Hi all,
But a partial tight cover nevertheless will increase CO2 partial pressure in the tank airspace similar to our indoor air containing higher CO2 concentration than outside.
I think that is where the danger lies, it would be more efficient in terms of preserving the CO2 you've added, but you run the very real risk of asphyxiating your fish.
I'm not a CO2 user, but if I was I'd want a system with a large gas exchange surface area. You would use more gas, but small increases in the CO2 addition rate would be much less likely to cause fish death.
There are reports of higher crop production due to elevated CO2 in fields not Impacted by water constraint. It’s a popular practice ......
Same with tomatoes, growers have used additional CO2 for at least 30 years. The cost benefit analysis depends on the value of the crop, and the cost of the CO2, but about 1200 ppm CO2 is somewhere near the "sweet spot". <"
Prolonged exposure"> to 5000 ppm CO2 is pretty bad for you.
The modelling of changes in crop growth with increasing CO2 levels is an area with a lot of <"
scientific research interest">.
An interesting recent finding is that the large areas of irrigated corn (Maize (
Zea mays)) production in the American Mid-west has <"
both increased rain-fall and reduced summer high temperatures">. Maize is a C4 plant, so CO2 levels don't have much effect on plant growth (for physiological reasons). The climatic change is thought to be due to the increased transpiration of the Maize compared to the native grasses, and is reliant on the artesian water extracted from bore-holes. When the water runs out the best guess is that temperatures will start to climb and the rain-fall reduce.
The issues with anthropogenic CO2 production are likely to be due to the climatic warming and the effects on weather patterns.
cheers Darrel