• 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

Diana Walstad Ecology of the Planted Aquarium Now in Paperback.

Tim Harrison

Tim Harrison

Member
Joined
5 Nov 2011
Messages
10,133
Location
Leicestershire
Just had a look at Diana's Facebook page and the great news is that her book, The Ecology of the Planted Aquarium, is now in paperback, and available on amazon for £23.94. That's a steal compared to the price of the out of print hardback. Apparently she struck a deal with Amazon Publishing.

Amazon product ASIN B0C51PCVMH
 
If I may, I add an opposition voice: Diana Walstad's book is not worth a penny.
Diana Walstad is not a scientist, her interest in our hobby was only temporal, she never updated her book, and first of all, her treatment of scientific sources is fraudulent and biased. The more so her would-be scientific experiments.
After all, the book contains a list of plants she managed to keep alive. All of them belong among "easy" category. Would you seek advice from such a mediocre aquarist?
 
_Maq_ said:
If I may, I add an opposition voice: Diana Walstad's book is not worth a penny.
Diana Walstad is not a scientist, her interest in our hobby was only temporal, she never updated her book, and first of all, her treatment of scientific sources is fraudulent and biased. The more so her would-be scientific experiments.
After all, the book contains a list of plants she managed to keep alive. All of them belong among "easy" category. Would you seek advice from such a mediocre aquarist?
Click to expand...
There were revisions, no?

I enjoy this post btw @_Maq_ , say it like you see it 😂
 
castle said:
There were revisions, no?
Click to expand...
Yes there were...

Is Diana Walstad's book still relevant?

I have a copy of Diana Walstad's book "the ecology of the planted aquarium", and I have set up a couple of tanks extrapolating from that book, they are doing more than fine. I have suggested it as reading material for a person who was asking in an aquarium-related facebook group for information...
www.ukaps.org
 
_Maq_ said:
If I may, I add an opposition voice: Diana Walstad's book is not worth a penny.
Diana Walstad is not a scientist, her interest in our hobby was only temporal,
Click to expand...

You may, of course, each is entitled to hold his own opinion...

But still, that's a tad harsh to say... UKAPS is 99% unscientific and very few members are longer than temporal in this hobby.
We do the same as she does, the difference is we write our experiences on the forum and she writes it in books.

I'm I correct to assume therefore this forum and all our unscientific experiences aren't worth a penny to you either?
Fortunately, it's free for those who never donated.

What makes you a scientist? A college degree only or a way of peer-reviewed thinking and working to collect data and knowledge?

She never claimed to be a scientist she says about herself.
I'm a former science researcher that keeps aquariums and likes to write books.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I appreciate her data-backed scientific-style approach vs so much in the hobby that is straight-up opinion/conjecture. That said, at least for the Kindle version I have, it is "of its time" and I wouldn't consider it a modern approach. Two specific points I've dug into a bit where the science in the book has not held up upon investigation for me are turning lights off in the middle of the day to let non-injected CO2 levels recover (in my direct experience this doesn't happen in my low tech tank) and also that algae can't use chelated iron whilst higher plants can (still looking into this but pretty sure this isn't correct). I would still recommend getting a copy of her book, have no regrets about my purchase and think the availability of a paperback version is exciting.
 
Perhaps Diana's book is of its time, but I think despite a few details the basic principles are sound and still relevant.

Scientific theory, and therefore scientific writing, is often based on a consensus of opinion on current research; a paradigm. New research methods and discoveries etc progress scientific understanding, and paradigm shifts occur accordingly. As a result old publications can seem dated. However, future editions of science based books like Diana's often include updates or addendums to rectify this; and hers does.

That said science in general can be pretty dogmatic and personally I tend to think it actually advances one funeral at a time. So either way Diana's not doing too badly, and I still consider her book essential reading.
 
zozo said:
What makes you a scientist?
Click to expand...
The subtitle of her book reads Scientific Treatise...
The way she exploits scientific papers is fraudulent. I happen to have read quite a few of her listed sources. Sometimes she quotes selected sentences to support her stance, while the summary of the same paper claims the opposite. She contradicts herself on the issue of humic substances and availability/non-toxicity of micronutrients.
Her recommendations for tank management are outright horrible. She does not comprehend the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide and overfeeds the organic carbon. That's wrong, plain and simple. Is there any single member on this forum who overfeeds fish more than they can eat? Is there anyone here ready to defend such practice?
She made a fraudulent experiment with Vallisneria, and based on her 'results' she made general conclusion that all aquatic plants prefer hard and basic water. Does anyone around agree on that? What is the worth of a "scientific treatise" which claims such nonsense?
She made minor corrections in later editions of her book but never changed any of her stances and her list of literature remained the same (ending in 1999/2000). She did not read the sources any more, she lost interest, and only gave interviews.
 
Any "WhateverLogy" as a science is something "logical' Is an art of reasoning including the doctrine of the assertion, definition, inference and empirical evidence. In a sense and especially in 'Biology' it's what you see is what you (f)actually get in a sum of averages. Particularly in the biology of our hobby many people even empirical scientists are prone to presume "My experiences and numbers must be something universal." It rarely isn't. We yet don't know...
Whatever you think or say is true and or isn't true might be true after all in some cases and total nonsense in others.

There are no 2 tanks the same and it's impossible to determine whether 2 are...

I'm not a scientist and far from it, but till now in my almost 50 years of aquarium experiences I became reluctant to share my opinions and understood it so far that any scientific answer I give starts with "I guess" or "Probably" and in very few cases "Most likely" or 'It seems that'.

I have seen things defying all odds and logic still work like a charm without any major issues. And don't ask me why I can't tell, it is what it is.

Still something almost like the Chess game.

According to legend, chess was invented by Grand Vizier Sissa Ben Dahir, and given as a gift to King Shirham of India. The king was so delighted that he offered him any reward he requested, provided that it sounded reasonable. The Grand Vizier requested the following: "Just one grain of wheat on the first square of a chessboard. Then put two on the second square, four on the next, then eight, and continue, doubling the number of grains on each successive square, until every square on the chessboard is reached."

Intuitively, King Shirham — just like almost anybody else — underestimated the number of grains and laughed at Sissa because he had asked such a small gift. When he had someone to calculate the total number of grains, it took more than a week before he came back with the solution. King Shirham undoubtedly became very pale when he got the answer: the aggregated number of grains on all squares of a chessboard would be 18.446.744.073.709.551.615 grains. This is the harvest of all the wheat of the world, of several decades.
Click to expand...
🙂

The story contains an important lesson:
 
Last edited:
_Maq_ said:
The way she exploits scientific papers is fraudulent. I happen to have read quite a few of her listed sources. Sometimes she quotes selected sentences to support her stance, while the summary of the same paper claims the opposite. She contradicts herself on the issue of humic substances and availability/non-toxicity of micronutrients.
Click to expand...
That sounds familiar to a lot of the so-called scientists that once in a while happen to end up on the forum!
 
LondonDragon said:
That sounds familiar to a lot of the so-called scientists that once in a while happen to end up on the forum!
Click to expand...
I don't quite understand, I'm afraid. Are you offensive? Ironic? If yes, then why?
 
_Maq_ said:
If I may, I add an opposition voice: Diana Walstad's book is not worth a penny.
Diana Walstad is not a scientist, her interest in our hobby was only temporal, she never updated her book, and first of all, her treatment of scientific sources is fraudulent and biased. The more so her would-be scientific experiments.
Click to expand...
I happen to like the book, but I don't think of as a "bible".. I am not sure how much I've actually referred to it over the years to be honest... A lot of it I can't peer qualify as I do not have a science degree in bio chemistry, biology or aquatic horticulture and neither do anyone that frequently posts here as far as I know. 😉 ... Some of her advice comes across as a bit old school but its not taking away from the fact that there are some good practical advice in there...
_Maq_ said:
After all, the book contains a list of plants she managed to keep alive. All of them belong among "easy" category. Would you seek advice from such a mediocre aquarist?
Click to expand...
That particular statement is way too heavy handed in my opinion...Quite a few people around here who offer rather solid advice are not necessarily into keeping plants outside the "easy category"... I couldn't care less what plants people are keeping as long as their advice is solid. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't take advice from people if they only keep easy plants or inject CO2 (which for most here, probably enables them to keep the more challanging plants in the first place) ? That would make this community really boring really quick I suppose...

Cheers,
Michael
 
Last edited:
_Maq_ said:
I don't quite understand, I'm afraid. Are you offensive? Ironic? If yes, then why?
Click to expand...
Just an observation, like you say about Diana, there is a lot of scientific talk but little evidence any of it actually works, mainly just theories that have not been proven, or apply elsewhere and not necessary to the aquarium plant hobby, yet some preach them as if they know better and nothing else matters (I have had to clean up the forum after some of these!!!). And yes a lot of contradicting/misleading information. I am just agreeing with you!
 
hypnogogia said:
I’ve not witnessed the need for a clean up, but we all appreciate the work you put into the forum.
Click to expand...
Oh yes... @LondonDragon and @Tim Harrison have had to do some major vacuuming over the past couple of years... major ones! :lol:
hypnogogia said:
Define scientist…
Click to expand...
A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.

I would say Diana Walstad meets that mark. How valuable you think the science is, is of course up for discussion, and as new discoveries are made and more knowledge gained the value may decrease considerably - that's how science works.

Cheers,
Michael
 
Last edited:
MichaelJ said:
Oh yes... @LondonDragon and @Tim Harrison have had to do some major vacuuming over the past couple of years... major ones! :lol:
Click to expand...
Indeed! one took me 8 hours, which could have been spent doing something more useful! Like reading scientific journals!

hypnogogia said:
I’ve not witnessed the need for a clean up, but we all appreciate the work you put into the forum.
Click to expand...
Thats why you have not noticed it, cause we cleaned it up 😉
 
_Maq_ said:
She made a fraudulent experiment with Vallisneria, and based on her 'results' she made general conclusion that all aquatic plants prefer hard and basic water. Does anyone around agree on that?
Click to expand...
😆 not me, I've heard other peeps mentioning plants prefer, can only grow in soft acidic water, obviously biased unproven claims 🙄

I suggest if anyone can compile a journal to demonstrate how aquatic plants truly grow and provide proof.... maybe write a book. Thought...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top