or difference's between nature, and our glass boxes of water ,significantly troublesome .

As we so often say, no 2 tanks are the same. What works for you can be disasterous for me, why we don't know. As we could say no 2 ponds, whatever, are the same. Hence sounds a bit far fetched, but no 2 raindrops might not be the same..

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Most of the plants we attempt to grow,often times do not grow completely submerged in nature.

Very true, the <"commercial production system"> (emersed growing) favours production of plants that naturally grow in area where they aren't submerged all the time. Producing true (obligate) aquatic plants doesn't fit into this system, and they are more difficult to source.

Journals of limnology has the most relevant topics on aquatic ecology, flora and fauna.

We have referenced the Journal of Limnology and it has a lot of <"good papers"> in it.

Walstad referenced limnology studies extensively in her Ecology book.........

I'm a great Diana Walstad fan, and one of the reasons for this was that she referenced as much as possible of her work.

I also think you have to admire her (and <"Dr Tim Hovanec">) for their willingness to revise their opinion based upon <"subsequent research"> (I would recommend the <"Walstad revises"> thread to our newer members).

I believe these factors and causes make comparison's and or difference's between nature, and our glass boxes of water ,significantly troublesome

That would be one of the reasons that I'm most interested in research from <"Recirculating Aquaculture Systems"> (RAS) and waste water treatment, and specifically <"phytoremediation">).

The processes that occur during phytoremediation are probably more similar to what happens in planted aquariums than the natural processes in lakes and rivers. Phytoremediation is widely used on an industrial scale, but there are also <"mesocosm experiments"> that attempt to quantify the processes that are occurring.

Another area of research that might pay dividends is the work on culturing the model organism Zebra "fish" (Danio rerio), although they are cultured in <"fairly sterile conditions">, there will be empirical values for water quality indicators.

cheers Darrel

 

[Aquahorti]

Why does a tomato grown in the sun in organic soil have different and much beter taste than a tomato grown on rockwool under artificial ferts and light? Visualy we dont realy see it..
In controlled conditions we grow them bigger and at +/- 18 kilo p/m² according my farmer neighbour, but not as tasty as mother nature can do under the sun. Obviously to get 'm tath tasty the plant requires something we can not give it artificialy.. 🙂

Here you go: https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2307/2269357 , the problem with your question is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I will no go into lights, other than say that get the artificial light to be identical to the natural sunlight, and you than have eliminated one variable (Lights are one of my pet hates in the hobby, but after a few years I have given up this approach https://xkcd.com/386/).

With regards algae, have you tried to have boxes containing water with different nutrient levels and just leave them in the sun for a couple of weeks, it's a simple experiment and the results will (as long as the temperatures in the containers are within a reasonable range) underline the current research. If you look at a lot of the research done on algae you find that much of it is actually done in labs, thus closer to our aquariums (disregarding the much better parameter control) and still getting findings that cooperate the findings in nature https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2307/1940395.

This thread is moving to far away from the OPs question, if you have further questions PM me.