Is expensive bio media worth it?

[zozo]

That is what I actually love about the German language and the way they try not to complicate things by giving it a neutral name that doesn't confuse things... And they come up with the most beautiful names and rarely use any loanwords... Why should you if you can create your own and keep it simple?. 🙂

They simply name the entire group (epiphytes etc.) regardless of what it grows to "Aufsitzerplanzen" which is literally translated as "On sitting plants" this eliminates all confusion about what is what when it sits on this or that. Whatever it is, it's sitting on it...

 

[jaypeecee]

This is complicated by so many aquarists insisting on calling their Anubias, Microsorum etc 'epiphytes' when they are lithophytes. 🙂

Hi @sparkyweasel

It's good that you have mentioned this. During the time that I've been a UKAPS member, others with far more knowledge of aquatic plants than I have (not difficult!) have often referred to Anubias, Microsorum, etc. as epiphytes. I've never had any reason to question that terminology. So, a big 'thank you' from me!

Of course, I then had to find out what lithophytes were and, according to Wikipedia, "Lithophytes are plants that grow in or on rocks. They can be classified as either epilithic or endolithic; epilithic lithophytes grow on the surfaces of rocks, while endolithic lithophytes grow in the crevices of rocks. Lithophytes can also be classified as being either obligate or facultative. Obligate lithophytes grow solely on rocks, while facultative lithophytes will grow partially on a rock and on another substrate simultaneously".

JPC

 

[sparkyweasel]

Saprophytes do not need to saprotrophs

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. 🙂

 

[MichaelJ]

This is complicated by so many aquarists insisting on calling their Anubias, Microsorum etc 'epiphytes' when they are lithophytes. 🙂

All right then @sparkyweasel,

Britiannica defines epiphyte ... any plant that grows upon another plant or object merely for physical support.
Wikipedia: Lithophytes are plants that grow in or on rocks.

Litho - new latin for rock or stone... phytes - Latin for plant.... or Rockplant... Which seems like quite a narrow definition to me.

Sounds to me that all (most? 🙂 ) Lithophytes are Epiphytes but not all Epiphytes are Lithophytes... (as they may grow upon other plants or wood and never rock) - I would still call Anubias an Epiphyte - as it can grow on wood, other plants etc.

What am I missing here? Let me know if I have to go stand in a corner for 15 minutes.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[sparkyweasel]

What am I missing here?

just the word most 🙂

by most definitions,

"A plant growing on another, but not parasitic" OED

"a plant that grows on another plant but does not feed from it, for example, some mosses" Cambridge Dictionary; Epiphyte

"a plant that grows on another plant but is not parasitic on it" Collins English Dictionary Epiphyte

"Obligate epiphyte
Plant that always grows on another plant for structural support, but derives no nutrients from the host." Encyclopedia of Biodiversity Enc BioD

"A plant that grows on another plant but is not a parasite and produces its own food by photosynthesis, as certain orchids, mosses, and lichens" Webster's New World College Dictionary, - for the Americans 🙂 Although they also give; "A plant parasitic on the external surface of an animal body."

"A plant, such as a tropical orchid or a staghorn fern, that grows on another plant upon which it depends for mechanical support but not for nutrients." American Heritage Dictionary.

"Plant attached to another plant, not growing parasitically upon it but merely using it for support" Penguin Dictionary of Biology.

"among the algal communities,
one can readily differentiate the following (Fig. 8-3):
(a) epipelic algae as the flora growing on sediments
(fine, organic); (b) epilithic algae growing on rock or
stone surfaces; (c) epiphytic algae growing on macro
phytic surfaces; (d) epizooic algae growing on surfaces
of animals; and (e) epipsammic algae as the rather spe
cific organisms growing on or moving through sand"
Limnology, Wetzel, Robert G.

 

[Simon Cole]

@sparkyweasel - here is my best guess:

The Oxford Dictionary of Botany definition of epiphyte:
‘A plant which uses another plant, typically a tree, for its physical support, but which does not draw nourishment from it’

Arguably, the foremost peer-reviewed classification system of a plant community of epiphytes in the UK appears to be provided by the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburg, in their Scottish classification. This is possibly the most commonly accepted definition in the UK as a whole, due to the number of authors that did the peer review and to some extent the prestige of the institution, which was chartered by royal warrant in 1699 and retains this assent today; but also the fact that there are no alternatives. They chose to recognise the Oxford Dictionary of Botany definition that I have quoted above and reinforce this with a statement on page 1. But that document is not designated for geographic locations outside Scotland, where other definitions might still apply. Saying that, I think the audience needs to understand the meaning more than it needs to represent something convenient and arbitrary.

Dictionaries are just records of what people dictate most commonly within a human population, as opposed to classification guidelines that are aimed at refining these terms. Scientific journals or authorship groups may indeed have academic prowess, but it is hard to argue where they have agreed a definition through a plant classification scheme unless there is a poll. There may well be other definitions of epiphyte that apply in different jurisdictions or to different communities of experts that are more binding. The closest I can see one could come to international agreement of what an epiphyte means would be through an intergovernmental organisation like UNESCO. However, the UNESCO Classification of Vegetation does not really apply to plant communities; it applies to plant formations, and in any event it does not define an epiphyte. It would seem that an internationally-agreed classification scheme for plant communities has not been clearly defined by UNESCO, and that implies that national plant community classification schemes could take precedence until one is developed, agreed and implemented. Moreover, definitions of epiphytes and other 'phytes' are different depending upon whether you are a microbiologist or a ecologist. But if you are talking in the context of plants, the definitions like this one (borrowed from a book) probably do not apply easily; they are also very poor use of Greek/Latin; but then, how can you publish research if your academic community is using a different word. I guess you need to take a balanced approach as to what definition you prefer to use. However, for most ecologists there is only one meaning for an epiphyte and that is noted above.

 

[MichaelJ]

“I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong."
- Richard P. Feynman

Sorry for being very, very off topic.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[zozo]

There may well be other definitions of epiphyte that apply in different jurisdictions or to different communities of experts that are more binding.

Taking some etymology into regard... From the Greek Epi = On (top/to etc.) and Phyton = Plant (algae, mosses and lichens included). The biological scientific definition is a non-parasitic plant that lives on another living plant. for short "On Plant"

Lithophyte is a group name for plants growing to stones (Lithos) which are divided into the Epilithophytes growing on the rock surface and Endolithophytes growing in the rocks as some lichens do.

So as a Lithobiotic subspecies the Anubias is most commonly found growing on rocks officially is Epilithopyte.

Confusing is that lots if not most of the Phytobiotic and Lithobiotic species don't discriminate you can find them on whatever as long as it provides support. Soil, sand, wood and can even grow to metal surfaces actually anything, hence we find them on the glass... Gyallíphyte? 🤢🥴

Metalophytes do actually exist, but they are not a group growing on metal surfaces but a plant that can tolerate ☠️ high levels of heavy metals such as lead.

I guess somewhere in history, especially in the trade they were done explaining and said lets cut the crap it's an "On Plant" and be done with it... And from then on a plant that grows on to something whatever it is known popularly as an Epiphyte or Air plant. And so another official synonym was born. That's another scientific definition, linguistics... 🙂

epiphyte | Definition, Adaptations, Examples, & Facts

any plant that grows upon another plant or object merely for physical support.

 

[jaypeecee]

And build-up of nitrate in the water column (along with phosphate and iron) must surely encourage algae and/or cyanobacteria growth.

I have now learned that the result of combining these three nutrients will be determined by their relative proportions.

JPC

 

[_Maq_]

This link appears to support that hypothesis! 👍

New Study: Live Rock Doesn’t Really Denitrify

The bane of most aquarists is the slow buildup of organic wastes in the form of nitrate. This is Aquarium Keeping 101—cellular respira

reefs.com

"Build-up of organic waste in the form of nitrate". These mere words are enough to see clearly that this is just another worthless stuff.

 

[_Maq_]

Let me add some insights to the topic. Most of it derives from reading papers on industrial water-processing. And if I repeat anything that is considered obvious in this community, I apologize, I'm a novice here.

Water processing plants do not use high-area high-porosity media we do. They say they are densely colonized by heterotrophic microbes, get clogged easily, and are difficult to wash. Organics are treated in activated sludge - a suspension of particulate organic matter and bacterial colonies. Aeration is important, and most expensive among all costs, because oxygen consumption is enormous, and anaerobic treatment is considered less perfect. (With some exceptions, the progress never halts.)
What is important to know is that nitrifying microbes are (generally, with exceptions) autotrophs. They not only don't care for organics, be it dissolved or solid, they outright dislike them, as well as the presence of heterotrophs. The reason is believed to be oxygen. Heterotrophs are running more energetically profitable business, so to speak, they grow faster, outgrow and outcompete (for oxygen) nitrifying microbes. Recently I've read a paper which explained something that kept me perplexed for long: When cycling a new tank (or any system), the very presence of organics and heterotrophs slows down the onset of nitrification. That's good to know when using various products for bacterial inoculation. I've never tried Dr. Tim's potion, but as far as I know, all commercial products contain solely heterotrophs.
In water-processing business, nitrification follows after decomposition of organics is accomplished on activated sludge. Here, media like Kaldnes etc. are useful, they provide surface for nitrifiers' colonization. The point is that Kaldnes does not trap particulate organics, so heterotrophs are not attracted to settle there.
I'd like to stress that in planted tanks, decomposition of organics by heterotrophic microbes is far more important than nitrification. Dissolved and particulate organics in the water column are the real problem. Ammonia is not, as long as the tank is not overcrowded with fish.
If you believe in the importance of huge colonization area (I don't), then the best media is activated carbon. Now, I don't speak about chemical filtration. If AC is used for this purpose, it gets exhausted after some time, generally within several weeks. But in water-processing business the practice of biological activated carbon evolved and is widely used. Because AC adsorbs dissolved organics it is attractive for heterotrophic bacteria. They assimilate adsorbed organics and partially prolong AC efficiency. But even after AC gets "exhausted", it still provides unparalleled surface area for bacterial colonization. So, if you believe big colonization area is beneficial, my advice is to go for granular activated carbon made of coal.
And if you need nitrification, then your choice is Kaldnes, or similar "broken toys".

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

And if I repeat anything that is considered obvious in this community, I apologize, I'm a novice here.

Talk away, we have a range of different opinions and adding another one is never going to hurt. From my point of view you are very much talking to the converted.

Organics are treated in activated sludge - a suspension of particulate organic matter and bacterial colonies. Aeration is important, and most expensive among all costs, because oxygen consumption is enormous, and anaerobic treatment is considered less perfect. (With some exceptions, the progress never halts.)

The <"Activated Sludge"> process is still used a lot in the UK, but newer wastewater plants are mainly using the <"ANAMMOX process">, partially because they can harvest methane (CH4) from <"the anaerobic process"> and partially because they have a smaller footprint and land is expensive in the UK.

Here, media like Kaldnes etc. are useful, they provide surface for nitrifiers' colonization. The point is that Kaldnes does not trap particulate organics, so heterotrophs are not attracted to settle there.

I'm a <"floating cell media"> fan. We've talked about this in context of <"extended aeration">, personally I'm very keen on making sure that people <"don't use their filters as syphons">.

cheers Darrel

 

[jaypeecee]

I've never tried Dr. Tim's potion, but as far as I know, all commercial products contain solely heterotrophs.

Hi @_Maq_

Dr Tim's One And Only is nitrifying bacteria and, unlike other products, uses Nitrospira moscoviensis bacteria to convert nitrite to nitrate. Competitors' products used Nitrobacter winogradskyi, which is ineffective. I can't see why any manufacturer would use heterotrophs as these are unable to use nitrogen compounds to derive energy. Heterotrophic bacteria is used in 'Waste Control' products.

JPC

 

[_Maq_]

I can't see why any manufacturer would use heterotrophs as these are unable to use nitrogen compounds to derive energy.

Because nitrogen is not the only element which may be unwelcome in our tanks. And, incidentally, heterotrophs are responsible for denitrification; in such a situation they do use nitrogen compounds as an energy source.
Heterotrophs decompose organic matter down to mineral nutrients which are readily uptaken by plants. I like heterotrophs and support them by oxygenation. I believe that easily degradable dissolved organic compounds in the water column are harmful for aquatic life. The faster they decompose the better.

 

[REDSTEVEO]

Yes same diameter, pretty much tripled the number of holes.

Thread Bump.

I've just watched that Pimp Your Filter on the Oase 850 Thermal where he replaced the original tube for the pre filter and fitted a 20ml piece of overflow pipe instead with more holes in it. Did you try that as well or not bother.
Thanks 👍

 

[Wookii]

Thread Bump.

I've just watched that Pimp Your Filter on the Oase 850 Thermal where he replaced the original tube for the pre filter and fitted a 20ml piece of overflow pipe instead with more holes in it. Did you try that as well or not bother.
Thanks 👍

No, never got around to trying a larger tube. It should work well though if you can find the right pipe size. Anything that helps reduce any restrictions in flow are always going to help the filter output rate.

 

[Aqua sobriquet]

No, never got around to trying a larger tube. It should work well though if you can find the right pipe size. Anything that helps reduce any restrictions in flow are always going to help the filter output rate.

I watched a video where a guy increased the size and number of holes in the pipe and it made no difference at all.
As it’s such a simple element I can’t help thinking Oase would have tried many different pipe size options at the design stage to optimise the flow?
I actually fitted the larger impeller to my 350 and I think it increased the flow but it also produced more noise. It’s on a live system though so I’m disinclined to experiment further.

 

[Wookii]

I watched a video where a guy increased the size and number of holes in the pipe and it made no difference at all.

To be fair the major difference is after a week or two rather than when the filter is clean. The larger number of holes maintains the flow as the sponges clog, much better than the standard number of holes, as it allows more even flow though all parts of the prefilter sponges.

As it’s such a simple element I can’t help thinking Oase would have tried many different pipe size options at the design stage to optimise the flow?

Perhaps, but as a manufacturer that’s not their only consideration. I believe the tube used is the exact same tubing used in the inlet/outlet and spray bar pipes, so it’s a budgetary goal at play, not just a design one.

 

[fredi]

A larger, more free flowing intake has to prolong time between cleaning

 

[Aqua sobriquet]

To be fair the major difference is after a week or two rather than when the filter is clean. The larger number of holes maintains the flow as the sponges clog, much better than the standard number of holes, as it allows more even flow though all parts of the prefilter sponges.

I fear you may have missed the whole point of having an easily accessible pre filter. Many folks seem to give their pre filters a rinse once every week or so. Mine certainly don’t get very clogged as you put it, in a week or even two.

As for saving a few pennies on a piece of pipe that might compromise the efficiency of their design seems highly unlikely to me but anythings possible I suppose.
I may try fitting a larger pipe at some point but I’m not expecting it to make any difference. It’ll be a nice surprise though if it does.