jonny_ftm said:
Tom meant soils rich with macro, that is P, N and K
JBL soil and ferts don't include N or P, only micro and some K
Right, thanks.
Most plants don't get significant nutrients from leaves, except CO2. Some plants are able to get most of their nutrients from leaves. Dosing water will make nutrients diffuse in soil to the roots.
This is incorrect. It's needs to be more specific.
In nature, most plants get few nutrients from leaves, however it is an artifact of the environment in which they are living in. There's no choice there.
The water's just might not have much for example, so there's little option. Few places have rich water and nutrient poor sediments, but a few springs are good examples, we find rich plant growth in these springs as well.
As far as horticulture and agriculture, culture for this aquarium hobby, all aquatic plants can and do live via the water column only, and most can get by with nothing but sediment. However, it's best as far as management to do both.
Tropica, Pisces, FAN all grow their plants
without any soil, they use fertigation, and 95% or more use the same method for terrestrial ornamental plants. So even the land plants can and do do this uptake and do quite well at it.
So it is incorrect to think that plants prefer one location over the other for culturing methods. They do quite well at a production scale with foliar application of nutrients. That is clearly been demonstrated on 100's of species and every species we raised in the hobby for the most part.
Nature and agriculture, aquaculture are very different systems.
Finally, amazonian waters are very low in conductivity, with quiet no nutrients in column. Soil is mineralized and rich with organic and mineral P, N and carbon (that said, organic carbon won't serve as CO2 source). From there the idea of a mineralized/organic soil
As far as I know, only ADA soils are mineralized. Then, you can make your own soil with earthworm castings, natural clay...
The Amazon soil is very poor in nutrients actually and you will not find any rooted submersed species in those regions typically thought of. There's also simply not enough light. In the springs, headwaters where there are nutrient rich clays and enough light and more stable water levels, then we start to find aquatic species. In most regions, floating weeds is about all we find.
The delta here in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys in CA, USA, have similar attributes as the the ADA AS. Few discuss CA soil in relation to aquatic plants and natural habitats however, but few doubt the soil's ability to grow plants very well in the delta region.
So ADA's AS is more like CA's soil than the Amazons, perhaps in the southern edge of the Pantanal's muddy regions, but not in what most consider the Amazon basin. Soil there sucks, which is why it's lousy for farming and agriculture, they only get a year or two of farming, then the cattle ranches come in, so you have the loggers raping the forest for $, then the farmers, raping the soil and finally cattle ranchers get cheap land to raise beef.
Pretty messed up.
If it was decent soil, they be farming only, just like in CA, we drained and removed 96% of the wetlands in CA for agriculture. But we lack water for most of the San Joaquin even with all the dams and water conveyance systems.
1/2 of the agriculture here is a desert, only the delta and the upper 1/2 of the state have water.
Kasslemann did a lot of testing for Sword plants for the water, but there was not much nutrient content in the native waters. She however, did not look at measuring or took any soil pore water samples, not one. I scratched my head and asked her later if she had, she said "no" and took off without further discussion.
Aquatic botanist who want to discuss nutrients must look at both locations and not make assumptions.
I focused early on in the water column, something I could simply test and watch easy as a hobbyists, but few can do this for nutrients in the soils.
Poor understanding of soils, how to test for nutrients leads to more issues.
EI is just one location, likewise, Worm castings is also just one location.
Some transfer can occur, but we have done test at the lab that keep the water column pure(filtration runs through a giant DI filter to remove any and everything that leaches) and we can simply isolate the the top 1/2 of the stem/leaves for the water column dosing and use a clay confining layer to prevent leaching into the root zones.
Not that hard.
The bottom line is that many have long under dosed, not been consistent, limited their plants with water column dosing.
Then they see large gains when they add sediment soils like ADA AS or topsoils, delta clays etc, worm castings etc.
Many of those same folks had not been dosing the water column with NO, K, PO4 as it was or if so, not much.
So their results are easy to predict.
Still, we can see two legs are better than one, and that even if you assume that plants prefer some via the roots, some via the leaves, you will have
both options covered, so then the issue no longer matters horticulturally.
That's a BMP.
Commercial growers cannot do this due to soil borne pests and diseases.
So they have less choice in the matter.
Folks perhaps know this already, but I wanted to clarify this.
Regards,
Tom Barr