[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Benefits of planted tank for fish?
Hello all,
Please excuse me if this question has an obvious answer. I
searched the archives to no avail. It will probably be
obvious as you read that I am indeed a newbie when it
comes to fish and aquatic plants.
I got interested in keeping aquatic plants when I read that
they would provide my fish with a better environment. The
things I read implied that the plants would suck up toxic
fish wastes like NO3. Thus plants take in fish waste
products -> fish waste products tend towards zero ->
happier, healthier fish -> happier fish keeper.
From reading the APD for the past 8 months or so, I've
gathered that for aquatic plants to do well and to control
algae outbreaks, the plants' nutrients need to be in a
range; NO3 specifically should be kept around 10ppm. To this
end, many ADD KNO3 to their tanks.
I assume that many who add KNO3 to their tanks also keep
fish in those tanks. From this I conclude that regular NO3
concentrations of around 10ppm must be something that fish can
thrive in. (Is this correct, BTW? I understand that it would
depend on the fish, but generally speaking?)
So, from a fish's benefit perspective, if plants aren't kept
to get NO3 down to negligible levels, why are they kept? Is
it because they increase the amount of dissolved oxygen? Or
perhaps they provide some stability to the water chemistry?
BTW, I am not questioning whether or not plants DO provide a
benefit for fish. Having added some java ferns, water
sprite, and Mr. Loh's christmas moss to my low light,
non-CO2 injected tank, it is apparent to me that my fish are
'happier'. Its the WHY that I am wondering about.
Thanks in advance for your help.
T. =8)