Green hair algea

[alto]

So for example, you claim that sunlight causes filamentous algae, where I claim that there is no direct correlation between sunlight, per se, and any kind of algae unless other factors, such as CO2 and flow distribution, which you dismiss as being irrelevant, are also poor.

Did I claim that 😕
When does an observation that these are the only tanks I observe such algae, a "claim" make???

Did I actually dismiss anything???

I believe you are the one who insists that
"poor CO2 = algae" - whether in concentration or distribution, which then segues into your next
"lack of 10x tank volume flow/hour = algae"
"limited nutrients" promotes algae (though this plays out a bit more ambiguous)

My perspective is that there are many successful planted tanks with much lower flow than the 10x "rule" you promote so strongly - good flow distribution does not equal high flow
(to clarify - as you seem so keen to misinterpret 😕 - I consider flow rates of 10x tank volume/hour to be "high flow")

My perspective is that there are successful planted tanks with no CO2 ("enrichment") or much lower CO2 levels than that which you promote

Stunning tank in your photos but not one I'd consider comparable to my "window" tanks - which have sunlight streaming directly through (& above - as the day progresses), and limited light from the sides (physical constraint of window)

In contrast the pictured tank appears to have a solid background blocking any sunlight from directly streaming through the tank, a canopy which again appears to drastically limit sunlight angling into the tank from above, and even darkened sides (though this may be photo artefact) ...
Rather it looks to be a fairly typical aquarium with overhead fluorescent etc lighting (which serves as the main light source for the plants) that happens to be in an area with good ambient lighting 🙂

So this example refutes your claim of filamentous algae being associated with tanks by windows. This also refutes your claim that GDA is "common".

You seem to willfully ignore the leading phrase "My experience" ... at least I thought it was a phrase which would clearly indicate that the following discussion pertained to ... well, MY EXPERIENCE ...
I thought this somewhat of a hint/indication that others may not observe the same

My actual statement:

Green dust algae on the glass is common (& easily tidied away) ... it's not a given, but is the most common algae I see which in these window tanks

Where do I state, in what is a personal observation of my personal tank, that anyone else will experience
the same event 😕
(admittedly statement clarity is not helped by the wordplay snuck in by Apple 🙄)

In the tank shown below I experimented by deliberately triggering hair algae. All I had to do was to reduce the injection rate and hair algae would start to occur within a day or two. Restoring the injection rate eliminated the hair algae within a few days afterwards. I did this repeatedly in order to verify that the occurrence and disappearance was not merely coincidence.

I can't discredit your observation - nor do I wish to
I believe this was your experience

My experience differs somewhat - I run fairly slow growth tanks (again that ambiguity - what constitutes "fairly slow growth" ) but as an example
90 x 45 x 53cm H (internal dimensions as Oceanic was so proud to state 😀)
Kessil A160 x 2, 100% power, photoperiod 6-8hours, or 12+hours if I'm delayed (no controller & the last timer decided it was no longer counting time in this dimension)
Direct sunlight streams through this tank during spring, summer, then wanes through autumn

Tropica Nano CO2 kit (as I got a deal & I've been waiting on GLA mini system & reasonable $ conversion ... & really, I'm an astounding procrastinator) that runs very arbitrarily 1- 2 - 3 bps as measured by Tropica kit diffuser (ie really quite crap CO2 for those tank dimensions, never mind the erratic running thereof)

Filter Eheim Pro 350 - upgraded from the Pro 250 ... not a lot of change in the tank to be honest, though there's obviously better flow distribution
Oh and the filter is jammed with the media it came with: mech, bio, coarse sponge, fines pad AND I rarely open the filter - it's been several months now 😳

Tropica fertilizers randomly added, though I usually manage 1-2 doses/week ... & definitely on water change days 😉

Back to "growth rate", under these conditions, from tank startup, 10-12 weeks for M "Monte Carlo" to carpet (ie soil barely visible, if at all .... I split a single in vitro cup into ~ 40 sections, so each plantlet needs to grow considerably to fill in)

There is little visible algae in this tank - though I'm sure it exists - despite occasionally running out of CO2, certainly erratic CO2 levels (especially as the disposable cylinders empty, replaced 4-6 weeks, depending), un-routine photoperiod, water changes done without regard to CO2 status, etc, etc

No algae "trigger" I've observed
(Except the long ago incident with a RIO 125 - stock filter, twin HOT5 + reflectors - & CO2 solenoid stuck closed & lights stuck on for several weeks - that worked a treat )

I obviously don't encourage others to be so lackadaisical in their approach to aquaria
But I also don't believe that's it's as simple as add lots of flow, lots of CO2, limit light, unlimited nutrients and you will have NO visible algae
- almost every Algae Woe tank I see posted (on ukaps) has so much more consistent care & "better" flow & CO2 parameters (than my own experiences suggest is needed - & I defiantly err on the side of more light - I can't imagine running any LED at 20%)
I seldom directly oppose any suggestions you offer in these threads, but you seem to take any alternative suggestions or observations I might make, as a direct challenge to your veracity(?), rather than a "this is my experience" paradigm

I'm still 😕 why my observations are so bootless compared to your own 😵

 

[ceg4048]

Stunning tank in your photos but not one I'd consider comparable to my "window" tanks - which have sunlight streaming directly through (& above - as the day progresses), and limited light from the sides (physical constraint of window)

In contrast the pictured tank appears to have a solid background blocking any sunlight from directly streaming through the tank, a canopy which again appears to drastically limit sunlight angling into the tank from above, and even darkened sides (though this may be photo artefact) ...
Rather it looks to be a fairly typical aquarium with overhead fluorescent etc lighting (which serves as the main light source for the plants) that happens to be in an area with good ambient lighting 🙂

Yes the tank has a hood but Sunlight is streaming through the front and side panes throughout the day. PAR reading throughout day and night verified that sunlight reached all areas of the tank. Daytime PAR levels were 3-4 times of that during the night with artificial lights alone.

Where do I state, in what is a personal observation of my personal tank, that anyone else will experience
the same event 😕
(admittedly statement clarity is not helped by the wordplay snuck in by Apple 🙄)

Yes, correct. There is lack of clarity here as the statement "Green dust algae on the glass...is the most common algae I see which in these window tanks..." is generic, is pluralized and implies it is observed in third persons' tanks. I apologize for the assumption.
Nevertheless, my contention is still that the GSA and other common algae you personally experience is a result of excessive lighting via sun or via artificial light. This is consistent with what others report, so it turns out to not be limited to your experience only. I maintain that the fact that the light intensity is excessive is much more important than the fact that it's property is that it is sunlight, as others experience GSA and other common algae at a similar stage of the tanks development even when the tank is lit by artificial light only.

My perspective is that there are many successful planted tanks with much lower flow than the 10x "rule" you promote so strongly - good flow distribution does not equal high flow
(to clarify - as you seem so keen to misinterpret 😕 - I consider flow rates of 10x tank volume/hour to be "high flow")

Yes, again, we have never stated that this is an impossibility. The 10X rule is a rule of thumb to help mitigate mistakes that are often made by newbies. We see consistently that it helps to offset many problems. If you like, we can use your preferred word in that our observation is that adhering to the 10X rule works better and solves a LOT more problems than adhering to a philosophy of strong lighting.

It's always very difficult to compare tanks or to compare reports of success/failure because we do not always receive reliable facts. So we do not know, for example, in the case where someone reports success with low CO2 and strong lighting, what the actual levels were. So any claim can be made without verification. Someone can state that they never add nutrients to the tank and yet the plants grow fine without algae, thereby refuting the claim that adding nutrition is necessary. It can easily be, however that the sediment and/or water supply was high in nutrients.

Obviously, there are many successful low tech tanks, so CO2/nutrient enrichment is not a necessity. In fact, poor CO2 is as prevalent in enriched tanks as it is in low tech tanks. It is also the case that the more CO2 a plant receives, the more susceptible it is to minor variations in gas delivery and the less CO2 it receives, the more robust it is against gas shortfalls. This is another idiosyncrasy that is difficult to sum up in a few rules but which explains some of the apparent inconsistency in our experiences.

It's exactly as you mention about experience, which is the key to my points and advice. An experienced hobbyist can get away with a lot of "rule breaking", but we do a disservice if we offer lackadaisical approach as advice. So like the rules of the road, our rules have helped to consistently solve problems for many folks.

So I find it odd that you would never consider running your lights at 20% when we often solve algae problems while sacrificing only some growth rate in tanks where we suggested dimming the lights to no more than 20%.

University of Copenhagen's Dr. Ole Pedersen has written a lot of papers on the effects of submersion of plants, both terrestrial and wetland varieties. He consistently emphasizes that gas exchange (CO2/O2) is the most important factor in the plants survival after submersion. He states that only "moderate lighting" is necessary and goes on to discuss the many different strategies plants have of adapting to the poor gas exchange imposed by submersion.

So this is not my idea, but it is my focus based on his data as well as on Tom Barr's data.
That is is possible to produce good gas exchange without strong filtration techniques is not surprising - if one has the experience to execute it.
The nature of my opposition therefore is that advising inexperienced hobbyists to add more light and to ignore some (of our) basic principles can lead to out-of-context misunderstandings. They are already getting advice in other forums to add more light. I think if you look closely at the woe threads you will see that the tanks have woes primarily because of having too much light. When the light intensity is reduced, the problems get solved more quickly, especially if the poster implements better flow techniques.

Cheers,

 

[Martty]

- 13.week update -

so, plants are better. Algea almost disappears. I moved skimmer to lelf back corner and outflou lily pipe better distribute CO2 from difusor. I have increased the power of light to 30% (+10%). I have changed my dosing schedule according to the original Seachem Dosing Calendar with my fertilizers:

Day 1
- waterchange 50%
- Seachem Flourish 1,25ml
- Seachem Excel 5ml
- Seachem Nitrogen 1ml

Day 2
- Seachem Excel 1ml
- Easy Life Ferro 2,5ml

Day 3
- K2SO4 4ml
- Seachem Excel 1ml
- Easy Life Ferro 2,5ml

Day 4
- Seachem Excel 1ml
- Seachem Nitrogen 1ml
- Seachem Flourish 1,25ml

Day 5
- K2SO4 4ml
- Seachem Excel 1ml
- Easy Life Ferro 2,5ml
- Seachem Flourish 1,25ml

Day 6
- Seachem Excel 1ml
- Easy Life Ferro 2,5ml

Day 7
- no fertilizer
-------------------------------------
I have also made pH profile:

7.06 pH - 9hod.
7.03 pH - 10a.m. (CO2 ON)
6.91 pH - 11a.m.
6.71 pH - 12a.m. (Lighting ON)
6.62 pH - 1p.m.
6.53 pH - 2p.m.
6.49 pH - 3p.m.
6.51 pH - 4p.m. (CO2 OFF)
6.48 pH - 5p.m.
6.63 pH - 6p.m. (Lighting OFF)
6.69 pH - 7p.m.
6.76 pH - 8p.m.
6.82 pH - 9p.m.
6.89 pH - 10p.m.
6.97 pH - 11p.m.
7.05 pH - 12p.m.

 

[PARAGUAY]

Aquarium is looking great🙂