• 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

Experiment: Finding optimal conditions for growing aquarium plants

Marcel G

Member
Joined
6 Dec 2024
Messages
28
Location
Czech Republic
Chapter 1: Growing plants with heavy fertilisation in the water column

Introduction

Plants differ
not only in shape, color, size or growth rate, but also in their requirements or preferences. While all plants need water, light, heat, nutrients and the absence of harmful influences to grow well, some need to have these mixed in a specific ratio. In a way, it's similar to humans: while some people are not too picky about food (they'll eat anything), gourmets are picky eaters (they despise ordinary food). Similarly, some plants will grow in almost any circumstances (in acidic or alkaline water, in low or high light, in sand or organic soil, in nutrient-poor or nutrient-rich water), while others are a little more "spoiled" and therefore require more specific environmental parameters (whether it concerns the intensity of the light, the physico-chemical parameters of the water, or the composition and characteristics of the substrate). Figuring out what each plant prefers (or downright requires) is not easy. First of all, it requires us to identify all the relevant factors that play a significant role → e.g. pH, redox, organic compounds, light intensity, temperature, content and ratio of different nutrients, substrate properties, microbial composition, etc. These factors then need to be tested in order to clarify the extent to which they influence the outcome - i.e. the growth and condition of our plants. This experiment is an attempt to test a particular set of factors that I have identified as potentially important. [I am by no means claiming that my selection is the most important or comprehensive. But I have to start somewhere.] In each of the eight aquariums, I used a different recipe (i.e., a different set of factors) in the hope of revealing the particular preferences of each [tested] plant. This experiment, however, is only a sort of "first chapter" in a series of other tests that I plan to carry out gradually. I believe, however, that it may provide valuable partial insights from which a more complete picture (mosaic) of our aquarium plants and their needs (preferences) can be assembled over time. More detailed information and further experiments can be found [if interested] on my website: golias.net/akvaristika/.

The main objective

To identify the optimal parameters for cultivation of aquarium plants.

Aquariums


Eight identical aquaria → 20 liters or 5 gallons (net volume) each

Plants

In this experiment I decided to use the following emersion plants (i.e. plants grown in a greenhouse):
  • Ammannia pedicellata 'Gold' (formerly known as Nesaea sp. Gold)
  • Hygrophila corymbosa
  • Pogostemon deccanensis (formerly known as P. erectus)
  • Rotala wallichii
Diagram of plant placement in individual aquariums ↓

1735722093325.png
Picture of the fifth aquarium (few days old) ↓

1735722131248.png

Picture of all eight experimental aquariums ↓

1735722185347.png

Light

Lighting interval:
8h/day

Light intensity (PAR) in individual aquariums:
  • top: 231 µM/m2·s → just below the water surface
  • middle: 98 µM/m2·s
  • bottom: 96 µM/m2·s → at the bottom

1735722289386.png

Note: There was no difference between the values in the middle vs. at the corners of the aquarium on the horizontal axis (except for the top section = near the light source).

1735722583847.png

1735722601937.png

↑ Measured with Apogee MQ-610 (full-spectrum quantum meter). The measured values were [in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions] converted for an underwater environment using a correction factor of 1.25.

Substrate

While in the first set (aquaria #1 to #4) a substrate for aquatic plants covered with a layer of pure silica sand was used, in the second set (aquaria #5 to #8) no substrate was used.

1st set → nutrient-rich substrate

1735722739361.png

2nd set → no substrate

1735722808312.png

Because the organic substrate should contain sufficient N, P and micronutrients (NPµ), these nutrients were not added to the water column; I assumed that some N and P would be leached from the substrate into the water column anyway.

I used a local horticultural substrate for aquatic plants capped with a layer of silica sand.

In aquariums without substrate, I used M16 stainless steel hexagonal nuts inserted into small hydroponic net pots (Ø 5 cm = 2") to anchor the plants. The stems in the nuts were held in place by a small strip of coarse foam.

Water

Note: The recipes below were prepared using pure (demineralized/deionized) reverse osmosis water.

1735723040495.png
  • Water flowensured by a surface skimmer (Jingye JY-350)
    • no filtration used
  • Water changes done once a week (with 50% of the water changed) with macro-nutrients replenishment
  • Micro-nutrients added every other day (most in the form of EDTA chelates, iron in the form of gluconate + DTPA)
  • Extra CO2 added to aquaria #1, #3, #5 and #7 using a simple glass diffuser, the function and parameters of which are described in more detail in a separate article [that I will post here soon]
    • target CO2 concentration in these aquaria: ~15 ppm
  • The pH fluctuated or decreased during the experiment (in some aquariums quite significantly) → see photo documentation for week #4.
Documentation

planting: 2024-10-04

1735723319121.png

1735723338445.png

week #1: 2024-10-12

1735723368355.png

1735723391760.png

Close up of Ammannia pedicellata 'Gold' (2024-10-16):

1735723731080.png

week #2: 2024-10-19

1735723829090.png

1735723844509.png

week #3: 2024-10-26

1735723868567.png

1735723884830.png

Details (first experimental set: aquaria #1 to #4):

Aquarium #1:

1735724482580.png

Aquarium #2:

1735724516880.png

Aquarium #3:

1735724534783.png

Aquarium #4:

1735724558023.png

Details (second experimental set: aquaria #5 to #8):

Aquarium #5:

1735724662687.png

Aquarium #6:

1735724680810.png

Aquarium #7:

1735724698522.png

Aquarium #8:

1735724904126.png

week #4: 2024-11-02

1735723908825.png

1735723924848.png

Details (first experimental set: aquaria #1 to #4):

1735724162241.png

Details (second experimental set: aquaria #5 to #8):

1735724187269.png

week #5: 2024-11-09

1735724219679.png

1735724238801.png

To be continued ...
 
Last edited:
... continuation of the first post

week #6: 2024-11-16

1735725331422.png

1735725345724.png

week #7: 2024-11-23

1735725360876.png

1735725375365.png

Results

Note: In the first weeks a brown haze was visible in the first experimental set (from leached humic substances from freshly flooded substrate).

The following data is a brief description of the visual condition of the plants in each aquarium (1 to 8). Green indicates best condition, blue indicates good condition and red indicates fair condition.

The pH values below represent the average measured in the last weeks of the experiment.

Ammannia pedicellata 'Gold'

1735725520263.png

Hygrophila corymbosa

1735725533760.png

Pogostemon deccanensis

1735725542896.png

Rotala wallichii

1735725550089.png

Evaluation

Keep in mind that:

  • Higher light (more energy) = higher nutrient demand (especially CO2) = higher risk of deficiency
  • In the first experimental set, NPμ is absent in the water column and plants there depend on NPμ in the sediment, which might have [negatively] affected the result (yield/condition) compared to the second experimental set → causing NPμ deficiency or heavy metal (or hydrogen sulphide) toxicity in the sediment
1735725603384.png

Ammannia pedicellata 'Gold'

Probable characteristics:

1735725625714.png

Hygrophila corymbosa

Probable characteristics:

1735725633841.png

Pogostemon deccanensis

Note: The purchased plants were not in the best condition, so their onset was considerably delayed (they started to show some growth only from about the third week). Also, this plant [appears] to show no marked signs of deficiency and is therefore not a suitable indicator of malnutrition.

Probable characteristics:

1735725641461.png

Rotala wallichii

Probable characteristics:

1735725648369.png
 
Last edited:
PS: To ensure an equal and stable CO2 concentration in all four aquariums I supplied it to (#1, #3, #5, #7) I used a simple glass diffuser, the function and parameters of which are described in more detail in this article => Improved bell-type CO2 diffuser.
PPS: If you noticed a slightly different shade of dark green color in the bubble counter in aquarium #7, it is due to using a different manufacturer's indicator solution than I used in aquariums #1, #3 and #5.
 
Thanks to @Marcel G for taking the time to create and write up such experiments. When I grow up, I want to be like you!
 
Hi all,
Thanks to @Marcel G for taking the time to create and write up such experiments.
It really is appreciated. We all have theories, but @Marcel G has actually carried out the experiments and <"has the photos">, which are very enlightening.

We also have an overall winner: No. # 7, low pH, added CO2 and nutrients only added to the water column (no substrate).
1735724698522-png.225470


cheers Darrel
 
Last edited:
We also have an overall winner: No. # 7, low pH, added CO2 and nutrients only added to the water column (no substrate) ...
I wouldn't say that. In the "Results" section I see the following description for aquarium #7:
  • Ammannia pedicellata 'Gold': mostly good, mild deformation => best condition was in aquarium #3
  • Rotala wallichiii: 100% best
  • Hygrophila corymbosa: fair, mild deformation => best condition was in aquarium #1
  • Pogostemon deccanensis: 100% bad, worse condition => best condition was in aquarium #5
Aquarium #7 seems to me to be the overall winner for Rotala wallichii only.

PS: Is it possible to move posts #8, #10 and #11 into this thread (where they belong)?
 
I take it the listed KH values are calculated - could you measure the KH in the aquaria?
Yes, the KH values are calculated. But the experiment is over, so I can't measure it anymore. Plus, I don't have a KH test handy. 🙁
PS: Just for the record: Before each pH measurement I do a two-point calibration + I measure each aquarium at least twice to be sure. But I am also surprised by such low values in the aquarium #7 and #8. Some plants didn't make it there (except R. wallichii, which excelled there).
 
Back
Top