Not sure if there is an issue or if patience is the virtue

[JoshP12]

Hi everyone,

UKAPS has been a great source for me for help with this hobby, as I absolutely love it - so thank you.

I have a journal going and have made some posts here and there, but my biggest issue that I am running into is lack of experience. I keep thinking that I need to let it grow out - the problem is that I do not have the experience of the "grow out" process, so - in the spirit of proactivity - I do not know if what I am seeing will be "ok" - if I knew that what I am seeing is "ok", then I wouldn't be posting.

So, I planted originally and had to replant 1 week ago (my plants were choking each other out and I had to fix the flow distribution to those lower leaves; I also had lots of lower plant leaf die off):
What caused it?
1) Ferts
2) CO2
3) Flow distribution for the latter two
4) Light?

Right before my replant, I ran into an issue with a potential magnesium/iron deficiency where @Witcher, @dw1305, and @Zeus. helped me. Since then, I rearranged my flow (which I have a spray bar coming within the next 2 days which will improve this I am certain), moved my pH probe to check pH drop all over the tank, placed drop checker both on top and by the bottom of tank, and have started dosing EI: Micro 1 day, Macro the other day both before lights on - measurements via https://rotalabutterfly.com/ .

DC: DC is green on top and yellow on bottom - kind of bizarre? - going to change the fluids tonight (it has been consistent all week).

pH: pH drop goes to 5.9/6.0 at lights on from 7.3ish (at complete off gas). If it hits 5.8 fish gasp.

Ferts: The melt you are seeing on the Ludwigia below has me thinking this is a phosphate or nitrogen deficiency - but it can't be (unless I have some uptake blocking - but I checked Mulders chart) - or a delivery of nutrients via flow.

Day 1: after planting, I had no die off so I thought this was a good change
Day 2: I had some perfectly healthy leaves fall off -- always lower leaves
Day 7: Now I am seeing the photo below.


In the image above, I circled the dying leaves in red, and I circled the new growths in blue. The stunted growth either indicated to me nitrogen or CO2 - or could it just be slower growth? I would say that some of this may have been from before the replant (I simply moved this plant to the right a bit -- There is LESS flow here).

I will say that there is also root tabs in the tropica powder substrate below.

The picture below is of the Rotala and I took it from the top view intentionally - so none of the perhaps earlier deficiency can be mixed up with the new growth. No melt from these guys, but the growth looks small/stunted? Or is just slow?



Again, I circled some new growth with blue --> I am quite happy with the color and shape, but they are just small - and I am getting worked up that they are "stunted" -- or will they eventually get bigger and it is just that they are growing slowly.

Now, I moved the Pogo below from the new place of the ludwigia and in this "nice place" where the flow drops that enriched CO2 right down onto it.


I did not highlight this one as you can clearly see what is dieing and what is not -- First few days not much die off, then suddenly, I had a bunch of leaves - only lower leaves - fall off. The dying guys have new growth but it is small/slow/the bottom ones are all dying.

For what it is worth, my Bucephalandra is growing well and having those micro bubbles inside each leaf; my java fern has little pearls under it; my anubias seems ok too. You can see these epi's all on the wood on the right side of the tank.



The S.repens above, has "maybe" noticeably grown but also hasn't melted - I think this is important to note - it has been in since the planting about 2 weeks ago.

I read so much about light rarely being deficient that I started my lighting really low. In terms of photoperiod and co2 timing, I attempted to do this:

but my plants do not photosynthesize hard enough to force that pH back up like that. My max intensity is 40% on my reds, 15% greens, 10% blues, 10% warm white, 10% cool white AI Prime HD Freshwater (https://www.aquaillumination.com/products/prime-freshwater) --> I have 2 of these lights over top.

My tank is 24 inches deep (65 gallon, 36 inches long, 18 inches wide). Seeing as how perfectly healthy growth fell off my Ludwigia, the erectus has super thin leaves, the growth has been slow, and my epiphytes near the top are pearling, is it possible that I just do not have enough light to penetrate deeper into the tank?

Note: I have no algae (any GSA you see on the epiphytes is extremely old from old tanks and I should trim those leaves, the buce when I bought it had some BBA on its edge leaves and it has actually retracted in the tank so far)-- after the replant, I reduced my lights in hopes of preventing the outbreak as I may have stirred up some ammonia etc and junk in the water column, despite changing water that day.

I know that each plant has a minimum amount of light required to grow, but it is continually quoted that this minimum everyone basically has so quit worrying about light.

I think a good question and perhaps for another post I have would be what is the difference between a light deficiency and a co2 deficiency. I mean that is all we got if we are dosing in ideal ratios so as not to mess with uptakes and in aroundish EI amounts.

All this to say, I wrote far more than intended but I wanted to give all of the details, and I greatly appreciate anyone who does read/skim through it - so thank you in advance.

I suppose my question is, is there an issue here? Should I increase my light? Or should I just wait?

Cheers,
Josh

 

[alto]

AI Prime HD Freshwater (https://www.aquaillumination.com/products/prime-freshwater) --> I have 2 of these lights over top.

Basically you’re expecting these lights to illuminate an 18 x 18 x 24(high) area

Run at 100% for at least 4 hours each day

As you dim these lights, their light fall also diminishes - advanced aquarist had several excellent light articles by Sanjay Joshi which demonstrate these patterns (site has been reworked but I don’t know if it was Hack related) - so you’ve definitely been light limiting areas beyond a 12 x 12 area (I’m guessing at these numbers, it maybe moderate light upto a 14in area (but will still have significant fall off in the 12-14 zone ... just going by my recollections)

Assuming this is the latest generation HD Prime (manufacturer can confirm re serial #) it may perform somewhat better than previous iterations of this light - what type of internal refractors, lens are used?

On an 18in tall aquarium this is lots of light, on a 24in tall aquarium it’s not (neither is the Kessil A160 which was the LED I chose at the time)

Filipe Oliveira has several videos of tanks (including some taller tanks) running with AI lights including the HD Primes so he is a good reference, and often answers viewer questions in the video comment section

As you’re running close to the CO2 maximum re fish reactions - what sort of fish? - there’s not a lot of room there, though from what your DC is indicating, good flow is a consideration
Or is that upper DC impacted by surface exchange?

What is your tap pH, GH, KH?

after the replant, I reduced my lights in hopes of preventing the outbreak as I may have stirred up some ammonia etc and junk in the water column, despite changing water that day.

I just address this with large daily water changes, no need to turn the lights down 😉

As the right side of tank is plant-free, and then apparently relatively low light epiphytes, I’d left bias the placement of the HD Primes

 

[alto]

Exactly how did you do the replant process?
What are the chances you’re seeing some physical damage from handling/drying etc of the aquatic leafs (which are much much more sensitive than nursery grown emerse leafs)

 

[JoshP12]

Hi @alto,

Thanks for the response.

Run at 100% for at least 4 hours each day

-- 😱 -- really? I mean these lights get 86 micromol PAR at 24 inches deep. -- I guess I am afraid of too much light hahah.

Power Output
With a spread of 24" x 24", the AI Prime® Freshwater has a PAR of 86µMol at a depth of 24 inches, more than enough for the most demanding aquariums. Drawing a maximum of 55 watts from the wall, it follows in the family’s efficient footsteps.

I just address this with large daily water changes, no need to turn the lights down 😉

Got it - for future reference.

As you’re running close to the CO2 maximum re fish reactions - what sort of fish? - there’s not a lot of room there, though from what your DC is indicating, good flow is a consideration
Or is that upper DC impacted by surface exchange?

Betta + Neon tetra -- Rainbow Goby's are ok -- amano shrimp are ok.

The flow needs to be improved and it will be - but its not so horrendous (I have had horrendous flow before).

I water is very soft and the pH is inflated - I remineralize at 3:1 Ca/Mg to 3-4ish KH 5ish GH 7.3 ish pH -- after I let it sit in a big bucket (garbage bin in a back room hehe).

Filipe Oliveira has several videos of tanks (including some taller tanks) running with AI lights including the HD Primes so he is a good reference, and often answers viewer questions in the video comment section

I will check this out - thanks.

I have both lights on top covering about 14 inches by 18 inches of space (placed in the center 7 inches middle left to right, 9 inches front to back).


So @alto, increase my intensity? -- Maybe up my reds by 3 percent, g/b by 1 percent, ww by 3 %, cw by 1% per day until I see algae, then re-evaluate?


Thank you for the response. Extremely helpful.

Josh

 

[JoshP12]

Exactly how did you do the replant process?
What are the chances you’re seeing some physical damage from handling/drying etc of the aquatic leafs (which are much much more sensitive than nursery grown emerse leafs)

Hmmm, I pulled them out, put them on a little table, took off all the bottom leaves, then planted. I was pretty gentle and calm, and they have taken a week or so for them to really start to fall off, so I don't think so. I suspect if that were the case, then it would have been more evident earlier on?

Josh

 

[alto]

Hmmm, I pulled them out, put them on a little table, took off all the bottom leaves, then planted. I was pretty gentle and calm, and they have taken a week or so for them to really start to fall off, so I don't think so. I suspect if that were the case, then it would have been more evident earlier on?

Josh

No this is about the right time frame for subtle leaf damage (in my experience)

When I remove aquarium grown plants, I try to place them gently in shallow (water filled) tubs with lots of space, then it doesn’t much matter how slow I might be

Some plants will be fine with your handling, others less so - how did you keep them from drying?

Also when replanting the tank, had you drained the tank?
(I tend to remove livestock, then plants, drain most water, adjust hardscape etc, then begin replant process - any new plants are done first as these are least susceptible to drying - refill, usually a water change is needed, then add fish back etc)

 

[JoshP12]

No this is about the right time frame for subtle leaf damage (in my experience)

When I remove aquarium grown plants, I try to place them gently in shallow (water filled) tubs with lots of space, then it doesn’t much matter how slow I might be

Some plants will be fine with your handling, others less so - how did you keep them from drying?

Also when replanting the tank, had you drained the tank?
(I tend to remove livestock, then plants, drain most water, adjust hardscape etc, then begin replant process - any new plants are done first as these are least susceptible to drying - refill, usually a water change is needed, then add fish back etc)

I had a bucket that I kept them in (a small one on my table) -- some of them I just left out (in retrospect I should have put them in the bucket too).

I drained the tank about 60%, then filled it back up. My livestock were swimming around and the betta was checking out my planting - hah.

Would the damage be in the form that we see? I.e. fall off/browning?

Josh

 

[alto]

Yeah I’ve read AI’s page 😉

they didn’t fare near so well in Sanjay Joshi’s study - and he included a Materials and Methods section so the reader can follow as much detail as desired (also an accessory article that showed setup and measurement details so if one had the equipment, it could be replicated (he’s an applied scientist by training))

 

[JoshP12]

Yeah I’ve read AI’s page 😉

they didn’t fare near so well in Sanjay Joshi’s study - and he included a Materials and Methods section so the reader can follow as much detail as desired (also an accessory article that showed setup and measurement details so if one had the equipment, it could be replicated (he’s an applied scientist by training))

Good to know - LOL - How drastically should I increase their intensity for tomorrow?

Ahh -- also, he is a reef guy -- the AI prime I have is a newer one that is dedicated to FW - perhaps some of those kinks are fixed now.

Josh

 

[alto]

Would the damage be in the form that we see? I.e. fall off/browning?

Yes
If you looked closely at Day 2, you should’ve seen some slight discolouration and bruising
Damage at the stem/leaf node is less obvious - until the leaf just falls off

When placing aquatic plants in a bucket, it’s easy for them to suffer some leaf trauma (physical damage) just from crowding and handling

 

[alto]

Good to know - LOL - How drastically should I increase their intensity for tomorrow?

Josh

I’m one of those people that sets up a tank and then usually runs the lights at 100% from the beginning - limiting time rather than light intensity

A recent (only) exception is my 30cm cube which I set up with the new ONF flat nano +
It was just so much fun to play with the intensity .... OK not really 😀 I just didn’t have a feel for the lights intensity so I quite arbitrarily ran it at 75% with ramping and a long “moonlight” period as the tank is on a kitchen counter
Likely it would be fine at 100% as well but I keep CO2 quite low and like the slow growth

(there will a point to this anecdote eventually)

Most of the plants were from the previous scape that had been running unkempt for a few months - no water changes, no CO2, but same light intensity and schedule - they took a couple weeks to realize that there were actual nutrients available now, and all the new leafs are bigger, brighter etc
I still haven’t added any water column fertilizers and only one 😳 water change since set up

Interestingly, new R Vietnam H’ra growth was green 😕 but has now gone back to red tones


Not sure there really is a relevant point to my anecdote ... except perhaps that plants will do what plants will do

And another BUT
my tap water is very soft (rainwater and snow melt reservoir systems), I run limited water column nutrients (Tropica etc Soil substrates), light to moderate CO2 - these are factors that I believe impact algae
I have minimal algae in my tanks, even in that poor neglected kitchen nano, some plants disappeared re lack of CO2, growth definitely slowed, but there remained no visible algae
Many forums will insist that lack of water column nutrients, lack of CO2 (also erratic levels of CO2) in relatively high light triggers/favours algae growth

If you want to be conservative, increase light by 10% weekly
If you’re a jumper, 10% daily
Much depends on how good you are at reading the situation and if you’re adept at growing algae 😉

 

[JoshP12]

I’m one of those people that sets up a tank and then usually runs the lights at 100% from the beginning - limiting time rather than light intensity

A recent (only) exception is my 30cm cube which I set up with the new ONF flat nano +
It was just so much fun to play with the intensity .... OK not really 😀 I just didn’t have a feel for the lights intensity so I quite arbitrarily ran it at 75% with ramping and a long “moonlight” period as the tank is on a kitchen counter
Likely it would be fine at 100% as well but I keep CO2 quite low and like the slow growth

(there will a point to this anecdote eventually)

Most of the plants were from the previous scape that had been running unkempt for a few months - no water changes, no CO2, but same light intensity and schedule - they took a couple weeks to realize that there were actual nutrients available now, and all the new leafs are bigger, brighter etc
I still haven’t added any water column fertilizers and only one 😳 water change since set up

Interestingly, new R Vietnam H’ra growth was green 😕 but has now gone back to red tones


Not sure there really is a relevant point to my anecdote ... except perhaps that plants will do what plants will do

And another BUT
my tap water is very soft (rainwater and snow melt reservoir systems), I run limited water column nutrients (Tropica etc Soil substrates), light to moderate CO2 - these are factors that I believe impact algae
I have minimal algae in my tanks, even in that poor neglected kitchen nano, some plants disappeared re lack of CO2, growth definitely slowed, but there remained no visible algae
Many forums will insist that lack of water column nutrients, lack of CO2 in relatively high light triggers/favours algae growth

If you want to be conservative, increase light by 10% weekly
If you’re a jumper, 10% daily
Much depends on how good you are at reading the situation and if you’re adept at growing algae 😉

Thanks for this.

Josh

 

[Zeus.]

IMO its CO2 deficiency due to inadequate flow. This can IMO be explained from my observations to a little experiment I did.

Take this pic


Some MC growing in lidded container in garden, all the MC has the same nutrients except CO2 as the MC growing above the water have 400ppm CO2 and the ones below the water have 'much much' less [CO2]. The MC under the water gets less light but not much less as only just underneath the water surface and leaves are yellow in some areas and inter stem distance has increased which is a typical sign of low/poor [CO2]

Yet the MC above the water looks great. Reason great CO2 supply.

Your plants are like the MC just below the water level in my pic IMO

DC: DC is green on top and yellow on bottom - kind of bizarre? - going to change the fluids tonight (it has been consistent all week).

IMO this indicates poor FLOW, because if water isn't moving enough CO2 is lost from water surface first so water at top will have a lower [CO2] is there isnt enough flow. Just change the DC over (top one to bottom and bottom one to top) I think the colour change will move with the position and this will IMO indicate poor flow again.

Better flow/turnover will resolve the issues IMO 😉

 

[JoshP12]

Hi @Zeus.

Thanks for responding 🙂.

I had a hunch it was my flow too (and more light actually) - my spray bar comes probably tomorrow, which I hope will help. I can’t seem to induce a high turn over low velocity flow with the outputs/power heads I have.

With regards to the DC near the substrate, there is high co2; how come high co2 is exhibiting this? Is the minimal flow inducing a nutrient deficiency which is not co2? Further, the only way to keep the concentration of co2 so high near the substrate is if there was good flow - otherwise it wouldn’t continually enrich it?

In terms of “better” flow, what do you mean? My understand is as I said above: high turn over low velocity that hits the wall (front or side) and hammers down sweeping through the substrate back up. Will the spray bar achieve this?

Josh

 

[Zeus.]

With regards to the DC, near the substrate, there is high co2

High [CO2] at the DC, also DC dont use the CO2 they just measure it so if the water has a high [CO2] as it slowly passes the DC there will be no net change in the [CO2]. However if the flow is slow when the water reaches the fist plant the [CO2] decreases so when it get to the next plants theres less plants takes some less for the next and so on, so the plants are decreasing the [CO2] if flow does maintain the [CO2].

Key to this is the fact that diffusion takes place a staggering 10,000 times slower in water. So if you plants dont 'sway' in the flow your relaying on diffusion more which isnt good and the [CO2] will fluctuate in the tank locally at the individual localised plant/stem/leaf level, if the plants sway then your using flow to maintain a stable [CO2].

In terms of “better” flow, what do you mean?

High output filters/pumps dont give high flow its the output method you use to generate the Flow. But choosing the right output and setting it up right to maximise flow can be tricky. I had a spray bar on my tank which worked well and with it being a DIY one I was able to experiment to see what worked so

1. Big holes in spraybar (which yielded high output from filter) generated low 'flow' as the water was coming out of the spraybar with low velocity/energy
2. Many small holes gave same results as 1.
3. Fewer small holes gave lower filter output yet the water came out with high velocity/energy which was the 'key to success'. Water which is outputted with a higher velocity has more energy so creates more flow in the tank when the output is in the direction.

I did use a flow rate calculator to work though a few hoe size/numbers first

Will the spray bar achieve this?

If you can get the water jetting out with enough energy, Yes. If the filter doesnt handle it you may need a powerhead to boost it.

In a 'normal setup a spraybar along the back of tank works well if the water jet hits the front of tank. With my tank being a room divider that wasnt possible


So had duel spraybars that complemented the flow in the tank


Have done away with the spraybars altogether now and fitted duel Maxspect gyres which well out perform the spraybars and much easier to clean

 

[JoshP12]

Thanks @Zeus. I greatly appeciate your post - thinking about CO2 differently now.

So,

High [CO2] at the DC, also DC dont use the CO2 they just measure it so if the water has a high [CO2] as it slowly passes the DC there will be no net change in the [CO2]. However if the flow is slow when the water reaches the fist plant the [CO2] decreases so when it get to the next plants theres less plants takes some less for the next and so on, so the plants are decreasing the [CO2] if flow does maintain the [CO2].

With this theory, my erectus should be doing better than my rotala -- it is farther to the left of the tank and should be getting most of that CO2 (unless the tips of the rotala are taking it as they are taller. My rotala has not melted, my erectus and ludwigia have (they are the book ends). If my concentration is that much higher in the center, before it actually hits the erectus, then my DC would never change to yellow as the water wouldn't be concentrated enough to get to that spot in the first (I will move the DC as close to the erectus as I can today before lights on).

This may explain why my S. Repens has not melted at all?

If the flow is slow, but has high enough concentration, then that would mean that it is moving fast enough so that at one end of the tank the concentration is reading high before it passes by the plants, then once it passes the first few, the concentration is low?

i.e. you would see a discrepancy in my S. Repens - but I don't -- or is is the discrepancy in co2 (or the distance in my tank)so small that I wouldn't notice?

Key to this is the fact that diffusion takes place a staggering 10,000 times slower in water. So if you plants dont 'sway' in the flow your relaying on diffusion more which isnt good and the [CO2] will fluctuate in the tank locally at the individual localised plant/stem/leaf level, if the plants sway then your using flow to maintain a stable [CO2].

This is clear - so we want the plant to sway in the direction of flow and then back against it; we do not want the plants to be pushed extremely in 1 direction or the other?

I think the question I posed earlier is a good one: What is the difference between a light and co2 deficiency?

Could you grow pogo erectus or ludwigia (or any plant) for that matter underneath your hardscape with so much CO2 that it is out of question and you dose at leasts EI?

I suspect: you need a minimum light intensity to produce food (and "most" people overkill lights), so it is likely that you do and CO2/flow/distribution is the problem.

How does one know that they have the minimum light?

Do we turn up the lights and see what happens -
1) if it algae is not created and melting subsides, then it was lights.
2) If algae is created, then its flow?

Josh

 

[Zeus.]

With this theory, my erectus should be doing better than my rotala

But the Erectus offers more resistance to flow with many fine leaves, also different plants 'may' tolerate different fluctuations in CO2

What is the difference between a light and co2 deficiency?

Are your plants growing ? if they are then they are non light deficient

If you plants are growing but have issues then they are deficient in a nutrient, number one nutritional deficiency in high tech tank is CO2 and its usually in combination with poor flow as FLOW is king, as its the flow that delivers the CO2.

you need a minimum light intensity to produce food

yes,compensation point

(and "most" people overkill lights), so it is likely that you do and CO2/flow/distribution is the problem.

You need a match the CO2 distrubution to match the light intensity and CO2 needs to stable from lights on for first 4-5hours. High light leads to pinholes then melting, Higher the [CO2] and better the flow the higher the light intensity 'PAR' you can get away with, but there will be limits esp in water due to speed of diffusion.

Do we turn up the lights and see what happens -

Well that is your call I have great respect for @alto and we may not always agree all the time and as one peer to another thats fine, as long as we are respectful with our comments/opinions we both listen to the others points with interest as well. Growing plants doesnt have a rule book to follow as its not an exact science as nobody knows all the rules yet.

1) if it algae is not created and melting subsides, then it was lights.
2) If algae is created, then its flow?

But algae will grow in low light as it has a lower compensation point than plants

 

[JoshP12]

@Zeus.

Thanks.

Are your plants growing ? if they are then they are non light deficient

I'll have to think about this -- I can say Buce, Anubias, java fern, (lower compensation point), and these are epiphythes so I can see the roots etc. Crypts too.

I suppose root growth is also growing?

I cannot say that pogo is growing because it is just slowly dying off; the little sprout there may have been from when I bought them (I am not sure - I will pay more attention). I suspect highest compensation point than any other plant in my tank. The S. Repens has not grown or died --> likely root growth then? Again, lower compensation point.

I like this:

You need a match the CO2 distrubution to match the light intensity and CO2 needs to stable from lights on for first 4-5hours. High light leads to pinholes then melting, Higher the [CO2] and better the flow the higher the light intensity 'PAR' you can get away with, but there will be limits esp in water due to speed of diffusion.

If you plants are growing but have issues then they are deficient in a nutrient, number one nutritional deficiency in high tech tank is CO2 and its usually in combination with poor flow as FLOW is king, as its the flow that delivers the CO2.

Have you seen a situation where CO2 is non-limiting, but light does not meet the compensation point?

The issues part leads me to what I said in the initial post:

Again, I circled some new growth with blue --> I am quite happy with the color and shape, but they are just small - and I am getting worked up that they are "stunted" -- or will they eventually get bigger and it is just that they are growing slowly.

This is specific to the Rotala.

I cannot discern if the blue circles on the ludwigia were from its old location or the new one. I got die off in the old location (but also new growth - so there was enough light there) from ludwigia as well, so this could have been CO2 distribution the whole time and not just now (but the rotala is in it's old location and it has no die off now).

But algae will grow in low light as it has a lower compensation point than plants

<-- only if it is not outcompeted/chemically warfared by surrounding plants; if my nutrients (co2 and ferts) have enough balance to handle higher PAR levels, then I should not see an algae bloom when increasing light. Yes/no?

The idea that CO2 is depleted by plants as it passes by I think is grounded in:

1 unit of CO2 is used for every unit of light. I.e. 30PAR should use 30 ppm of CO2 at the substrate -- @dw1305 is this right? Definitely need some confirmation/explanation here.

So the idea that my plants are depleting that CO2 before they even get to the other side would require decent lighting (I wonder if this is why ADA substrate level has 40ish PAR) - which I am not sure that I have/don't have.

Need to log for a few but wanted to respond before that!

Talk soon and thanks always.

With regards,
Josh

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

1 unit of CO2 is used for every unit of light. I.e. 30PAR should use 30 ppm of CO2 at the substrate -- @dw1305 is this right? Definitely need some confirmation/explanation here.

I'll be honest I don't know, but my guess would be that that isn't right. I would expect the light response is much more like the nutrient response curve and will begin to plateau fairly quickly after LCP, followed by a decline in CO2 assimilation as the extra energy from the light photons begins to damage the leaf tissue.

cheers Darrel

 

[JoshP12]

Hi all,I'll be honest I don't know, but my guess would be that that isn't right. I would expect the light response is much more like the nutrient response curve and will begin to plateau fairly quickly after LCP, followed by a decline in CO2 assimilation as the extra energy from the light photons begins to damage the leaf tissue.

cheers Darrel

I'll see if I can read up on it -- I did misspeak though in my haste. I should that the specific CO2 consumption will vary based on the wavelength we are discussing. I.e. red is higher, so the photosynthetic response from red light or 650nm ish is going to higher and as a result the use of CO2 will also vary. I do not know however, if the 1 unit (100%) of relative spectral response is equal to 1 ppm of CO2 used.

Grabbing some coffee.

In terms of the tank, I did increase the light as I can monitor it closely and if I see an algal bloom, I can intervene.

@alto I increased my warm white from 10% to 25%, and by 3 hours into the cycle saw no algae at all and no adverse effects on plants - paying attention to my anubias near the top for damage. Then I increased it more to 35% which may have been a bad move and I should wait until tomorrow - but I felt like it was a good choice.

Dennis Wong's LED light set up looks like this:


His ratio of red:warmwhite (625 nm : 3000k) is about 1:1. Following this a guide, it may be an idea to increase my warm whites up to my red level.

Not sure on the cool white bit: His ratio of red:coolwhite (625nm: 5000k) is the same -- and so I think I should increase my cool white as well to this. I am not sure how to obtain those 6500 and for all I know, my cool white may be 6500 -- will do research.

@Zeus. Hopefully the spray bar by Monday and then I will increase effective flow/distribution and this guy will become balanced.
In the interim, @Zeus., if there is no algae bloom after increasing the light, then would you say that there is enough CO2/flow in the tank for that PAR output? Or is there another indicator that I can and should use. (aside from all the die off I mean - which shows there is an issue in the tank).