[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: high/low light tank balance issues
- To: <Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com>
- Subject: Re: high/low light tank balance issues
- From: Thomas Barr <tcbiii at earthlink_net>
- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:53:47 -0500
- In-reply-to: <200302131039.h1DAdU3Y001363 at otter_actwin.com>
- User-agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
> it a 90 gallon with 3.5w/gal.
> Tom, it's nothing you actually add but more of a connection to the
> aquatic plant collective unconscious that does the trick.
There is no collective. It's just a trumped up conspiracy by "The Man"
trying to keep a good plant grower down:)
>> But some twisted people like me did well at 1.5 to 2 watts a gallon on
>> a ten
>> gallon tank while other will claim nothing less than 5 w/gal did it
>> for them
>> on a 10 gal.
> Well, maybe there is something here. Why I would have luck with
> basically the same nutrients levels moving from 3+ wpg to 5+ wpg while
> you can grow just fine at lower light levels? Is it possible that
> higher light levels are opening different metabolic pathways?
Possible yes, but in this context very unlikely with this plant.
Recall some background on this plant: where's it from? The eastern USA, cool
waters etc. Dutch tanks with 1.5 to 2w/gal used this plants often in their
designs in the past along with other old timer plants.
Cooler temps may help but I've done well at higher temps also.
> another way, if my nutrient levels were less than ideal at 3wpg why
> would increased lighting fix the problem? Or maybe that I was
> overdosing something whose uptake rate became fast enough under higher
> light to get it to a good, non-blocking level (maybe K+?)
Naw. You can adjust things and standardize them relatively easily. Big water
changes, using teaspoon and ml measurements,2-3x a week etc get everyone on
the same page.
The effects of adding more light become clearer when this is done.
> Absolutely not, but I think a fruitful line of questioning would be
> what I mentioned above; what are you adding and I am not (or adding too
> much) that higher light levels are somehow compensating for?
Folks ask this all the time.
But you see it everyday, I tell folks to do the same old tihning I've been
doing all along.
Big water changes, nutrients, good CO2(D diandra hates poor CO2 levels IME),
lots of plants, good pruning, adding enough herbivores, having a good fish
It does seem to do better in cooler softer water.
>> High light has made the narrowing of the ranges of good plant growth
>> better IMO. Then this same knowledge can be applied to the lower light
>> with great results.
> Right. So with your new 800wpg tank we should have proper N-P-K levels
> down to 5 or 6 significant digits, right? :)
Few folks have kits that are even good to 1 digits like for NO3 and worse
I'd be happy with a reg water change and adding the KNO3 like I tell them
to, CO2 at 20-30ppm. Basic things.
I have a science background but I it's quite tempered with practical DIY
experience before I got into the science.
> Jeff Ludwig