Slightly higher lighting on a low tech tank?

[JenCliBee]

Hi.... have another quick question...

I will be starting a new tank in the next couple of weeks once i decide on a final layout and have found the rocks etc to suit it, will start a journal to document it in time but for now just wanted peoples opinions.

I will be doing a 50-60l (13-15g) tank, which has an overhead light, originally i thought the light was a 24w pll bulb but it could well be a 36w instead, wont know for sure till i pick it up this weekend sometime.

The tank will be low tech, will have eco complete substrate and dosed with James TPN+ mix and easy carbo. Now i know that the 36w is going to be alot of light over the tank but what i want to know is could i basically up the dosage of ferts and the same with the carbo to compensate for the higher light without the introduction of pressurised CO2 which on this tank definitely wont be happening.

The tank will have a HOB filter (500lph) and a power head rated at 2000lph so unofficially having a 50x turnover but realistically will be more like 30-35x. This i know will be enough to circulate sufficiently it's just the higher light which i would like some advice on.

So what you think?, introduction of more ferts and easy carbo will balance out the higher than needed light and the probable intense growth of the plants.

Plants planned will be HC, blyxa J and P.helferi.


Thanks and appreicate any input

 

[sanj]

I thought you meant raising the light higher which would work, just depends if you can practically do that. Raising ferts and liquid co2 can also work, but it is more difficult to maintain, light is the primary driver and the one that should be the limiting factor in my experiance.

I know a lot of people on here dont like floating plants, but in situations like this they can be handy, cutting down the amount of light below the water surface.

 

[JenCliBee]

Thanks for your reply mate.... 42 views and nobody on a 'dedicated' planted forum has any advice apart from you?... definitely seems that long standing members get far more responses to questions than us less recognised members.

Ive asked 3 question over a week period and had total of 4 responses :? , little bit disappointed in the forum tbh with the lack of help but appreciate the 4 people that have helped.. so thankyou

George had a question up about 6 hours and has 2 pages and 15 replies on a question that was answered extremely well within the first 3 posts but it seems because it's George members are still posting and giving practically the same answers? (this isn't a dig at anybody just an observation).... not a moan, groan nor slagging off but seems a few not so recognised members are having the same sort of l problems with responses as they have posted on there own threads aswell regarding lack of responses.

Anyways on to the only person that felt the need to help and much appreciated....

I thought you meant raising the light higher which would work, just depends if you can practically do that. Raising ferts and liquid co2 can also work, but it is more difficult to maintain, light is the primary driver and the one that should be the limiting factor in my experiance.

I know a lot of people on here dont like floating plants, but in situations like this they can be handy, cutting down the amount of light below the water surface.

No what i mean is i haven't actually checked the bulb out on the unit and was just presumed to be 24w but my nephew thinks that it maybe 36w.... when i originally planned the tank i planned for a 24w bulb which would have been ideal for a low tech setup i had in mind, if the bulb turns out to be 24w after all, the questions are irrelevant but if it turns out to be the much higher 36w then i just wanted to know a little more on what ive asked above in regards to combating the higher lighting with more dosing of ferts and carbon and would it work and what people would advise as the dosing schedule which would work or potentially work the best?. The addition of floating plants isn't something i am a fan of and the setup alone would look completely out of place so unfortunately this isn't an option but thankyou for the suggestion .

I guess by the lack of responses i will just have to figure the regime out by my self and see if it will work and try combat any problems i incur :? lol

Will also post this now in the low tech section incase this is possibly the wrong place and hopefully why im having very little help.


Thanks again Sanj

 

[JenCliBee]

Mods incorporated same thread from two sections for some reason and duplicate posts? lol... edited to clean up!!... i should be a mod pmsl

 

[ceg4048]

...The tank will be low tech...dosed with James TPN+ mix and easy carbo...

Hi,
This automatically makes the tank high tech.

...could i basically up the dosage of ferts and the same with the carbo to compensate for the higher light without the introduction of pressurised CO2 which on this tank definitely wont be happening.

I'd choose to look for a way to lower the spectral energy getting into the tank, such as surface cover or obfuscating the bulb. Liquid carbon does not deliver anywhere near the same levels of CO2 to the plant as gas injection does, so right off the bat you will be initiating a battle against CO2 related algae.

Cheers,

 

[JenCliBee]

...The tank will be low tech...dosed with James TPN+ mix and easy carbo...

Hi,
This automatically makes the tank high tech.

Really!!, i thought the introduction of all the elements IE... injected CO2, EI dosing, High value substrate etc etc would have to be there to equate to been called a high tech setup?... I guess my interpretation was pretty much NONE CO2 would class as low tech lol... May i ask what the variables are to make a tank high tech/low tech (a little off topic so to speak but now actually curious lol).

...could i basically up the dosage of ferts and the same with the carbo to compensate for the higher light without the introduction of pressurised CO2 which on this tank definitely wont be happening.

I'd choose to look for a way to lower the spectral energy getting into the tank, such as surface cover or obfuscating the bulb. Liquid carbon does not deliver anywhere near the same levels of CO2 to the plant as gas injection does, so right off the bat you will be initiating a battle against CO2 related algae.

Cheers,

So basically what your saying is, no this in theory wont work or wont work full stop?, i don't plan on changing anything because now im even more curious to see if i can make this setup 'as it stands' work to the best of it's ability... if i fail i learn alot if i don't then i have a successful tank that looks and flourishes as i have imagined... win win situation .

However, could you elaborate on why it wouldnt work?..... what would be worse cause scenario and best case scenario? in your opinion.
The thing that i took hope from was George's little mountain scape which i think calculated at 5wpg or close with no CO2 ans doing what i was planning, he also has the same plants within the tank as i planed and setup similar but laid out different (if that makes sense).... is his success lead by him initially using pressured CO2 and then removing or is it something else?..... i know experience counts for alot and been able to read the plants and tank would help to source and avoid potential problems and i in no means consider my self anywhere near experienced in the planted field and nothing close to George himself but i always approach things in a manor of ..."if he can do it so can i" foolish maybe but a good approach to pretty much anything in life .

So yes elaborating a tad on questions above would be much appreciated

Thanks

 

[ceg4048]

OK, first of all, it just dawned on me that you have double posted. Be advised that double posting is considered an obnoxious transgression in forum protocol. Please refrain from double posting in future. I have merged all posts from the two topics.

Secondly, I was aghast when I encountered your comments in the redundant topic. It's probably very difficult from your point of view to grasp just how rude, selfish, petulant and infantile your statements are.

I'm going to assume for now that you are have not matured enough to realize that this particular question is actually a very difficult one to answer, and that not many people have attempted this procedure. There are several possible reasons why the question has had few responses and why some other topic has had multiple responses.

It is therefore not a good idea, from a "community harmony" standpoint to compare level of responses to your post with that of someone else's. It would be appreciated if you would refrain from this type of behavior.

In any case since we don't have a lot of Excel only experience, I'm sure most or all would be interested in the results of your attempt.

I'll now attempt to address to you additional questions in a separate post.

Cheers,

 

[JenCliBee]

Many appreciate your post's and even I have to stand back and note how well informed/knowledgeable you actually are in many area's but do you not realise how rude your statements are? and your general posting approach.... you just made a whole, quite lengthy post of my behaviour/attitude which i don't think was uncalled for nor malicious with a general underhanded bite and personal attack refer to me not been mature.

I will also suggest (politely) that your read the actual comment a little better..... i also said this

Ive asked 3 question over a week period and had total of 4 responses , little bit disappointed in the forum tbh with the lack of help but appreciate the 4 people that have helped.. so thankyou

Now the other questions i asked was quite simple and asked for information that many people WOULD know so please don't tell me the comments above that i made are only based on this thread and lack of response to it.....

There is no reason to be so blunt and sarcastic on the verve of each of your post been so dam right rude, you can get your point across without any of this and tbh i presume there would be many members that also think the same about your posting style and they would and you would benefit from been a little bit more warming with your responses.

 

[ceg4048]

Really!!, i thought the introduction of all the elements IE... injected CO2, EI dosing, High value substrate etc etc would have to be there to equate to been called a high tech setup?... I guess my interpretation was pretty much NONE CO2 would class as low tech lol... May i ask what the variables are to make a tank high tech/low tech (a little off topic so to speak but now actually curious lol)

The qualification of "high tech" has to do strictly with the enrichment of CO2, not with the level of equipment. The addition of CO2 accelerates the metabolism of the plants beyond that which is typically observed in natural systems, although, there are some systems where CO2 is released into the water column and where the metabolic rate of those plants is accelerated. Adding liquid carbon therefore qualifies as CO2 enrichment and the rules of high tech apply whereas the rules of low tech does not apply.

1. High tech tanks generally require increased levels of nutrition compared to low tech tanks.
2. High tech tanks typically can sustain higher lighting levels as a result of the added CO2.
3. Growth rates of plants in high tech tanks are typically 3X or more higher than in low tech tanks.
4. High tech tanks typically require greater levels of water changes as a direct result of high metabolic waste products generated by CO2 consumption. Low tech planted tanks don't actually require water changes at all.

Adding liquid carbon adds CO2 beyond that which is available naturally. The "technology" therefore is associated with adding CO2. Whether that technology is accomplished by pneumatic means or by chemical means is not important. It could even be argued that liqud carbon is a higher technology than pneumatic injection, which is actually a Victorian era technology.

So basically what your saying is, no this in theory wont work or wont work full stop?

No, this is not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that excessive lighting combined with poor CO2 is a bad combination and that your risk of failure is much higher, therefore, in order to lower the risk, a more rational approach is to lower the lighting energy. On the other hand, adding very high levels of liquid carbon may help, but since this product has toxicity issues you may incur tissue damage if dosed excessively.

The most difficult time for aquatic plants is their transition from a terrestrial environment to a submersed one. This happens because the terrestrial leaves are inefficient in water and during the transition food production can fail very easily.

CO2 is 10,000 time less soluble in water than it is in air so leaves grown and optimized for air struggle when flooded. The plant must make many adjustments to adapt to a much lower CO2 availability in water. Once the plant grows submersed leaves and makes the transition, and once their food reserves are built up they can prosper. High lighting during the transition stress the plants ability to produce food. This is called photoinhibition and can be fatal.

That is why i caution to use much less light in the beginning. That ought to be a priority.

Hope this clarifies.

Cheers,

 

[JenCliBee]

Really!!, i thought the introduction of all the elements IE... injected CO2, EI dosing, High value substrate etc etc would have to be there to equate to been called a high tech setup?... I guess my interpretation was pretty much NONE CO2 would class as low tech lol... May i ask what the variables are to make a tank high tech/low tech (a little off topic so to speak but now actually curious lol)

The qualification of "high tech" has to do strictly with the enrichment of CO2, not with the level of equipment. The addition of CO2 accelerates the metabolism of the plants beyond that which is typically observed in natural systems, although, there are some systems where CO2 is released into the water column and where the metabolic rate of those plants is accelerated. Adding liquid carbon therefore qualifies as CO2 enrichment and the rules of high tech apply whereas the rules of low tech does not apply.

1. High tech tanks generally require increased levels of nutrition compared to low tech tanks.
2. High tech tanks typically can sustain higher lighting levels as a result of the added CO2.
3. Growth rates of plants in high tech tanks are typically 3X or more higher than in low tech tanks.
4. High tech tanks typically require greater levels of water changes as a direct result of high metabolic waste products generated by CO2 consumption. Low tech planted tanks don't actually require water changes at all.

Adding liquid carbon adds CO2 beyond that which is available naturally. The "technology" therefore is associated with adding CO2. Whether that technology is accomplished by pneumatic means or by chemical means is not important. It could even be argued that liqud carbon is a higher technology than pneumatic injection, which is actually a Victorian era technology.

So basically what your saying is, no this in theory wont work or wont work full stop?

No, this is not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that excessive lighting combined with poor CO2 is a bad combination and that your risk of failure is much higher, therefore, in order to lower the risk, a more rational approach is to lower the lighting energy. On the other hand, adding very high levels of liquid carbon may help, but since this product has toxicity issues you may incur tissue damage if dosed excessively.

The most difficult time for aquatic plants is their transition from a terrestrial environment to a submersed one. This happens because the terrestrial leaves are inefficient in water and during the transition food production can fail very easily.

CO2 is 10,000 time less soluble in water than it is in air so leaves grown and optimized for air struggle when flooded. The plant must make many adjustments to adapt to a much lower CO2 availability in water. Once the plant grows submersed leaves and makes the transition, and once their food reserves are built up they can prosper. High lighting during the transition stress the plants ability to produce food. This is called photoinhibition and can be fatal.

That is why i caution to use much less light in the beginning. That ought to be a priority.

Hope this clarifies.

Cheers,

As Always an exceptionally informative post .... and actually very nicely put with nothing in the way of sarcasm (suits you much better ).

Right so what im understanding is..... if i lower the light level from the start (if the plants added are all emersed grown), let the plants make that initial transition and start to flourish i could potentially get away with such high light afterwards?... obviously the high light no matter at any time added, even after the transition will still be hard to maintain a good balance but it could actually work in my favour if i dosed enough to compensate for the plants over synthesising because of the high light and i get the dosing balance right but only if that mean's they are not overdosed on carbon to attain it?


Would this transition still occur to some level if i brought from either a member here that already had them in a submersed environment or brought from a shop/online etc which had them submersed or grown submersed?


Thanks again, just the info i was hoping to get ....

 

[ceg4048]

Many appreciate your post's and even I have to stand back and note how well informed/knowledgeable you actually are in many area's but do you not realise how rude your statements are? and your general posting approach.... you just made a whole, quite lengthy post of my behaviour/attitude which i don't think was uncalled for nor malicious with a general underhanded bite and personal attack refer to me not been mature.

I will also suggest (politely) that your read the actual comment a little better..... i also said this

Ive asked 3 question over a week period and had total of 4 responses , little bit disappointed in the forum tbh with the lack of help but appreciate the 4 people that have helped.. so thankyou

Now the other questions i asked was quite simple and asked for information that many people WOULD know so please don't tell me the comments above that i made are only based on this thread and lack of response to it.....

There is no reason to be so blunt and sarcastic on the verve of each of your post been so dam right rude, you can get your point across without any of this and tbh i presume there would be many members that also think the same about your posting style and they would and you would benefit from been a little bit more warming with your responses.

As i stated, there are many reasons for low response rate on particular posts. Forum protocol requires that if you have not had a sufficient response to your query, that you simply bump the thread by politely replying and asking for a response.

When you accuse the forum membership of inattentiveness and express dismay or disappointment that you have not received a response, it is demotivating, discourages some from actually responding, and it often triggers unproductive personal attacks in exactly the manner you now display. Even if it is not what you meant, this is the way it get interpreted.

If I'm blunt it's because I need to get the point across in no uncertain terms. It's OK if you dislike me or my methods. It's unfortunate, but I'll just have to get over it. I harbor no ill will, because this is a natural emotional response to admonishment and it's your opinion, which you absolutely are entitled to. However, please follow forum etiquette by refraining from double posting and by using the simple, non-accusative and polite bump method of requesting additional responses.

Cheers,

 

[JenCliBee]

Many appreciate your post's and even I have to stand back and note how well informed/knowledgeable you actually are in many area's but do you not realise how rude your statements are? and your general posting approach.... you just made a whole, quite lengthy post of my behaviour/attitude which i don't think was uncalled for nor malicious with a general underhanded bite and personal attack refer to me not been mature.

I will also suggest (politely) that your read the actual comment a little better..... i also said this

Ive asked 3 question over a week period and had total of 4 responses , little bit disappointed in the forum tbh with the lack of help but appreciate the 4 people that have helped.. so thankyou

Now the other questions i asked was quite simple and asked for information that many people WOULD know so please don't tell me the comments above that i made are only based on this thread and lack of response to it.....

There is no reason to be so blunt and sarcastic on the verve of each of your post been so dam right rude, you can get your point across without any of this and tbh i presume there would be many members that also think the same about your posting style and they would and you would benefit from been a little bit more warming with your responses.

As i stated, there are many reasons for low response rate on particular posts. Forum protocol requires that if you have not had a sufficient response to your query, that you simply bump the thread by politely replying and asking for a response.

When you accuse the forum membership of inattentiveness and express dismay or disappointment that you have not received a response, it is demotivating, discourages some from actually responding, and it often triggers unproductive personal attacks in exactly the manner you now display. Even if it is not what you meant, this is the way it get interpreted.

If I'm blunt it's because I need to get the point across in no uncertain terms. It's OK if you dislike me or my methods. It's unfortunate, but I'll just have to get over it. I harbor no ill will, because this is a natural emotional response to admonishment and it's your opinion, which you absolutely are entitled to. However, please follow forum etiquette by refraining from double posting and by using the simple, non-accusative and polite bump method of requesting additional responses.

Cheers,

I have no reason to dislike you as a person (pointless exercise that usually ends up been a none productive motivator to not take in your obvious knowledge), i dislike your sometimes seemingly arrogant tone to posting and i don't think there is the need so much to use it in this manner to get your response across, your information alone does this without the sarcasm and even sometimes know it all posting style.... that's sounds a little contradictive considering the info you give is what has been asked for... but i just mean in how it comes across, it's like what your saying is what we should already know and that's not how forums work... this probably isn't how you intend to come across but yet unfortunately this is how you do quite often.

Right enough of that side of it, i have no hard feeling's to you and despite everything i may have said i do really appreciate the responses and time given to help .

So please don't take what ive said to heart because i wont be with any of your comments, life is to short for all that

 

[ceg4048]

Yes, I agree that that it's an unproductive and unpleasant endeavour to bicker. Getting useful data so that you can be successful is the prime directive. As I mentioned, I do not hold any grudges and I'm happy to hear that you don't either. The Oracle instructs that there is only one way to get to the future - and that way is; together... 8)

OK, let's dive a bit deeper:

Right so what im understanding is..... if i lower the light level from the start (if the plants added are all emersed grown), let the plants make that initial transition and start to flourish i could potentially get away with such high light afterwards?... obviously the high light no matter at any time added, even after the transition will still be hard to maintain a good balance but it could actually work in my favour if i dosed enough to compensate for the plants over synthesising because of the high light and i get the dosing balance right but only if that mean's they are not overdosed on carbon to attain it?

Lowering the light at the initial phases of any tank is standard procedure because of this issue of transitioning from emmersed to submersed. It's essential in a high tech tank because so many would-be high techers have excessive lighting to begin with. Low tech tanks have exactly the same issue, but low tech tanks typically have lower PAR levels, or, at least, they should have.

In any case, a combination of obscuring the light and adding more Excel/Easycarbo will aid the transition, which is the first hurdle. After this is accomplished you have a much better chance of being able to increase the lighting, but again, as you yourself have stated, this is no guarantee because we really have no idea about what the PAR levels actually are. It really would be a matter of increasing the light incrementally and allow the plants to adjust slowly. If you have good control of the light, such as a dimmer, then there is a much better chance. In the absence of a dimmer, Dusko's approach of using floating plants such as frogbit to limit the spectral energy penetration can be utilized. Energy entry can be raised incrementally by removing a bit of the floating plants at a time, but this is much less controlled than a dimmer.

Again, I'll re-emphasize that adding more nutrients cannot compensate for inadequate levels of liquid carbon. Therefore nutrient levels will not be a problem if you dose per EI or PMDD+PO4 for example. That will avoid algae due to poor nutrition only. Getting to grips with CO2 via liquid carbon under the lighting conditions is the main theme.

Would this transition still occur to some level if i brought from either a member here that already had them in a submersed environment or brought from a shop/online etc which had them submersed or grown submersed?

Well, if you obtain plants that have been grown in a high CO2 environment i.e. pressurized injection, and then place them is a relatively low CO2 environment (i.e. exclusively liquid dosing) then you essentially have the same, or at least a similar problem. If you obtain plants that came from a low tech tank, then, placing them in your higher CO2 tank would potentially be a plus from their perspective. So really it's a lottery. I've sent plants to folks only to hear them tell me that they disintegrated. It's the same story, going from high CO2 ==> Low CO2 is a difficult transition -- unless the lower CO2 tank is dimly lit.

So I'm afraid you can't really avoid this problem because you have no mechanism to determine what combination of CO2+light the plant came from, and it's difficult even to quantify how much CO2+light you yourself have.

CO2 and Light are dance partners in the ballroom that is your tank, and they must move together in harmony, otherwise they trip over each other's feet.

Cheers,

 

[JenCliBee]

Cheers Clive, i actually picked the tank up last night and the light is actually the 24w bulb and not the 36w, the tank also works out at 17g so in think it gives around 1.4wpg which is far more reasonable.... so hopefully i wont have to much trouble now with the light .

All the info has been extremely helpful and very informative so, thankyou very much

Could i ask what your advice would be for dosing the tan?k, obviously taking your advice above in regards to letting the plants make the transition if they have been grown emersed.... i presume this would still be the best way to go no matter what light is above the tank? but what would be the TPN+ and easy carbo dosage while in transition? and what would be the advised dosage once they have settled?.

I was thinking 1 ml of TPN+ 3-4 times per week while in transition and once settled 1ml daily

easy carbo been 1 ml daily while in transition and then 2 ml daily once settled.

And then up the dosing of the ferts as and when they plants seem like they require it?

Would this be close to a good regime or am i way off lol

Thanks

 

[ceg4048]

Well, I don't really like to give dosing advice for a TPN+ user because this is another lottery. Like most Brand Name mixes this is very weak and success depends a lot on whether your tap water is high in NO3/PO4. If I had to depend on TPN+ alone then I'd probably do a daily dosing of double or even treble the bottle suggestion. The same goes for the EasyCarbo.

Again, I don't agree with the mindset of dosing less during a period where the plants are having difficulty assimilating nutrients/CO2 and then dosing more when the plants become more efficient at it. It's during this transition period when the plants need as much of everything they can get EXCEPT for light. Flooding a tank full of emmersed plants is traumatic, so we need have the mindset of a hospital emergency unit. We need to administer triage; high levels of everything - flow, CO2, nutrients, cleanliness.

It's ironic that because people are afraid of nutrients (either overtly or subconsciously), they unwittingly set up a pattern of behaviour where the tank system is damaged at the very beginning, and it sometimes never recovers. Hobbyists traumatize their plants with flooding, high light, poor flow, poor CO2 and non-dosing - and then wonder why they have algae and other problems.

Even at 24 watts, that is still a lot of light in the beginning for a 20G tank. Don't be fooled by a low WPG number because this number is meaningless. WPG does not grow plants. Plants (and algae) respond to PAR, and it's very possible that you'll have very high PAR because in a small tank, the distance from the bulb to the plant is very short, so there is little energy falloff. You'll be able to tell if there is too much initial light if you see the onset of a diatomic algae bloom.

It's only after the transition, if all goes well, that I would even consider lowering the dosing numbers. There are just so many variables that it's very difficult to predict.

Cheers,

 

[Radik]

Agree here above with ceg4048. I dozed EaseCarbo 2x recommended doze and only when I switched to pressurized Co2 I've seen what I've been missing when plants been constantly pearling and growth skyrocketed. So maybe 3x recommended doze would match to pressurized Co2? Not sure if it is safe though.

Same for any liquid fert at the beginning I was using recommended dozes but soon I figured out I have to triple dosage to fight deficiencies. I have to mention my tank is a jungle at the moment so it depends on your plant load.

 

[JenCliBee]

Well, I don't really like to give dosing advice for a TPN+ user because this is another lottery. Like most Brand Name mixes this is very weak and success depends a lot on whether your tap water is high in NO3/PO4. If I had to depend on TPN+ alone then I'd probably do a daily dosing of double or even treble the bottle suggestion. The same goes for the EasyCarbo.

Again, I don't agree with the mindset of dosing less during a period where the plants are having difficulty assimilating nutrients/CO2 and then dosing more when the plants become more efficient at it. It's during this transition period when the plants need as much of everything they can get EXCEPT for light. Flooding a tank full of emmersed plants is traumatic, so we need have the mindset of a hospital emergency unit. We need to administer triage; high levels of everything - flow, CO2, nutrients, cleanliness.

It's ironic that because people are afraid of nutrients (either overtly or subconsciously), they unwittingly set up a pattern of behaviour where the tank system is damaged at the very beginning, and it sometimes never recovers. Hobbyists traumatize their plants with flooding, high light, poor flow, poor CO2 and non-dosing - and then wonder why they have algae and other problems.

Even at 24 watts, that is still a lot of light in the beginning for a 20G tank. Don't be fooled by a low WPG number because this number is meaningless. WPG does not grow plants. Plants (and algae) respond to PAR, and it's very possible that you'll have very high PAR because in a small tank, the distance from the bulb to the plant is very short, so there is little energy falloff. You'll be able to tell if there is too much initial light if you see the onset of a diatomic algae bloom.

It's only after the transition, if all goes well, that I would even consider lowering the dosing numbers. There are just so many variables that it's very difficult to predict.

Cheers,

Thanks again for the response mate, sorry i misread what you meant on an earlier post.....

CO2 is 10,000 time less soluble in water than it is in air so leaves grown and optimized for air struggle when flooded. The plant must make many adjustments to adapt to a much lower CO2 availability in water. Once the plant grows submersed leaves and makes the transition, and once their food reserves are built up they can prosper. High lighting during the transition stress the plants ability to produce food. This is called photoinhibition and can be fatal.

I basically read it as all elements could cause the plants problems as you mentioned above.. from to much ferts and carbon aswell as to much lighting etc but after re- reading it seems that it simply isn't the case and the lighting seems to be the main factor above everything.

Seems that vigilance is the key and respond accordingly to problems occurring either before (if possible) or as quick as possible if something does happen to arise.

As to the depth of the tank and im not sure if this matters much but the tank is 16 inches high and the light sits another 4 ish inches above that so the light isn't as close to the plants as you might have been thinking been such a small tank... like i said im not sure if that matters?.

I think the best thing to do is still, from your advise.... is try lowering the light (will see if i can do something here), dose what i feel things are comfortable and then just monitor with the attention to the plants needing possibly more or less of any one thing... i guess the basis to most if not all planted tanks.


Thanks for all your help mate, think ive got enough to go on and hopefully will get some sort of journal up to monitor progress aswell as to continue getting advice along the way .

If there is anything else that you feel needs work on or i mat need a little more advice with please don't hesitate ...

Thanks again.

 

[JenCliBee]

Agree here above with ceg4048. I dozed EaseCarbo 2x recommended doze and only when I switched to pressurized Co2 I've seen what I've been missing when plants been constantly pearling and growth skyrocketed. So maybe 3x recommended doze would match to pressurized Co2? Not sure if it is safe though.

Same for any liquid fert at the beginning I was using recommended dozes but soon I figured out I have to triple dosage to fight deficiencies. I have to mention my tank is a jungle at the moment so it depends on your plant load.

That's for the help Radik, all help is appreciated