Mysterious issue with multiple plants

[MichaelJ]

Thanks for the input, Michael. I haven't had any foul odor from the tank. Is there any way to tell whether this is what's happened here?

Your welcome. I do not know to be honest, I would like to know of other signs myself.

Speaking of the microbial community, around the same time I moved everything to the new tank I added some new fish. I don't have any kind of quarantine setup but I did treat with the trio of meds Aquarium Co-op recommends directly in the main tank. Those meds are Ich-X, Maracyn Oxy, and Paracleanse. I treated according to package directions for all. I can include those directions here if they would help. The only obvious deleterious effect was that I had a nitrite spike midway through the treatment. My filter had crapped out at the same time I was treating so the tank went a couple days without the filter on without my noticing. I had read nitrite spikes may be an issue with these meds and luckily I caught it. I did some water changes, got the filter running and within a few days the nitrites were not reading as present anymore on liquid tests or test strips.

I am not familiar with the medicine your mentioning, but it is quite possible that some of the meds could have wrecked the balance and microbial community in your substrate if not the move as I was speculating about above.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[Zoefish]

Hi @Zoefish, Seachem Alkaline Buffer is Sodium Bicarbonate (NaHCO3). I highly recommend stop using that. There are absolutely no reasons I can think of that makes it necessary for you to raise your KH levels in your planted tank above what your tap water is providing. Its a fools errand to try and finely tune pH with these products - I am speaking from disastrous experiences myself. Seachem should be ashamed of themselves for selling this product to freshwater aquarists.

Cheers,
Michael

Oh jeez... For some reason I thought the Endlers wanted to have a higher KH than my tapwater provides and I had this stuff on hand. But now I am not finding that information anywhere on google. It does seem that sometimes people refer to GH and KH interchangeably so maybe that's where I got the idea. What is the danger of using this product?

 

[Zoefish]

@MichaelJ has noted the ideal calcium to magnesium ratio above. This exists because there needs to be a <homeostatic balance> between these cations in plant cells.
In the past we have seen Niloc fertilisers with a very high magnesium to calcium ratio, as noted <here>.

Simon, are you saying that the ideal ratio is the 3.2:1 Ca:Mg noted? I was reading that as just being the amount that is in Equilibrium. But that is also the ideal amount?
This is news to me but along with the article you linked does make sense. The thing that confuses me is why NilocG manufactures "complete" fertilizer with so little calcium in it if this ratio is so important? I'm reading the label now and it says there is .38% Mg and no calcium at all, actually.

Something else confusing I have just found while looking this up is the calcium: magnesium: potassium ratio which according to Aquasabi is supposed to be 2:1:0.5. This makes no sense to me, is this true? This seems like it contradicts the whole idea of macro vs micro nutrients if potassium is supposed to be present in lower quantities than Mg and Ca? And this is wildly different than the composition of any aquarium fertilizer I've used. Am I missing something?

 

[MichaelJ]

Hi @Zoefish ,

Oh jeez... For some reason I thought the Endlers wanted to have a higher KH than my tapwater provides and I had this stuff on hand. But now I am not finding that information anywhere on google. It does seem that sometimes people refer to GH and KH interchangeably so maybe that's where I got the idea.

Yes, unfortunately a lot of online literature and retailers of livestock etc. are using the terms GH and KH rather indifferent. KH regulates the buffer capacity of the water - its resistance to change in pH (low KH means low buffer capacity thus low resistance to change in pH). If your KH comes from CaCO3 or MgCO3 it will impact your GH, if it comes from say NaHCO3 or K2CO3 it wont. Tropical freshwater fish do not "care" directly about KH unless you're keeping fish that specifically require a stable above neutral (>7) pH in which case you also want a higher KH. Not common for a tropical planted tank.

One thing that comes to mind, that many feared in the past, is the so-called pH crash... I now believe that this was always a side effect of something else and catastrophic going on in the tank, rather than just the pH dropping. A well maintained and stable tank should never suffer from this. Think about it empirically: Hobbyists that inject CO2 into their stocked, acidic and extremely low KH tanks would be in trouble all the time with their daily 1 or more pH swings if this would be an issue.

Low KH makes it much easier to create a natural and acidic environment for the plants that promotes uptake etc. By far most plants will generally do better at low KH rather than high KH - and while a lot of plants, especially in the easy category will do just fine at higher KH/pH, none - that I am aware of - specifically requires high KH/pH.

What is the danger of using this product?

With your 3-6 grams of Alkaline Buffer (NaHCO3) per 10 US Gallon your adding 20-40 ppm or so of Sodium (Na) which is of no good to your plants or livestock.

What let me astray years ago with this product was a misguided obsession about keeping a certain KH level and at the same time a certain stable pH level. I ended up with a toxic cocktail in my tanks that was part Acid Buffers and part Alkaline Buffers to target that specific KH and pH level. I do blame this in part on the dishonest marketing by Seachem - prioritizing sales over the actual needs of the hobbyist.

fertilizer with so little calcium in it if this ratio is so important? I'm reading the label now and it says there is .38% Mg and no calcium at all, actually.

Calcium in meaningful amounts are not part of fertilizers as such, and most fertilizers only provide tiny amounts of Mg. The significant portions of Ca and Mg that you use for remineralization to reach a certain GH are provided with such off-the-shelf products as NilocG GH Booster, Dennerle GH+, Equilibrium etc. and usually premixed in a ratio somewhere between 3:1 - 4:1. With DIY dry salts such as CaSO4 or CaCl2 and MgSO4 you can get exactly the ratios and amounts of Ca and Mg you need/want and will cost you way, way less in the long run.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[Simon Cole]

There was quite an interesting <tread> on calcium a while back where @_Maq_ provided an interesting <illustration>. It doesn't sound like a very complete fertiliser, as you say. Have a look at Evian bottled water - it saves on the faffing around with dry salts and I like the chemical composition (plenty of calcium bicarbonate, the good stuff 😉). Plus you get some free plastic bottles.

 

[MichaelJ]

Have a look at Evian bottled water - it saves on the faffing around with dry salts

Sure thing - a nice 3:1 Ca:Mg ratio (17 dGH/dKH ... making it great tasting as well!) ... A rather expensive solution I would say, but if tank is small, water changes infrequent , target GH/KH is low and/or money is no object it could work I guess 🙂

Cheers,
Michael

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Hi @Zoefish, Seachem Alkaline Buffer is Sodium Bicarbonate (NaHCO3).

It's "Alkaline Buffer" by Seachem. I add it the same way I do with the Equilibrium- I test the water and then add enough to the new water to make them match. The tank water generally reads 40-80 ppm KH, so that has me adding about 1/2- 1 teaspoon to the new 10 gallons of water I add (3-6 grams).

For some reason I thought the Endlers wanted to have a higher KH than my tapwater provides and I had this stuff on hand. But now I am not finding that information anywhere on google. It does seem that sometimes people refer to GH and KH interchangeably

are using the terms GH and KH rather indifferent. KH regulates the buffer capacity of the water - its resistance to change in pH (low KH means low buffer capacity thus low resistance to change in pH). If your KH comes from CaCO3 or MgCO3 it will impact your GH, if it comes from say NaHCO3 or K2CO3 it wont.

There is a bit to unpack there, but basically sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) has no place anywhere near a planted tank. The sellers of "buffers" generally are less than truthful about what <"their product does"> and why you may need it. As soon as advertising mentions <"pH stability"> you know that they are after your money, not your tanks well being.

If you want to add a little bit of alkalinity (aka dKH or carbonate buffering) you can buy food grade potassium bicarbonate (KHCO3) cheaply. Details of amounts are at <"James' Planted Tank"> and <"Some handy facts about water">.

Simon, are you saying that the ideal ratio is the 3.2:1 Ca:Mg noted?

calcium: magnesium: potassium ratio which according to Aquasabi is supposed to be 2:1:0.5. This makes no sense to me, is this true? This seems like it contradicts the whole idea of macro vs micro nutrients if potassium is supposed to be present in lower quantities than Mg and Ca?

Personally I'm not a great believer in ratios etc. and as you say I don't think that one makes any sense. <"Purely for plant growth"> you need more potassium (K) than magnesium (Mg) and similar amounts of magnesium and calcium (Ca). That calcium / magnesium addition can be a fairly nominal amount (~ 10 ppm) for most plants.

Sure thing - a nice 3:1 Ca:Mg ratio (17 dGH/dKH ... making it great tasting as well!)

We get the flat version <"out of the tap">, and it <"tastes lovely">. The <"17 dGH / 17 dKH"> value is because the water is saturated with calcium (Ca++) and bicarbonate (2HCO3-) ions derived from dissolved limestone (CaCO3).

cheers Darrel

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

...... the primary symptom my plants have been showing is damage to the old leaves. This would point to something involving a mobile nutrient, correct? The hygrophila pinnatifida was the worst hit which is a bummer because I loved that plant and would really like to be able to grow it again. This plant consistently would get pinholes in the old leaves then the leaves would turn brown/yellow and disintegrate. Then the damage would move up the plant. I mentioned this early on in the thread, but I recently added some more hygrophila pinnatifida mostly as a test, and the same pattern of damage appeared within a couple of days.

We have a few <"Hygrophila pinnatifida"> threads. I'm guessing that <"many of us"> have been where you are.

It didn't enjoy life with me (same symptoms as your plants), but I don't know exactly why <"Anyone figured out H.Pinnatifida?">. A lot of people have grown it successfully, so hopefully some-one with the answer (@Konrad Michalski ?) will chip in.

cheers Darrel

 

[JoshP12]

Hi Josh- just going through these older replies. Can you explain where you're getting these numbers from? Not in terms of the math, in terms of the particular ratios you're suggesting.

These are big questions mate.

Read a few hundred posts on the topic and you’ll get everything from it doesn’t matter to it does.

They’re all right.

But there’s a reason that green aqua uses TDS 120 with boosters which are all following a somewhat prescribed range of seemingly not important parameters … that aren’t important within moderate ranges.

I don't mind using dry salts if it would help significantly but I'd prefer to keep it simple and avoid extra maintenance/math.

Is APT complete a preferable all in 1 fertilizer to the one I'm using? What makes it better? Would I need to be adding salts in addition to APT complete? I don't have any particular attachment to the fertilizer I am using if there's a better option.

“Nothing” … but Dennis did a good job: most people don’t have Mg in their water but have enough Ca so he added Mg - he used sulfate salts to bypass the ratios of csm (I use csm ps) — he knows most people use rich soil so he puts sufficient potassium and drives growth with K and co2 - while bottlenecking growth with moderate or low N (since EI uses lots of N and pushes growth hard) but doesn’t lower P since he knows that P helps lock the system + also moderates growth rates.

But he knows that K is one of the most forgiving so he loads it to be sure it isn’t an issue banking on the fact that people use rich substrate and K helps with those.

Literally he does it all right. He took the benefit of every system and made a fert down the centre.

It’s just a big game of your system matching the input that you put and about finding an input which works the best for most plants.

That’s why people advertise GH 5-7 and not GH 1 because GH1 is harder to get “right” than GH 5-7.

GH 1 is less forgiving. But meh. Then you don’t need to add salt in 👍 and get that dust storm of calcium swirling and landing on plants - lol.

I do have a significant amount of plants growing epiphytically. This approach wouldn't be an issue for them?

Yep.

But just add a bit more fert if you see any issue or feed your fish more.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Someone earlier said that only non-mobile nutrient deficiencies should be able to show up this fast, so how does this make sense?

I should have done that one as well. For mobile nutrients plants <"can export them"> from older leaves to younger leaves, this means that deficiencies usually take longer to show up and show up first in older leaves.

If your growing solution ("tank water") is really unsuitable for a plant you've put in the tank the plant will quickly run out of the limiting nutrient, because they can't replenish it from the tank water. At this point the problems will spread from old to new leaves, before the plant eventually expires.

I'm guessing that is what is happening / has happened here.

cheers Darrel

 

[Konrad Michalski]

My pinnatifida was growing like crazy and when I started getting small spots like those on the photo above I used to increase potassium a bit and it was gradually improving. It definitely likes low ph, kh, gh as it grows best for me in freshly started tanks. The older the soil and less tannins the slower it will grow. I got rid of it on the end as it was overgrowing other plants.

 

[MichaelJ]

There is a bit to unpack there, but basically sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) has no place anywhere near a planted tank. The sellers of "buffers" generally are less than truthful about what <"their product does"> and why you may need it. As soon as advertising mentions <"pH stability"> you know that they are after your money, not your tanks well being.

Right... I am vehemently against using Sodium (Na) based carbonates as noted or implied in a couple of my posts on this thread and on many other occasions. I was just trying to make the point about the distinction between what impacts your GH vs. KH and when they relate and when they do not, as these terms are often - and wrongly - used interchangeably and causes a lot of confusion among even more experienced hobbyists.

As I said:

What let me astray years ago with this product was a misguided obsession about keeping a certain KH level and at the same time a certain stable pH level. I ended up with a toxic cocktail in my tanks that was part Acid Buffers and part Alkaline Buffers to target that specific KH and pH level. I do blame this in part on the dishonest marketing by Seachem - prioritizing sales over the actual needs of the hobbyist.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[Zoefish]

Hi all,

Thank you very much to everyone for your responses!

A couple other random notes, since MichaelJ said any small detail might be important. The tank did have a staghorn algae outbreak right around the time my hygrophila started deteriorating seriously. I lowered the light, treated the driftwood with hydrogen peroxide solution, and hand removed the rest and the problem appeared solved. Now I tend to get hair algae in the tank. This week it has gotten worse than usual but I figured that is due to me increasing the light intensity.

Also, the fish- at times I notice them all swimming at the top and gulping air. It isn't all the time but I'm not sure if there's a pattern in terms of time of day. That's why I've got that air stone in that weird position, so that the water pump blasts the air bubbles across the tank. I'm unsure if this is a lack of oxygen issue, an excessive co2 issue, or something else. I added the airstone in response to this as well as bumping the co2 down a bit but I'm reluctant to turn the co2 down any more.

Also, that water report I posted said the pH out of my tap should be around 8 or so. This strikes me as odd since it consistently tests in the 6.5 range for me. I just tested to check and got results of 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 on 3 different types of test. I guess the discrepancy probably is not relevant to my problem but it is weird.

Currently my plan is to do a couple large water changes, reduce the GH to maybe 6 dGH (not sure how gradually to change it, maybe over the course of the next week or so?), and stop adding the alkaline buffer entirely. I'm still parsing through comments and other resources on this site trying to decide if there's any pressing reason to switch fertilizers to a different all in 1 fertilizer or switch to dry salts or switch to an entirely different fertilizing approach like lean dosing. Someone, I think Simon Cole, mentioned high mg:ca ratio as an issue with NilocG fertilizer. But if I'm adding Equilibrium which has a good Ca:Mg ratio, would it all just come out in the wash? Here is the composition of what I'm using currently.

 

[John q]

Simon Cole, mentioned high mg:ca ratio as an issue with NilocG fertilizer

Haven't re read the thread but guessing he might have been referring to NilocG gh booster? Edit was thrive.

Either way your fertiliser isn't adding any calcium, and adds only small amounts of magnesium (1 pump in 10 gallons adds about 0.11 ppm mg) so don't worry about adding these fertilisers in relation to ca:mg ratios.

 

[Zoefish]

Hi all,

I noticed a couple of other things today that are making me wonder about the substrate. There's a spot where my marsilea (not sure what species) has rotted. To me the damage looks kind of like some sort of disease, but I'm not familiar with any diseases that affect aquatic plants. I'm sure they exist but I've really never heard of them.

This same thing happened a week or 2 ago in a different part of the tank near where I had added some new plants. I thought I'd just disturbed the substrate in that area. The damage was just in one small area of the tank and didn't specifically seem like it was on old or new growth. At the same time, in the same spot, a whole group of Pogostemon helferi Downoi (tissue culture plants that were still small but growing well) all rotted over a couple days. Again I thought that was me disturbing the substrate since this plant has been very averse to being uprooted for me in the past.

So I uprooted a bunch of the Marsilea and these are some of the roots. Some are white and firm but as you go along the plant they get browner and some parts seem mushy. Are roots supposed to be brown at all on aquatic plants? What would that mean? I think the browning of the roots is in the direction of the old growth. Also my Cabomba furcata seemingly does not want to grow roots in the substrate at all. I only found 1 piece that was actually anchored into the substrate and I pulled it out and the roots were black. This is a plant that used to grow well for me. It deteriorated around the same time as the others, very gradually so I'm not sure when it started. I thought it was just getting shaded by the tiger lotus behind it so I've been cutting that back and seeing faster, less etiolated growth on the Cabomba but apparently it has not successfully grown any roots.






Lastly, I've seemingly always had this brown stuff on the glass under the line of the substrate. I always thought it was just brown algae and maybe it is. Obviously I remove brown algae from the glass when it appears, which is rarely anymore, but I don't clean below the substrate line.


Lots of questions... Thanks for reading!

 

[_Maq_]

Simon, are you saying that the ideal ratio is the 3.2:1 Ca:Mg noted? I was reading that as just being the amount that is in Equilibrium. But that is also the ideal amount?

I believe Mg:Ca ratio is generally acceptable within quite a broad range.

Something else confusing I have just found while looking this up is the calcium: magnesium: potassium ratio which according to Aquasabi is supposed to be 2:1:0.5. This makes no sense to me, is this true? This seems like it contradicts the whole idea of macro vs micro nutrients if potassium is supposed to be present in lower quantities than Mg and Ca? And this is wildly different than the composition of any aquarium fertilizer I've used. Am I missing something?

In nature, there's usually more than enough Ca, enough Mg, but plants are struggling to catch enough K. That's why all plants uptake potassium preferentially to the others. And that is also why overdosing potassium can be so harmful because it hinders uptake of Mg and Ca.

Personally I'm not a great believer in ratios etc. and as you say I don't think that one makes any sense. <"Purely for plant growth"> you need more potassium (K) than magnesium (Mg) and similar amounts of magnesium and calcium (Ca). That calcium / magnesium addition can be a fairly nominal amount (~ 10 ppm) for most plants.

Ratios do matter. In January, I've published an article in e-akvarium devoted to K:Mg:Ca ratio. This is another example demonstrating how important it is for any aquarium plant enthusiast to master Czech language.😉

I should have done that one as well. For mobile nutrients plants <"can export them"> from older leaves to younger leaves, this means that deficiencies usually take longer to show up and show up first in older leaves.

Among the three discussed, K and Mg are considered mobile while Ca is immobile. However, I suspect that Mg mobility is far from perfect.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

In nature, there's usually more than enough Ca, enough Mg, but plants are struggling to catch enough K. That's why all plants uptake potassium preferentially to the others. And that is also why overdosing potassium can be so harmful because it hinders uptake of Mg and Ca.

That is an interesting point, and one that I hadn't really considered.

Ratios do matter. In January, I've published an article in e-akvarium devoted to K:Mg:Ca ratio. This is another example demonstrating how important it is for any aquarium plant enthusiast to master Czech language

You are just teasing now.

Among the three discussed, K and Mg are considered mobile while Ca is immobile. However, I suspect that Mg mobility is far from perfect.

You certainly get <"fairly instant greening"> with (formerly) magnesium (Mg) deficient duckweed (Lemna minor), but that would only require transport over very short distances. In Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) culture you used to often apply magnesium as a foliar feed, which might suggest it isn't perfectly mobile?

We don't have much magnesium in our tap water, so when I <"used the Miracle-Gro"> I always <"added some"> more via Epsom Salts (MgSO4.7H2O).

cheers Darrel

 

[MichaelJ]

Ratios do matter. In January, I've published an article in e-akvarium devoted to K:Mg:Ca ratio.

Excellent. I believe the article runs from page 25-33...

You are just teasing now.

You can definitely get a sense of it from the experiments (A,B,C,D) and its respective dosing and the pictures ...

Page 25: "Practice has led me to believe that the mutual ratio of these cations matters at least as much as their quantity. I arrived at a ratio of K : Mg : Ca = 1 : 5 : 10".

So for instance, if we aim for 5 GH (not uncommon, in say a tank with shrimps) that would translate into 20 ppm of Ca, 10 ppm of Mg and 2 ppm of K. That's Ca:Mg ratio pf 2:1 instead of the often recommend 3:1 to 4:1.

Yaay! Ratios! 🙂

Cheers,
Michael

 

[_Maq_]

You can definitely get a sense of it from the experiments (A,B,C,D) and its respective dosing and the pictures ...

YES, I believe that merely reading the chart and then looking at the photographs can provide basic information.

 

[_Maq_]

Page 25: "Practice has led me to believe that the mutual ratio of these cations matters at least as much as their quantity. I arrived at a ratio of K : Mg : Ca = 1 : 5 : 10".

So for instance, if we aim for 5 GH (not uncommon, in say a tank with shrimps) that would translate into 20 ppm of Ca, 10 ppm of Mg and 2 ppm of K. That's Ca:Mg ratio pf 2:1 instead of the often recommend 3:1 to 4:1.

Beware, the ratios are molar. Translated into weight ratios it returns K : Mg : Ca = 1 : (no less than) 3.1 : (no less than) 10.2.
Like I said in another post, you can handle Mg : Ca ratio rather freely. Overdosing potassium is much more dangerous. But even in the case of potassium, you don't have to take my ratio too rigidly.
I think the essential fact is this: In nature, there's usually no scarcity of Ca and Mg, but only few K. On the other hand, plants (dicotyledons) require K >> Ca > Mg. Thus, plants take up K preferentially. If you overdose K you create an unnatural environment and many species cannot handle it.
According to my observations, serious problems are widespread if there's more K than Mg in the water.