• 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

High tech, low tech

Jose said:
Rigid thinking once more.
Click to expand...
That road goes both ways 😉

Place a plant in the dark without light & add all the CO2 possible, report back in 2 months on how much "photosynthesis" you observe ... choose an "easy" plant such as Cardamine lyrata which is listed as low light demand & medium CO2 - this should facilitate your hypothesis.
 
alto said:
Place a plant in the dark without light & add all the CO2 possible, report back in 2 months on how much "photosynthesis" you observe ... choose an "easy" plant such as Cardamine lyrata which is listed as low light demand & medium CO2 - this should facilitate your hypothesis.
Click to expand...

I've never contradicted what you guys say. Light drives photosynthesis? Yes, of course. I'm asking you to think outside that. What makes a high tech a high tech? Is it the ammount of light?

Your example given doesnt fall under any category because obviously the first thing you need to give a plant to survive is light. The same would happen if we eliminate all source of co2 for the plant, it would also die this way, so I dont see what we can get out of that example really.
 
For me adding an extra carbon source means high tech, this means the light can be increased and growth will be enhanced. Of course the line between them is fluid (see the pun😉) but without CO2 there is only so much light you can safely use.
 
High tech for me is.. CO2 tank's,diffuser's,reactor's,drop checker's,regulator's,solenoid's,frequent dosing of nutrient's,large frequent water changes.
Low tech = none of the above.
 
Jose said:
Basically what makes the biggest difference in plant growth is co2 not light.
Click to expand...
Jose said:
Light plays a part but not the main one.
Click to expand...

My point: I couldn't disagree more with these 2 statements

Unless you are discussing rare dark-adapted "plants", light is the driving force behind photosynthesis.
The only time CO2 or nutrients, take on this apparent role is when either becomes the limiting ingredient ie there is sufficient light ... in your posts on this subject you seem to be proposing that CO2 is a greater necessity than light.
 
alto said:
light is the driving force behind photosynthesis.
Click to expand...
Yes, but this statement is just oversimplified.
alto said:
The only time CO2 or nutrients, take on this apparent role is when either becomes the limiting ingredient ie there is sufficient light
Click to expand...
Yes this is totally right. The difference between a low tech and a high tech is actually that. In a low tech CO2 is the main limitting factor and in a high tech co2 becomes less limitting. Light cannot be treated in the same way and that's why you can get a benefit by adding co2 even in a low light tank, because co2 in a low tech tank is much more limitting than light. This is easier to see with examples.
 
Can add CO2 to any tank and see improvement, but use too much light,and then CO2 becomes limiting in any tank quite possibly nutrient's as well.
 
Jose said:
Yes, but this statement is just oversimplified.
Click to expand...
Is it? - look at the biochemical pathway ... where do photons appear? where does CO2 appear? what are photon source options vs CO2 options?

hint: there are CO2 scavenging pathways
 
My 90 litre tank, without CO2, most of the plants have actually rooted into the substrate, where as my 55 litre (think long tank), they haven't but it is brighter than the 90 (which is deeper).
 
Somewhere around here is a link to a Tropica (I think) paper on this subject. In proper test situations they found:

1) Added co2 & low light = some growth
2) High light & no added co2 = more growth
3) High light & co2 = more than combined totals of 1 & 2
 
Last edited:
Thanks Troi! Was my summary correct ish? 😳
 
Troi said:
I also think this discussion has kinda been had before😉
Click to expand...

On UKAPS? No?

Did we come to the same conclusion again this time? :lol:
 
What about if we took medium co2 and added high light. Compare that to having medium light and adding high co2. No one knows which will win. Why? Because starting values are aleatory the same as for the tropica paper.
 
~I have only been involved in this hobby for about 37 years & up until reading this thread, I would define low tech as a planted tank "without manually adding C02". A high tech tank is a planted tank "with manually added C02" = pretty simply really but I will stand back and let you guys have fun....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top