Balance and lighting
To: aquatic-plants at actwin_com
Subject: Balance and lighting
From: "shaji (s.) bhaskar" <bhaskar at bnr_ca>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 11:10:00 -0400
X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2)
X400-Received: by mta bnr.ca in /PRMD=BNR/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/C=CA/; Relayed; Tue, 10 Oct 1995 14:59:59 -0400
X400-Received: by /PRMD=BNR/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/C=CA/; Relayed; Tue, 10 Oct 1995 14:59:22 -0400
X400-Received: by /PRMD=BNR/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/C=CA/; Relayed; Tue, 10 Oct 1995 11:10:00 -0400
In message "Aquatic Plants Digest V1 #", you write:
>From: krandall at world_std.com (Karen A Randall)
>Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 22:41:54 -0400
>Subject: Re: Balance and lighting
>You will _always_ have problems if light. CO2 and nutrients are
>not in balance. In this sense, you certainly can have "too much"
>of any of them.
Karen balance is a term for which I have no good definition, and given
my science background, I just *have* to ask.
From what you say above, balance seems to be some function of light,
CO2 and nutrients. Also from what you say above, balance is
apparently not the same as "long-term, trouble-free growth of plants".
Do you have a more precise definition?
Is balance to you a yes/no proposition (i.e., either there is balance,
or there isn't)? If so, how do we determine from a set of conditions
(light, CO2, nutrients) whether we have balance or not?
Or, are there different degrees of balance? if there are degrees of
balance, how can we compare one set of conditions (light, CO2,
nutrients) with another and say which of the two is better?
How does "out of balance" as a function of light, CO2 and nutrients
translate to "problems"?
The above are hard questions with no perfect answers. I'm hoping that
a discussion of the issues involved will help us come up with some
sort of guidelines about what combinations of light, CO2 and nutrients
go well together, and why. It would be even better if we could also
explain what is likely to happen when we deviate from this optimum
mix, and why.