Amazon water types vs. "natural fertilizer" levels

[MichaelJ]

aren't really terrestrial, you could argue that are just as much aquatic plants as Cryptocoryne spp. etc.

Yes. I suppose it's very hard to draw the distinction between terrestrial and aquatic in a tropical rainforest environment with constant high humidity, lots of rain, flooding etc.

In the "black-water" forests the soil is a very thin organic layer over silica sand, I'd guess that most nutrients would be in trace amounts. There would be a lot more nutrients in the varzea sediments, but I don't know the exact amount.

The soil discussion is interesting - The paradox of rainforest soils I wonder if the lack of nutrients also apply to the river soil. Why would the river soil be (much) different from the forrest soil... Of course, in the rain forrest you have that rapid turn over from decomposing and decaying plant mass, excretion from animals etc. so they are getting constantly fed. I suppose the rivers tap into that as well. But wouldn't that show up in the water column as well?

Cheers,
Michael

 

[Happi]

According to some article there is very little nutrients in the soil in some of those water.

I doubt those lower numbers in the water are accumulated numbers. What if that is what present in the water and plant uptake those numbers and those numbers are being replaced with those small ppm constantly?

Either way those water don't have 30 ppm NO3, 3 ppm PO4, 1 ppm Fe or 30 ppm K and such. I know some people who measured the uptake of nutrients and accumulated level of nutrients and they also measured the dry mass of plant. The uptake of nutrients were no where close to what we dose.

We really need to hear from someone who use Tropica fertilizer on their inert substrate if you feel like soil is doing most of the work. I know some who do and their plant look great.

Again if you were to go inert substrate and dose KNO3 only as your N, you will struggle. NH4 will grow the plant well even if they were not touching the soil.

Quote from seachem:

"The beginner dose raises nitrogen by the same degree that 1 mg/L nitrate would. This dose is sufficient to provide approximately 4 g of growth (dry) or about 20 g (hydrated) over a 1 month period (assuming all other necessary nutrients are provided). For increased growth use proportionately more.

To target a specific nitrogen increase, dose according to the following formula: 0.25vn=m, where v= volume of tank in gallons, n=desired nitrogen increase (if using a “nitrate equivalent” value for “n” then use a factor of 0.05 instead of 0.25 in the formula) and m=volume of product to use in mL. For example to raise 20 gallons by 0.20 mg/L nitrogen you would use: 0.25*20*0.20=1 mL.

Because one-half of the nitrogen in Flourish Nitrogen™ is from nitrate you can get a reasonable estimate of nitrogen levels by doubling a nitrate reading."

This will give you some estimate on the N uptake. Going back to the main topic, if those numbers in those waters are correct and let's assume that soil is doing most of the work then why not create the same scenario in our tank? Why bother with excessive nutrients in the water? Somone said we add nutrients to excessive levels because soil is no longer doing much, well then why not make the soil rich again with root tabs and such at appropriate levels? Why bother with excessive nutrients in the water and add root tabs at the same time like some people been doing.

The other way to tell the water is not very rich in nutrients is based on the TDS, tds is very low in all those water.

 

[sparkyweasel]

Somone said we add nutrients to excessive levels because soil is no longer doing much, well then why not make the soil rich again with root tabs and such

Lots of people do each approach, both can work well. EI is one approach, no reason you can't use another. ADA, for example, uses rich substrate and low water column dosing.

 

[Wolf6]

This is the key point. You will very rarely see “zero algae” and “excellent plant health” in a natural environment.

You will generally see extensive algae, and a mixture of healthy and completely ragged/deficient/damaged plant growth. That’s a natural environment, but not what we necessarily want to see in our glass boxes, so we employ a number of techniques, including dosing sufficient nutrients, to prevent that happening.

This. What we find attractive to look at are the prize chickens and award winning pumpkins of the plant world, fattened up and pampered grown into almost obesity if such a thing is possible. In nature most of the time only the tops of plants are free of algea, everything is else is covered. Comparing our tanks to nature is like comparing the rhs flower shows to nature. Much as we like to think we are trying to recreate it, we are only recreating our romanticized idea of it, free of algea (or weeds) and deformities and deficiencies. We fertilise and water our gardens and crops, our tanks are no different in that regard. Although I do love a real natural biotope tank with algea too 🙂

 

[Nick potts]

if those numbers in those waters are correct and let's assume that soil is doing most of the work then why not create the same scenario in our tank? Why bother with excessive nutrients in the water? Somone said we add nutrients to excessive levels because soil is no longer doing much, well then why not make the soil rich again with root tabs and such at appropriate levels? Why bother with excessive nutrients in the water and add root tabs at the same time like some people been doing.

The same reason we settle on most things, ease of use.

Adding root tabs to the soil is fine, but it will not turn this into a full rich soil, and also with root tabs we have no control of what's being released and when.

We dose the water because it is easy and precise, we dose in excess because it is easy and covers all bases and means no worrying if anything is missing

So yeah it all boils down to the fact that it works with little to no negatives and is super easy.

 

[Happi]

@MichaelJ

Just curious what was the purpose of this thread or the data we are talking about? I assume you want to explore other ideas and fertilization?

Dear members, as explained earlier on several occasions, the need for nutrients in our tanks are not that high with or without soil. It's all about dosing constant but in small quantities. I have yet to see any plant deficiency under this approach.

If anything, the above data proves these facts. Also it proves that the co2 doesn't need to be that high either, because most of those plants that we try to grow at max co2 seems to grow in very little co2 just like shown in that data.

No one is excluding the soil but at this point it's not even relevant to the topic. Which is based on water parameters.

Algae is also expected because it's natural and a food source in the nature and no one is there to trim the algae infested plants.

At this point some people will look for any excuse or reason to debunk the above data. Just like we saw on the link that I posted.

 

[Happi]

The same reason we settle on most things, ease of use.

Adding root tabs to the soil is fine, but it will not turn this into a full rich soil, and also with root tabs we have no control of what's being released and when.

We dose the water because it is easy and precise, we dose in excess because it is easy and covers all bases and means no worrying if anything is missing

So yeah it all boils down to the fact that it works with little to no negatives and is super easy.

Apparently I still see tons of plant deficiency threads on this forum despite have nutrients rich substrate and excess water column dosing.

 

[jaypeecee]

What I especially find intriguing here are the ratios... say for instance 0.04 ppm of NO3 for Tapajós... with EI we routinely keep our NO3 levels at 20-30 ppm. that's 500-750 times as much...

Hi @MichaelJ

Just a thought - is it possible that some aquatic plants in their natural habitat are using, for example, NH3/NH4+ or Urea (NH2CONH2) as their source of nitrogen, not nitrate?

JPC

 

[Wookii]

Apparently I still see tons of plant deficiency threads on this forum despite have nutrients rich substrate and excess water column dosing.

You must be looking somewhere I’m not seeing - I see mainly issues where nutrients (within which I include CO2), are deficient, either by incorrect or insufficient application, or the application of too much light which leads to those deficiencies.

@MichaelJ

Just curious what was the purpose of this thread or the data we are talking about? I assume you want to explore other ideas and fertilization?

Dear members, as explained earlier on several occasions, the need for nutrients in our tanks are not that high with or without soil. It's all about dosing constant but in small quantities. I have yet to see any plant deficiency under this approach.

If anything, the above data proves these facts. Also it proves that the co2 doesn't need to be that high either, because most of those plants that we try to grow at max co2 seems to grow in very little co2 just like shown in that data.

No one is excluding the soil but at this point it's not even relevant to the topic. Which is based on water parameters.

Algae is also expected because it's natural and a food source in the nature and no one is there to trim the algae infested plants.

At this point some people will look for any excuse or reason to debunk the above data. Just like we saw on the link that I posted.

I’m unclear what you agenda is. No one appears to be arguing that a lean dosing regime can be successful. Are you arguing that an overdosing/EI strategy can unsuccessful? If so, based on what?

 

[jaypeecee]

The other way to tell the water is not very rich in nutrients is based on the TDS, tds is very low in all those water.

Hi @Happi

I have a question. What if (some of) the nutrients are in organic form (e.g. Urea), i.e. not ionic such that a TDS meter may not detect these nutrients? I repeat - just a question in the hope that I can improve my understanding.

JPC

 

[Nick potts]

It's all about dosing constant but in small quantities. I have yet to see any plant deficiency under this approach.

If anything, the above data proves these facts. Also it proves that the co2 doesn't need to be that high either, because most of those plants that we try to grow at max co2 seems to grow in very little co2 just like shown in that data.

Unfortunately, the data proves nothing much, it's a small sample and again it is being hailed as proof with little evidence.

Carbon is extremely important to plants, to say otherwise is silly, as are the other macronutrients. The data in the first post doesn't prove anything, as I said it is a limited sample, no mention if the places tested had aquatic growth etc, most plants in those area's would only be submerged for a period of time, so would have access to 400ppm for CO2.

Everyone knows you don't need injected CO2 and EI levels of nutrients if you balance light etc with it, but also high levels of CO2 and nutrients are clearly a benefit as evidenced by increased plant growth.

 

[Happi]

You must be looking somewhere I’m not seeing - I see mainly issues where nutrients (within which I include CO2), are deficient, either by incorrect or insufficient application, or the application of too much light which leads to those deficiencies.



I’m unclear what you agenda is. No one appears to be arguing that a lean dosing regime can be successful. Are you arguing that an overdosing/EI strategy can unsuccessful? If so, based on what?

My question is why you feel like that it's always a co2 issue? When in those data plant are growing at such minimum co2 levels. So whats your agenda here? In this thread we are comparing the water parameters mainly, whether I compare 10 ppm NO3 or 30 or 50, the point is still the same, plant don't need this much and never use this much. If you want to hear me say which one is more successful then am on the leaner side.

At this point it's a water vs water parameters based on what we dose and based on that above data. So talking about why EI or other methods are successful or not is not even part of my agenda. But if I talk about higher nutrients vs what's that data is talking about then am sorry if EI or other higher dosing method fall under this umbrella. I used the term higher nutrients such as 30 ppm in my responses, just to make you feel better, let's just change it to 15 ppm, which is still very high compared to that data.

 

[Happi]

Unfortunately, the data proves nothing much, it's a small sample and again it is being hailed as proof with little evidence.

Carbon is extremely important to plants, to say otherwise is silly, as are the other macronutrients. The data in the first post doesn't prove anything, as I said it is a limited sample, no mention if the places tested had aquatic growth etc, most plants in those area's would only be submerged for a period of time, so would have access to 400ppm for CO2.

Everyone knows you don't need injected CO2 and EI levels of nutrients if you balance light etc with it, but also high levels of CO2 and nutrients are clearly a benefit as evidenced by increased plant growth.

Atleast it proves that those plant from their natural habitats are thriving and growing under such low amount of nutrients and co2. If the data proves nothing then can you suggest which data we should be looking at?

Also is your statement evidence based or is it just opinion? because if it is evidence based then we might need to look at that evidence. So far majority of those plant that you keep in your aquarium do come from these rivers. May I suggest looking at the link that I posted that links to the TPT thread?

Again are we talking about growing the plant quickly or are we discussing about plant thriving in their nature environment with such low nutrients and co2? Ofcource if you added more N along with other nutrients will speed up the growth, just like mentioned in one of my post about seachem and nitrogen.

 

[Happi]

Hi @Happi

I have a question. What if (some of) the nutrients are in organic form (e.g. Urea), i.e. not ionic such that a TDS meter may not detect these nutrients? I repeat - just a question in the hope that I can improve my understanding.

JPC

Eventually the urea will start to convert into NH3/NH4 weather it's in the soil or in the water. Tds will start to rise soon as you start adding urea into the water.

 

[Nick potts]

Atleast it proves that those plant from their natural habitats are thriving and growing under such low amount of nutrients and co2. If the data proves nothing then can you suggest which data we should be looking at?

Which plants though is the point? You can't just take some numbers and then state that we don't need x or y.

99% of the plants we keep in our tanks are not true aquatics and would have access in nature to an unlimited amount of CO2 for example.

 

[Wolf6]

Atleast it proves that those plant from their natural habitats are thriving and growing under such low amount of nutrients and co2. If the data proves nothing then can you suggest which data we should be looking at?

Noone here questions that they can also grow under low co2/nutrients. Most people with a high tech tank also have a low tech one. But just like with gardening and crops and, I hate to say it, but even with cattle, if you provide more food/nutrients at a higher rate you get faster and more growth and often better growth as nothing is lacking. In nature, as said before, most of the plants are not pristine algea free etc. Add to that a multitude of factors we cannot replicate in our tanks.

 

[Happi]

Which plants though is the point? You can't just take some numbers and then state that we don't need x or y.

99% of the plants we keep in our tanks are not true aquatics and would have access in nature to an unlimited amount of CO2 for example.

You do realize that data we are looking at above is based on when plants are subemersed?

I suggest you reread this thread and look at which plant grows where:

Dose less, not more

www.plantedtank.net

 

[erwin123]

I'm now dosing an all-in-one fert.

May not get the fastest growth, but there shouldn't be any deficiency. Maybe this is the middle ground? [Sponsors will be happy if they can sell more All in one ferts as well] 😅

 

[jaypeecee]

Tds will start to rise soon as you start adding urea into the water.

Hi @Happi

Thanks for your reply.

Indeed, you're correct. I remembered that I had some Urea solution from a previous experiment. I had made it up with 250mg of Urea in 80ml of distilled water. Electrical conductivity is 730 microS/cm.

Quite what would happen with other organic compounds I don't know. These compounds do exist, for example:

Phosphate Exchange and Organic Phosphorus Excretion by Freshwater Algae | Request PDF

Request PDF | Phosphate Exchange and Organic Phosphorus Excretion by Freshwater Algae | Rates of uptake and release of phosphorus compounds by four species of freshwater algae grown in axenic culture at phosphorus concentrations... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

JPC

 

[Happi]

Dear members,

We were looking at the water parameters of the Amazon and the plant that grow in their natural habitat, instead of discussion being about this topic, it rather turned into EI vs Lean dosing. I suggest @MichaelJ to remove the following:

“I personally have no doubt that my EI level dosing is working for my low-tech tanks... as I have zero algae to speak of and excellent plant health across the board - slow, but steady and healthy growth. It is however a very stark contrast to what seems to be the case in nature.”

And keep this phrase:

“Why do we keep our fertilizer levels so high in our tanks - in many cases orders of magnitude higher - when the rivers where a lot of our plants come from contains pretty much nothing of anything we consider important?”

to other members, If your goal is to falsify the above data or anything else based on EI, PPS or whatever system you use then you are asking for a some kind of response which you may not like. Some people will find a reason to falsify the above data but without any evidence to support their claim. We talked about the soil in this topic but again there is not enough data to support anything except that some articles suggest there is not many nutrients in the soil. speaking based on my opinion (not proven fact) most of the nutrients are most likely coming from decaying leaves, tree, fish or other animal waste. The lower conductivity of water suggests that there are very little nutrients including S, Cl, Na etc. in the water.

Now the question is, Do we continue to talk about the main topic and try to get somewhere or should we focus on falsifying it and get nowhere?