Can you give me any link to an article or any source of credible information where it is stated that aquatic plants are able to access only 5% of nutrients dissolved in the water? If my CO2 is dissolved in the water, and I pump more gas from the bottle, then I have 35 ppm CO2 dissolved in the water permanently. The potential loss is compensated by the new addition.
But plants need time to adapt. You have to do the test with perfectly healthy plants that have been this way for a few weeks.
The values stated are weekly dose, but I divide it into smaller daily dosages.
Tell this to the scientists.
I agree with this comment at 100%. As to the CO2 level this can be a reason to use higher amounts for some of our plants. But at the same time I would say that if we grow terrestrial plants underwater with such a low CO2 levels, then these plants won't grow very well or very fast in aquatic conditions, and thus they can have much lower nutrients demands then true aquatic plants. True aquatic plants are a real fast growers, whereas terrestrial plants underwater don't grow too fast (because of very limiting light levels and much lower CO2 levels).
Sorry, that was an allusion to how scientists do their tests. They usually take a new shoots from grown plants, then store them in a cold environment for a couple of days, and then use them in their test. I suppose they know what they're doing. I plan to do my test not until the end of January, so there's plenty of time to acclimate my plants to higher concentrations. The only problem I see are algae, as at higher concentrations of nutrients there is much bigger probability of getting algae which can distort the results (although EI users won't agree ... maybe they could do this test in their tanks if they have no algae problems under high nutrients levels + high light + tank without any filter media and algae-eaters).
I agree with Marcel on this. My most sincere respects and acknowledgment to someone who spend his time and money on this and wants to share his results (no matter if it is something that complex, an eqipment review, a tutorial, etc.). Mates, have a look at his website (explore the Czec version, it is worth it), it is not the first time he thinks about this. Of course, anyone can be wrong but why are we in general so reluctant to accept new approaches when most of us have never questioned our previously accepted knowledge/techniques? Each time this experiemnt is discussed (not only here) there are dozens of comments trying to deny everything (very few people really ask things) while these same people have never questioned what they are doing and demanding the same level of accuracy to the one who "invented" this theory.
Scientists are very often right... actually most of the aquatic ecologists I know and work with on wetland management have indeed very good arguments to link phosphates and algae (which does not mean that you can add phosphates to a planted tank and not having algae)
This is false. In fact there is no correlation between nutrient levels and algae levels in natural waters. In fact the more nutrients in natural waters means there are more plants. I dont know much about this I have to say but what Ive read seems to suggest that more nutrients means more aquatic weeds. Im open to evidence though.
Sorry, but too generalictic to be truth... the reality is much more complex. Just an example of the hundreds possible: Mediterranean shallow lakes are in most cases euthrophic (due to high amounts of PO4 from agriculture). More nutrients in that case do not lead to more plants, but to no plants at all. The phytoplankton (mostly algae) creates a barrier for light and macrophytes are not able to grow (other side-effects occur). If you go to the other end, aquatic habitats rich in plants are very often poor in nutrients compared to our tanks. I'm sure other experts can add more examples.
These are often (probably even always) in situations where there are currents "replacing" the lost nutrients infinitly.
Please, read the articles by Roger W. Bachman. Here are the links to them: barrreport.com. He's the expert on limnology and aquatic ecology at Florida. I'm not a man who believes misleading statements of one person who says that phosphates do not correlate to algae bloom, while most of the scientists agree that high level of nitrates and phosphates do correlate with algae. It could be very deceptive to argue by own experience as often we overlook many factors which can play significant role in it. For example, Tom Barr says that when we add high amount of nutrients into our planted tanks and we have no algae outbreak, then we have "falsified" this theory. But this is just wrong assumpsion as he don't take into account so many factors which work against algae in our tanks (like algae-eaters, filtration, water changes, regular maintenance, relatively low light compared with full sunlight etc.). I tried to argue with EI users about this, but it seems that they don't want to see/admit this.
I agree with the first statement. It's quite clear that our plants consume only part of the total amount of nutrients available. Part of the nutrients can precipitate or being used by bacteria etc.
