• 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

Pathway to Rio Negro 864L (biotope)

that's massive! Looking forward to updates on what I'm guessing will be a very challenging but rewarding thread. Also, 10 sterbai's? How about 100 for size lol
 
Hey mate, great project, looking forward to the development.
If you want a good new book, Heiko Blehers biotope book that recently came out looks the way to go. I am intending to treat myself to it soon.
Have you considered a true biotope below the water but open top aquarium with emersed plants to get the benefit of plants, and beauty of course...
 
What if you swapped the two end pieces over? Sometimes it can be stronger to have biggest first!
Will be interesting to see how this all turns out. I do like biotopes
 
I've been doing some more research, but I'm still all over the place with where I want to take the setup. Only thing still set in stone is the Amazon biotope/themed layout.

I am slowly getting up to speed with the concepts of light/nutritions/Co2. My last tank was a 530L amazon biotope with L numbers and Geophagus.. Only plants were some Anubias, which didnt require much of anything. Back then I hadn't even heard of Co2 injection. I never had much trouble with algae, keeping to my weekly water changes.

Fast forward till today. I now understand that you need a balance between this holy trinity light/nutritions/Co2 . At least if you want to be successful with a more planted tank. Mostly to understand it myself ill make a list of my discoveries thus far:
  • If you go low tech with no Co2 added, you can't have too much light, since the plants will quickly use up whatever Co2 is in the water. In fact if you have much more than 30 PAR at max depth, you will need to add Co2.
  • When Co2 runs low and light is high, algae blooms.
  • Thats why you add Co2, to take advantage of the higher light intensity. Buhjaa!
  • In a low tech tank, you want a high level of surface movement so as to get higher gas transfer. I.e. when low on oxygen, you get more oxygen, when low on Co2, more Co2 is diffused into the water column. Likewise if you have too much Co2, higher water movement, will dilute it out faster. Thats why you want high water movement in low tech (even walsted style setups, it seems), as opposed to high tech setups, where you don't want too much of that precious Co2 to leave the tank. (even though George says that he actually prefers high water movement, even in a high tech tank, for the benefit of getting more oxygen.)
  • If I have about 28 PAR at 60cm depth (which my current lighting plan will give me), I will struggle with all but the "easiest" plants, especially if I want to make a carpet.
  • But If I add more light, I will need to add Co2.
  • With 864L and a 180cm tank, I would need fire extinguisher level stuff, to have a sustainable 25-30 ppm of Co2.
  • For a guy who hardly knew about this stuff 3 months ago, that is probably a recipe for disaster.
  • Luckily, I like the low tech/minimal outside influence approach, even if that will make it harder for me to grow my plants.
So where does that leave me? Probably somewhere down the low tech route, opting for easier, less light demanding plants.

A few questions I've been wanting to ask. Couldn't you add just a little Co2, instead of trying to reach 25-30 ppm. I understand that with a normal low tech approach we will get about 1-2 ppm. What if I just wanted to help my plants out a little and get to about 5-10 ppm, couldn't that be done? Couldn't I just set up my Co2 kit so that I throw out say 1 bubble a minute (yes a minute). Or would that just be silly? Its a 864L tank after all... how much would I need to just get to about 5ppm?

Would running a 1 bubble a minute routine 24/7, in a 864L tank, help out the plants, and increase the ppm? Or again, am I just being silly?
 
I understand that with a normal low tech approach we will get about 1-2 ppm

What is a normal low tech approach first of all? And where did you get the info about co2 being 1-2ppm in a low tech? Regardless, there is scientific info that higher light compensates for lower co2 and vice versa. So when one sets up a real low tech tank with low light and no CO2, they are giving their plants the worst of worlds. A low tech tank in my opinion should have medium light, dense planting with fast growers as well as slow growers, and a rich substrate such as soil that would produce co2 via oxygen driven decomposition, etc....That would give good growth for sure. Alternatively, some CO2 should be injected. Again, there's scientific info that 10ppm CO2 is optimum for majority of plants so injecting what others consider "low" amount of co2 will certainly be of benefit...And yes, low or high tech tank, good water movement and gas exchange is essential, especially in a low tech... CO2 in substrate is produced via O2 means and also exchanged via surface movement because co2 is more water soluble than O2 and is also havier than air...So not enough oxygen or surface agitation = no co2 but instead hydrogen sulfate, methane, etc..

What I've found is that people start reading stuff on internet and discard possibilities without even thinking of attempting other methods, as if the "low tech" approach is set in stone and gives excellent results... .In reality, following the "general low tech" method gives unsatisfying results in probably 80% of the cases...Because you can't have a healthy planted low tech tank with diverse plants if you immediately give your plants light below their compensation point, no ferts, no water movement for O2 and CO2 exchange, inert substrate, no ferts/insufficient ferts, etc...
 
And where did you get the info about co2 being 1-2ppm in a low tech?

From plecoplanet "Typical CO2 levels in tank water are dependent upon temperature, pressure and the carbonate content of the water, but should be in the range of 1 – 2ppm (at sea level, at 27oC" http://plecoplanet.com/?page_id=829

What you are saying is that you could add "some" Co2, and that would still be better than nothing, as long as its stable..?

Reading these forums I get the impression that you either balance your Co2 for sweet lime green, 25-30ppm or jump into the ocean.
 
From plecoplanet "Typical CO2 levels in tank water are dependent upon temperature, pressure and the carbonate content of the water, but should be in the range of 1 – 2ppm (at sea level, at 27oC" http://plecoplanet.com/?page_id=829

This statement is extremely vague... The availability to plants and rate of production of co2 in tank is dependent on more factors than temperature, pressure and carbonate content...
 
Reading these forums I get the impression that you either balance your Co2 for sweet lime green, 25-30ppm or jump into the ocean

Yes, one reads too much what others think and does not think for themselves.
This forum is full of unsucessful 25-30ppm CO2 tanks....so how are those high levels of co2 the only/necessary criteria for growing healthy plants...
 
What you are saying is that you could add "some" Co2, and that would still be better than nothing, as long as its stable..?

Why does it need to be stable? That's another invented misconception....I read years ago how in a low tech tank one should not do big water changes in order to avoid co2 fluctuations caused by tap water, and thus algae. That's a lot of b*****t, excuse my language...

Yes, injecting more co2 will certainly be of benefit to the plants. In a large tank you'll probably find out that you'd need to move different species of plants around until you find where they grow best because the conditions around the tank will differ(this applies even if no co2 is injected) One species of plant may be extremely happy in the middle of the tank and dies 40cm further from that location.. So being flexible with plant choice and planting locations is an essential approach in a low tech. In a high tech folks try to optimise the conditions throughout the entire tank...
 
Thanks for your reply. Its kinda like explaining to a first grade student the flaws and misconceptions of modern philosphy. I just got here man, just trying to catch up :)

I'm all for "low tech", was just wondering if I could add a bit of CO2, without everything exploding in my face.
 
Thanks for your reply. Its kinda like explaining to a first grade student the flaws and misconceptions of modern philosphy. I just got here man, just trying to catch up :)

I'm all for "low tech", was just wondering if I could add a bit of CO2, without everything exploding in my face.

Try it without co2 and then you always have the option of adding it again at a later date.

Look at the member on here that grew plants in a tank on his window sill with natural light and without added co2. The results are amazing! I cant remember his username :( Ill try to find it.
 
Also some people do the DIY co2 route and have great success! So I image you could probably supplement as long as you have available nutrients and enough light I guess?
 
Hey mate, great project, looking forward to the development.
If you want a good new book, Heiko Blehers biotope book that recently came out looks the way to go. I am intending to treat myself to it soon.
Have you considered a true biotope below the water but open top aquarium with emersed plants to get the benefit of plants, and beauty of course...

I will have to look at that book for sure. The tank I have in production right now, is built with a cover. But a "Paludarium" of sorts would be nice. I didnt think of it when I put in the order! I would worry about the water evaporation in a tank that size though.

What if you swapped the two end pieces over? Sometimes it can be stronger to have biggest first!
Will be interesting to see how this all turns out. I do like biotopes

I did try your suggestion, but its sort of a free standing tank, with only the "right" end towards the wall. So I need a balance from all sides... which of cause is incredibly difficult!

The more I work out the layout of the tank, the more I revert back to the initial thought of creating a black water bio. With the massive surface area of my roots, I'm considering using them as a "playfield" for the plants. Only issue is, I will be hard pressed trying to find epiphytes from Southamerica, at least by the looks of it. The only plant I have found that would "easily" grow on the roots from SA would be the brasilian chrismas moss.

I'm considering having the bottom covered in an inert sand, and then only have plants on the roots. There is plenty of holes, and depressions in the wood, where I could add Soil, and then plant in that. I always had my anubias fastened onto the wood, but I cant do that in this bio.

Any suggestions of SA plants that would grow on wood or in very little soil?
 
Also some people do the DIY co2 route and have great success! So I image you could probably supplement as long as you have available nutrients and enough light I guess?
Yea, its either no CO2 or supplement. I have considered using Tropica's Nano CO2 setup, and just let it flow a few bubbles a minute 24/7. On a tank this size though, I'm not sure that would make any difference at all.
 
Hi all,
Yes, injecting some CO2 will certainly be of benefit to the plants.
Again, there's scientific info that 10ppm CO2 is optimum for majority of plants so injecting what others consider "low" amount of co2 will certainly be of benefit
Yes I think 10ppm CO2 would be of benefit to most, if not all, aquatic plants.
"Typical CO2 levels in tank water are dependent upon temperature, pressure and the carbonate content of the water, but should be in the range of 1 – 2ppm (at sea level, at 27oC" http://plecoplanet.com/?page_id=829
This statement is extremely vague... The availability to plants and rate of production of co2 in tank is dependent on more factors than temperature, pressure and carbonate content...
I should put the disclaimer that I'm the author of the PlecoPlanet article first, but I still think that the figures are in the right ball park. Because we can't accurately measure dissolved CO2 all methods of measurement are indirect (like using a drop checker).

The article was written specifically for keepers of rheophilic plecs, so it assumes that the tank will have an inert sand, or fine gravel, substrate, the water will be warm and the tank will have a fairly high water turn-over. Even though the article is really about oxygenation, it talks a lot about plants because plant/microbe filtration systems retain high water quality, and high water quality retains high oxygenation.

One reason why I'm so keen on <"Diana Walstad's aerial advantage"> is that it takes CO2 availability out of the equation, any plant with aerial leaves (like a floating or emergent plant) has access to at least 400ppm CO2, and isn't carbon limited.

cheers Darrel
 
can't believe my previous reply got lost :oops:
- well actually I can :lol: lately this site keeps dumping me :eek:

Anyway check out Mike Tucc FB & his Biotopes of the Rio Negro article in Amazonas Magazine

Nooo :)

Thanks, I was just looking at a species list from Rio Negro: http://fish.mongabay.com/data/ecosystems/Rio Negro.htm

edit: this one is better: http://www.fishbase.org/trophiceco/FishEcoList.php?ve_code=63

Pretty interesting journey this is taking me on, even though i'm lying in a sofa. Adventure has many forms!
 
Last edited:
Below Water is also a good resource

(I still mourn the loss of the old Monga Bay site - hacked or just crashed I don't recall)
 
This is some of my research on flora & fauna on Amazonia Black Water Rivers, mainly Rio Negro. This is by no means exhaustive and I will add to it as I go along.

I first visited the amazon and Rio Negro back in 1993 with my parents, experiencing the incredible sight of Rio Negro melting into Amazonas Proper. I was only 13 years old back then, and the sight marked me for life! Ever since I have either wanted to work in the Amazon (and I did, in 97' and again in 2010) or at least have something to do with it, hence this aquarium project :)

Once it was thought that Rio Negro was not capable of sustaining human inhabitants, since very few indigenous tribes were found along the shores of Rio Negro, by the first Spanish explorers. Later this has been debunked, as more and more species of fish has been discovered. It is now believed that the low number of indigenous tribes along these waters, were a direct cause of European diseases spreading.

Anyway, back on track. This is what I have found so far.

Fauna
It seems there is plenty to choose from, and it is thought that about 800 species of fish live in these waters. Probably a lot more. Only a fraction of that is "known" to the hobby though, and again only a fraction of that would fit in an aquarium, not to mention being available at my lfs.

I picked some species that might work in my Rio Negro bio:

Cichlids
Iotoecus opercularis
Dicrossus filamentosos
Taeniacara candidi

Discus is another possibilty, but is probably out of scope for this project.

Catfish
L168 Dekeyseria brachyura
L183 Ancistrus dolichopterus
C. Duplicares
(maybe L114 - Rio Demini, Tributary of Rio Negro)

Cosidered:
Ancistrus dolichopterus l183
Hemiloricaria teffeana
Harttia uatumensis
Parotocinclus polyochrus
Dekeyseria brachyura
Peckoltia braueri
Hemiloricaria melini
Hypancistrus inspector
Oxyropsis acutirostra
Peckoltia sabaji l075 (??) I love this one, and have kept it before. It gets rather big though about 25cm. I'm not sure if its a "true" Black Water species though.
Amblydoras affinis
Pseudolithoxus Nicki
Pseudolithoxus dummes
Hypancistrus sp. l136C
Parotocinclus polyochrus
Ancistrus dolichopterus

Corydoras Serratus, robinae, rabauti, parallelus, incolicana, imitator, duplicares, crypticus, amandajanea, adolfoi, burgessi, crimmeni, crypticus, davidsandsi, kanai, nijsseni, tukano

Tetras

Paracheirodon axelrodi (obviously)

Snails (not restricted to Rio Negro, but still amazonian)
Asolene spixi
Marisa cornuarietis

Endemic species
Tucanoichthys, Ptychocharax, Atopomesus, Leptobrycon, Niobichthys, and Stauroglanis

Flora
With little known plants in the Rio Negro, other than flooded forest plants, I have decided on a compromise using the following:
Limnobium Laevegatum (floating)
Helanthium Tenellus (around roots)
Staugoryne Repens (around roots)
Vesicularia Dubyana xmas (roots)

I could also add: Heteranthera zosterifolia

Botanicals
Lots of different botanicals from Tannin Aquatics

Flora cont.
This is where the true challenge of a black water biotope lies. Because of poor light penetration, most flora is either submerged bushes and trees, or semi aquatic plants growing very close to shore. In fact some expeditions report nearly zero plant life in the river itself. There is however plenty of plant life surrounding Rio Negro, being one of the most biodiverse areas of the planet.

One expedition in 2009: "In the nutrient-poor waters of the Rio Negro there are practically no underwater plants. Not until the linking canal, into which water was forced from the Solimões, was there any improvement in the nutrient content and the number of species of aquatic plants increased significantly."

Interview with Peter Kriz, another Rio Negro expedition:
"Were there any aquatic plants?
There was almost no aquatic vegetation. Nor did I see any floating plants in the Rio Negro. This could be due to several factors including there are just normally very few aquatic plants or they may be seasonally active and wait for the water rise to occur. I was there at the time of the absolute lowest seasonal water level of the river. This area would be deeper water for the rest of the year. Possibly farther up on land is where the plants would be more likely to grow."

I have yet to get any confirmation of plants in Rio Negro other than what I have seen myself, (which I can hardly remember) and on pictures.

Through contact with Tropica, I have learned that the underscored plants should be authentic occurences. The bold plants are stretching it to fit. The others not so much.
Cabomba furcata, Cabomba aquatica, Echinodorus tenellus, Ludwigia palustris, Echinodorus quadricostatus, Echinodorus amazonicus, Eleocharis vivipara, Staurogyne repens, Vallisneria americana, Myriophyllum aquaticum, Hydrocotyle leucocephala, Eleocharis acicularis, Limnobium laevigatum, Pistia stratiotes, Sagittaria subulata, Ceratophyllum demersum, Myriophyllum mattogrossense, Echinodorus bleheri

One study of antimalarial plant use by locals of Rio Negro did show a specific plant list, although these are not necessarily aquatic in nature:
Glycidendron amazonicum, Heteropsis tenuispadix, Monopteryx uaucu, Phenakospermum guianensis, Pouteria ucuqui, Sagotia brachysepala and notably Aspidosperma schultesii, Ampelozizyphus amazonicus, Euterpe catinga, E. precatoria, Physalis angulata, Cocos nucifera and Swartzia argentea

Some trees in the region that get flooded: Virola elongata, Eschweilera longipes, E. pachysepala, and Pithecellobium amplissimum

The quest for specific aquatic plants that DO exist in the waters of Rio Negro, continues.

Sources:
http://fish.mongabay.com/data/ecosystems/Rio Negro.htm
http://www.fishbase.org/search.php
http://www.planetcatfish.com/catelog/
http://www.roggo.ch/thefreshwaterproject/rionegro.htm (incredible footage)
http://www.reef2rainforest.com/2016/12/09/biotope-video-cichlid-heaven-in-the-lower-rio-negro/
http://all4aquarium.ru/en/events/jbl-biotope-contest-2013/entries
https://www.jbl.de/en/expeditions-2009-brazil/detail/9/expedition-2009-brazil?page_id=4999
http://forum.simplydiscus.com/archive/index.php/t-25886.html
 
Last edited:
Back
Top