• 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

Phosphorous Deficiency?

IrvineHimself

IrvineHimself

Member
Joined
22 Jun 2023
Messages
84
Location
Edinburgh
I had the first of my cataracts done just under two weeks ago and noticed that there are little holes appearing in the leaves of the lobelia plants I planted last week. With big leaves and a deep red underneath, they were certainly grown emmersed. So, it is possible that the holes [like the smaller new growth leaves] are just the plant adapting to being immersed?

Originally, I was only dosing with 'TNC Lite', but on @Wookii's suggestion, I switched to 'TNC Complete' the week before I planted the forest. In addition, I also used about half a dozen 'TNC Plugs' in the substrate of the forest.

Phosphorus.jpg

Anybody any views on this?

Thanks
Irvine

Edited to add clarity.
 
You can't expect much when you present only one pic of one species and provide no data on your water (source water), substrate, and others.
 
_Maq_ said:
You can't expect much when you present only one pic of one species and provide no data on your water (source water), substrate, and others.
Click to expand...
Well, I did give a full list of my fertilisers.🙂

For the record: My water source is good quality Edinburgh tap water, very pure; slightly acidic and with a very low kh.... I pipe it at 22 to 24 C from my shower. This is from a communal heating/hot water boiler in an assisted living facility for seniors. As a result, the full system, along with all shower heads and hoses, undergoes legally mandatory health checks every month or so. With regard to the hose itself, even if I am just topping up the tank, I always flush at least 10 litres of tank water through the hose before starting to fill the tank.

Being a noob, I was hoping that someone could confirm that it is possible that the lobelia are just adapting to being immersed. Failing that, I hoped someone would take pity on my noobishness and explain what other info [or pics] they would like. So, since you asked:

I have an Oase Thermo 200 canister filter with no mods in a 90 litre tank. I use in-line CO2 injection and the substrate is thick sand [I added between 4 and 6 TNC plugs to the area where I planted the lobelia]
 
Not an answer, but for some of us Lobelia will melt over time as it isn't made to live under water long term. I expect there will be other advice, but my own experience was that after a lovely start it simply faded away. I'm on the same water as you.
 
Okay. after a month or so, my Lobelia Forest seems to be adjusting to the new immersed environment. The new leaves are growing in much smaller, creating a shady glade like environment. Both my Kuhlis and Pygmy Corys seem to love it. Though, as expected, The Kuhlis nibbled off the roots of a few plants that were in front of a couple of entrances to the cavern network. I transplanted these into my overflow tank and they seem to be doing quite well.

AlecF said:
Lobelia will melt over time as it isn't made to live under water long term
Click to expand...
When I first planted the tank, a single Lobelia was one of the first plants I bought. it seemed to adjust quite well, but unfortunately I planted it in a very inconvenient position. Then, when I transplanted it in front of cave entrance, the Kuhlis objected and attacked the roots. At the time I didn't have an overflow tank, and the location of the new Forest was taken up by a large(ish) Crypts, so that particular plant was lost.

I think the basic problem was that when I planted the original Lobelia, I still had two large cataracts and was unable to accurately observe the transition from emmersed to immersed. Since then however, I have had one cataract removed and am off to get the other done at the beginning of next month.🙂

The possibility of it melting over time is disappointing, but at the moment the remaining plants seem to be well rooted and my Kuhlis adore the forest.

LobeliaForest.jpg
 
Zeus. said:
Holes in leaves in CO2 injected tanks are a classic sign of unstable CO2 levels during the photo period and/or the light is too intense. Have you done a pH profile to check the CO2 stability.
Click to expand...
That is very interesting. Although the new, smaller leaved, immersed growth of the Lobelia is without holes [I think], I just noticed that a Java Fern I recently bought on Amazon now has holes in the leaves.

Problems with light intensity are a definite possibility, my 'smart' lighting schedule is a work in progress which has been sadly neglected for the last few months. As far as doing a "pH profile" is concerned, over the next few days I will check out exactly what that is and how I do it.

At the moment, to maximise cleaning efficiency, the introduction of my new robot has forced me to re-evaluate budgeting priorities for a long term project of which my aquariums are just a small part.... In addition, I recently [this morning] discovered a hack to convert old style IR and Bluetooth remote controls to voice command. Since the majority of tech [eg: aquarium lights] still uses PLC tech with IR remotes, this has major implications for the aforementioned project. As a result, over the next few days, I am going to be extremely busy.😀) In consequence, it may take me few days to do the required reading, but I will be getting back to this as soon as possible.

Thanks for pointing out that lighting or CO2 stability could be the cause.
Irvine
 
Zeus. said:
Sorry I had done the wrong link to thread
Click to expand...
I have done the same myself many, many times. Thanks for correcting it, I was wondering about the relevance of the link, and was steeling myself to wade through your journal in search of that little nugget of gold.😉
 
Zeus. said:
Holes in leaves in CO2 injected tanks are a classic sign of unstable CO2 levels during the photo period and/or the light is too intense.
Click to expand...
Are you sharing your own experience? Or, is it generally known for fact?
I find it surprising. Is there any science-based explanation of the phenomenon?
 
_Maq_ said:
Are you sharing your own experience? Or, is it generally known for fact?
I find it surprising. Is there any science-based explanation of the phenomenon?
Click to expand...
I'm by no means a botinist but I imagine the adaptation of the leaf structure under higher Co2 concentrations causes issues when that is suddenly taken away and especially so if it's unstable (outside of expected Circadian Rhythm triggers / photosynthetic periods).

It takes time for plants to adapt and if they don't know if they're coming or going I imagine it would be quite possible for this to cause structural problems - Think along the lines of transitional melt from emersed to immersed, an extreme example for unstable Co2 would be taking an immersed adapted plant out of water for two days then back in the tank for one then out for another day etc etc.

I'm sure if Clive were here he would give an educated explanation, and probably has as he's mentioned it many times.

As a high tech beginner, I can say that in addition to BBA and other plant health issues I had seen, finally getting my Co2 stable (more difficult than it sounds) resolved this very problem which I had been seeing in a few plants.

It's not an issue I ever really encountered in years of low tech tanks however, but then the available Co2 would have been relatively stable within photosynthetic periods.
 
Last edited:
By no means is Co2 the only cause of holes in leaves, I'd look at mechanical or inhabitant damage first, then Co2 (if running Co2) and then deficiencies.

I saw someone post this picture today - culprit pleco! 🧐
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1697980390041.jpg
    FB_IMG_1697980390041.jpg
    253 KB · Views: 61
Last edited:
_Maq_ said:
Are you sharing your own experience? Or, is it generally known for fact?
I find it surprising. Is there any science-based explanation of the phenomenon?
Click to expand...

In my 500l high tech tank in early days I gave it why to much light in a little experiment, the pearling was amazing to me at the time. The high light intensity managed to melt many a plant with it starting with pin holes in the leaves.
ceg4048 said:
Hi,
As Zeus mentions, It's very difficult to compare two different tanks. Often, we assume we have control of the environment but more often than not, this is an illusion. Just a degree or two difference in the water can result in differences in CO2 content. Differences in the amount of plant mass (and the types of plants) makes a difference as the plants are competing for the gas.

The important thing to keep in mind is that Carbon builds plant structure, so any failure of structure can only mean a failure in Carbon.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that your first photo shows the bacopa penetrating the surface, but of course this means the plant has access to atmospheric CO2 so I would not expect to see symptoms of a severe CO2 shortfall, but even so, the gas concentration is highest near the surface, so if the second tank has the clipping lower down this would be disadvantageous. Without a CO2 meter it's mostly speculation as to the status of CO2 concentration in any tank.

Another factor which folks gloss over is the dichotomy that plants grown in a higher CO2 environment are actually more susceptible to minor CO2 shortfall, whereas plants grown in a non CO2 supplemented environment are more robust and are less susceptible to CO2 shortfalls. So we are more likely to observe CO2 related faults in a CO2 supplemented tank, as counter intuitive as this may seem...

Cheers,
Click to expand...
A have also read 'somewhere' in another one of @ceg4048 many posts about Carbon deficiency in Carbon injected tanks showing the 'classic carbon deficiency eg pinholes

If/when when time permits I will try and find the post.

Thanks for asking/questioning my post and asking for the proof/explanation/theory
 
Hi all,
Mat H said:
I saw someone post this picture today - culprit pleco!
Click to expand...
They love Echinodorus bleheri.
Zeus. said:
A have also read 'somewhere' in another one of @ceg4048 many posts about Carbon deficiency in Carbon injected tanks showing the 'classic carbon deficiency eg pinholes
Click to expand...
I've not had pin holes, but I've never added CO2.

cheers Darrel
 
Thanks to all! That was very interesting. After reading the above, and more closely examining my tank, I am becoming more convinced that it is as @Zeus. says: " a classic sign of unstable CO2 levels during the photo period and/or the light is too intense"

I am really going to have to work at this. In the aquatic plant world, things happen very slowly. As a result, when juggling priorities, things like "lighting schedule", tend to get pushed to the very back of the queue. Even more importantly, when it comes to CO2, is there a level of knowledge below "Noob!"?

Thanks again
Irvine
 
IrvineHimself said:
Thanks to all! That was very interesting. After reading the above, and more closely examining my tank, I am becoming more convinced that it is as @Zeus. says: " a classic sign of unstable CO2 levels during the photo period and/or the light is too intense"

I am really going to have to work at this. In the aquatic plant world, things happen very slowly. As a result, when juggling priorities, things like "lighting schedule", tend to get pushed to the very back of the queue. Even more importantly, when it comes to CO2, is there a level of knowledge below "Noob!"?

Thanks again
Irvine
Click to expand...

When we work on getting a stable pH/[CO2] for the photoperiod, we work on the Flow/turnover of the water in the tank. The general rule/guidance is filter output should be x10 the size of the tank. The x10 figure is a guide that should be ample for most/all tanks, so some will be fine at lower figures as hardscape and plants greatly affect the flow in our tanks. @ceg4048 called Flow 'King of CO2 enriched tank' as good flow is needed to overcome the slow diffusion rates of All Nutrients.
When have done a pH profile and corrected any fluctuating pH levels during the photoperiod we have checked/corrected any shortfalls in flow so our plants get a plentiful supply of CO2 to all the plants at all depths, which will ensure CO2 is available for uptake by the plants all over ( and account from any loss back to the atmosphere). CO2 is a very easy nutrient to measure via proxy with a pH probe, once pH is stable we should have an relative even concentration of CO2 all over the tank. All other nutrients levels will also be delivered to the plants also, other nutrients levels in out tanks would be very difficult to measure.
So by having a stable pH for the photoperiod not only do we ensure the CO2 is being delivered to the plant as they need it. We also unsure all nutrients are being delivered to the plants as they get taken up locally.
So the pinholes may be due to a deficiency in Mg as @_Maq_ is suggesting Holes in leaves. By getting a stable pH profile we have potentially correct any locaised shortfall in the delivery for all nutrients present in the water
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top