• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

Aquarium sand and diatoms...

What, in your experience 'triggers' algae blooms? This implies to me that a number of conditions, when simultaneously present, will flick a switch and algae starts growing.
For clarification, I'm a plant grower - just another guy off the street. Darrel is the biologist.
In any case, since we have all the spores present in the tank it's a race to see which species can conquer the tank. Different algae are triggered, as you mention, by a combination of and variety of conditions. We don't yet have the full story down to the last atom, but at the macroscopic level we have pretty good correlations - as well as pretty good non-correlations which is actually easier to determine by FAR.
We've divide causality by; nutrient deficiency related, CO2 deficiency related, or the combination. Of course it's not just these main categories as there are other factors such as Oxygen deficiency and general chemical instability.
As far as the general categories ;
The "known" CO2 related algae are Hair (and other filamentous types) and BBA. I put the word known in quotes because these are strongly correlated.
The "known" nutrient related is primarily BGA which is typically correlated with poor NO3.
The remaining species are correlated to the combination of poor CO2 and poor nutrient levels, the most prevalent of which is GSA, which is correlated to some combination of poor CO2 and poor PO4. When troubleshooting GSA, one has to analyze the tank keeping in mind that poor CO2 usually will show multiple symptoms - primarily structural faults in the plants, so if no other CO2 related symptoms are evident we then assume the GSA is related to PO4 deficiency. It's easy to add more PO4 and to observe the results. Do the easy thing first. Correcting a CO2 fault is exponentially more difficult.

Diatoms are in a different category and are typically triggered by the chemical instability. There are over 10,000 species. Normally the arise in newly setup tanks and then disappear after a few weeks - but they can be prolonged in the tank if the conditions do not stabilize. Change the water frequently, physically clean the tank and avoid excessive lighting.

Again, we're talking about a planted tank here, not a lake or marine tank or even a fish-only freshwater tank.

It's believed that spores monitor the environment and monitor the plants response to that environment. The mechanism is unclear, to me at least. Deficiency leads to decline in health, which results in degeneration of the plants tissues. The damaged tissues leak their contents into the water column and it is believed that the spores have the ability to detect the contents of the leak and respond by blooming. Healthy plants grow, are tight and are able to resist the attacks. So in these tanks there is a relationship between algae and plants wherein plants are prey and algae are predators.

Few people in The Matrix ever consider this relationship. They just consume regurgitated wives tales and run out to buy delusional test kits and other props such as "phosphoguard" or "nitrazorb", or whatever is fashionable. A tank free of algal blooms is hard work and it's not likely to happen when we fear nutrients or allow a test kit to determine our fate.

Also regarding the article you referenced, I reckon it's another case where the data is taken out of context. I repeat the we have to be careful. The article does not imply that Si is a macronutrient for macrophytes. It is arguing that Si can be taken up by plants when the ambient concentration is high and that they can store high tissue concentration when necessary. Take a look at the first bar chart in Figure 1. It shows a case where in emergent growth, the tissue concentration is about 10,000 ppm Si where the ratio between the tissue concentration and concentration of the dissolved Si in the water is about 2.5. That means the water column Si concentration is about 4000 ppm. Were there diatomic blooms in the water at that concentration level? Unknown.

This demonstrates a win-win in that under the right conditions we can throw the kitchen sink at plants and they will gobble it up. This tells us what we know that plants clean up the environment.

Cheers,
 
Hi @ceg4048

Many thanks for your reply. I will read it several times in order to absorb the points you have made. I'm not sure what The Matrix is - a book or a film, perhaps? BTW, the test kits I choose to use are not "delusional" for me. Indeed, I find them very beneficial but I recognize that some aquarists prefer not to use them.

Until later...

JPC
 
Hi all!

I struggle so much with the statement below, and I think it is just definitions.
Diatoms are in a different category ... and avoid excessive lighting.

I wanted to layout my thoughts to help tease this apart.

Light is a requirement for plant growth. It drives overall nutrient demand.

* * * Suppose the PAR at a point in the tank (and at a plant) is a value (call it 50). For that value (50 umol), that plant will require a unique amount of each: CO2, O2, nutrients, flow pattern, hormones, vitamins, etc -- AT that set moment in time. As time passes, clearly this changes. And we can assume that an aquarist, with appropriate attention, CAN balance this * * *

There are several maximums that we can consider:
1) Maximum lighting for a moment in time for the tank given a fixed flow, CO2, etc etc etc etc SUCH THAT we have no visible algae and "healthy" plant growth (this is obviously unique and a ridiculous metric but I think anyone reading knows what I mean here)
2) Maximum lighting to obtain "maximum" growth for a set number of species (kind of like EI theory)
3) Maximum for species
4*) The maximum light PRE-photooxidation of tissue (obviously variable at depths)
5) etc etc

Now, given the maximum light for a moment in time for the tank in question (situation 1), then, let us define excessive lighting as light over that maximum PAR such that FOR SOME REASON the algae spores take advantage (i.e. the competition tips in their favor).

In this case, I agree that excessive lighting can continue an algae bloom/trigger it. However, refer to **, we can simply accommodate and "prevent the bloom" - thus the value of excessive lighting increases and so on, until we reach the maximum such that photooxidation has NOT occured yet for our plant mass (remember this is for a given moment in time) -- situation 4.

Now, the elusive maximum that I have suggested (for situation 4*) is dependent on a few things:
1) The amount of chlorophyll degradation that the plant has self-induced as a protective measure
2) ... naturally, the colour.

At point 2, I bring it back to diatoms. They are brown, and they cannot change their color (why I do not know ... but I've never seen a green diatom and if someone has, then perhaps it has an adaptability similar to that of a plant and should not be a protist ... but this one is for Darrel :) @dw1305.

A brown colour by definition absorbs more wavelengths of light than something that is a single colour. Now, it is not so simple as colours don't SIMPLY reflect one thing exclusively - unless we use perfect chemistry - so in a plant it may not be so simple.

But going with this, if we increase lighting and by *** balance everything up to (and just before we reach) situation 4* for our plants, THEN we can potentially reach situation 4* for diatoms and FORCE them to absorb more photons than they can handle. As a result, the electromagnetic force may break the bonds of the diatom and incinerate it (like a laser on us).

So, excessive lighting by the definition above, certainly will trigger/encourage algae blooms. But an increase in light, properly approach via *, could potentially reach the threshold of 4 for diatom vs 4 for plants and provide us an advantage.

Further, that increase lighting, properly approached via *** and under 4*, could increase growth rates tipping the favor of the dynamic system towards plant growth (my own thoughts and I cannot prove it) ... AND incinerate the diatoms ... curing the issue.

Please help :).

Josh
 
Hi all,
They are brown, and they cannot change their color
They share <"some photosynthetic pigments with all other autotrophic organisms">, but they also have some that are only found in the <"Diatoms and Brown Algae">.
fig2-4-phylotreealgae-png-png.png

......... Diatoms are organisms of a distinct pigment composition, substantially different from that present in plants. Apart from light-harvesting pigments such as chlorophyll a, chlorophyll c, and fucoxanthin, there is a group of photoprotective carotenoids which includes β-carotene and the xanthophylls, diatoxanthin, diadinoxanthin, violaxanthin, antheraxanthin, and zeaxanthin, which are engaged in the xanthophyll cycle.........

cheers Darrel
 
Hi @JoshP12

I am having a lot of difficulty following your reasoning. But, I'm very prepared to accept that it's my aged brain that is the problem. This is a difficult discussion to be having when we are unable to communicate by actually talking about it, isn't it?

JPC
 
Hi @JoshP12

I am having a lot of difficulty following your reasoning. But, I'm very prepared to accept that it's my aged brain that is the problem. This is a difficult discussion to be having when we are unable to communicate by actually talking about it, isn't it?

JPC
I would love to join a virtual Conference by UKAPS!!!

I suppose I went for rigour to eliminate any “holes being poked”

Here is what I mean:
Diatoms cannot handle as much light as plants since they are brown. They absorb more wavelengths. So, we can laser them before killing our plants. People can run high PAR algae free without killing everything - so what is excessive light? Just balance the light below the point of incinerating the plants, and then you can incinerate the diatoms.

The same may be said for BBA. But, is it the plants becoming healthy that eliminates them or the light? No clue - but I still don’t know what excessive light means.

My attempt for rigour is in the other post - but perhaps the above is better.
 
Hi @ceg4048

I would like to home in on the following:

The remaining species are correlated to the combination of poor CO2 and poor nutrient levels...

With CO2, you can get an idea of CO2 concentration from the humble drop checker. But, how do you categorically know that you have "poor nutrient levels" if you don't measure these with test kits or other instruments? I guess you may be fortunate enough to tell just by looking at a plant. I had a case recently where some floating plants were suffering. None of the plant deficiency symptoms charts helped one iota. Growth was stunted and there was some yellowing of the leaves. To my untrained eye, I suspected nitrogen, iron, magnesium or manganese deficiency. I tested the first three of these nutrients but all was OK. So, I then decided to test for inorganic phosphate and it was <0.02 mg/l. I added a phosphorus compound to the water and the plant perked up.

Diatoms are in a different category and are typically triggered by the chemical instability.

To which chemical(s) are you referring? The (Boyd) article that I referenced previously would suggest silicic acid.

That's enough for the moment.

JPC
 
Hi @ceg4048With CO2, you can get an idea of CO2 concentration from the humble drop checker. But, how do you categorically know that you have "poor nutrient levels" if you don't measure these with test kits or other instruments? I guess you may be fortunate enough to tell just by looking at a plant. I had a case recently where some floating plants were suffering. None of the plant deficiency symptoms charts helped one iota. Growth was stunted and there was some yellowing of the leaves. To my untrained eye, I suspected nitrogen, iron, magnesium or manganese deficiency. I tested the first three of these nutrients but all was OK. So, I then decided to test for inorganic phosphate and it was <0.02 mg/l. I added a phosphorus compound to the water and the plant perked up.

To be honest that precisely why EI dosing exists and is so popular. Many of us simply aren’t experienced enough to look at changes to plants and diagnose specific nutrient deficiencies accurately.

With EI dosing is a case of prevention rather than cure, and simply eliminating nutrient deficiency as a possible cause of plant issues. If we accept that slight excesses of nutrients don’t cause algal blooms, particularly in mature tanks - and it has been proven often enough how to be beyond doubt - then there is no need not to dose an excess and ensure plants are never deficient.

That then leaves us far fewer ‘dials to turn’ when trying to diagnose any issues.
 
To be honest that precisely why EI dosing exists and is so popular. Many of us simply aren’t experienced enough to look at changes to plants and diagnose specific nutrient deficiencies accurately.
Love the way this is put - thanks for drafting it.

EI teaches us a lot.
How to do co2, water change, maintenance, flow patterns, light, trimming, dry salts, economic choices, the issues with the companies in this hobby lol and so on.

But it is baptism by fire. It tells you if something is off pretty fast.

You “can’t” learn to diagnose nutrient deficiencies without ample experience and/or being able to rule out all of those things EI teaches you.

Just some thoughts!
Josh
 
To be honest that precisely why EI dosing exists and is so popular. Many of us simply aren’t experienced enough to look at changes to plants and diagnose specific nutrient deficiencies accurately.
Hi @Wookii

I hear what you say and it's a good point. But, I've avoided EI because it's very labour-intensive, isn't it? 50% water changes every week (at least). I don't want to become a slave to my tank(s) - I want to enjoy looking at them. Or, have I got it all wrong? And, now that I'm over 65, I don't think I can manage lugging all that water around. I don't have the stamina. Perhaps I should take up stamp collecting instead. o_O

JPC
 
Love the way this is put - thanks for drafting it.

EI teaches us a lot.
How to do co2, water change, maintenance, flow patterns, light, trimming, dry salts, economic choices, the issues with the companies in this hobby lol and so on.

But it is baptism by fire. It tells you if something is off pretty fast.

You “can’t” learn to diagnose nutrient deficiencies without ample experience and/or being able to rule out all of those things EI teaches you.

Just some thoughts!
Josh

I guess it depends on your personal objectives, if you want to ‘learn’ how to identify deficiencies then attempting to avoid them by dosing excess nutrients won’t allow you to learn that directly.

But looking at it a different way, if you wanted to induce that learning experience in a controlled way, then you could establish good healthy plant growth under an EI dosing regime, and then simply limit one nutrient at a time whilst keeping the others on excess. At least then you have the chicken before the egg and know what is going to be causing the deficiencies before you start to observe them appearing!
 
Hi @Wookii

I hear what you say and it's a good point. But, I've avoided EI because it's very labour-intensive, isn't it? 50% water changes every week (at least). I don't want to become a slave to my tank(s) - I want to enjoy looking at them. Or, have I got it all wrong? And, now that I'm over 65, I don't think I can manage lugging all that water around. I don't have the stamina. Perhaps I should take up stamp collecting instead. o_O

JPC

Depends on how you set things up to be honest John - all my water changes are automated as lugging water or hose pipes around sucks the fun out of if for me too. That’s being said I personally consider a 50% weekly water change a minimum irrespective of dosing, if you have a reasonable amount of live stock.
 
Hi all,
Many of us simply aren’t experienced enough to look at changes to plants and diagnose specific nutrient deficiencies accurately.
I don't think any of us can really diagnose specific nutrient deficiencies. We can make guesses based on the plants requirements, they need most of the macronutrients nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K), most UK tap water doesn't contain much magnesium( Mg), iron (Fe) is likely to be unavailable in hard water etc.

Iron deficiencies occur in new leaves and pale new growth is likely to be an iron deficiency, after that nearly all the other nutrients are mobile within the plant, and there are a huge number of possible combinations of nutrients that might cause deficiency symptoms in older leaves.

cheers Darrel
 
Back
Top