[APD] RE:Substrates

["Thomas Barr" <tcbiii at earthlink_net>]

Tom wrote:
> >Adding more nutrients to the substrate will
>> not force plants to grow faster.
 
>Thomas, I think know why you said this because growth may be limited by CO2
>or by lack of another nutrient. Also more than adequate growth rates can be
>attained using only NO3 in the water and you desire a simple regime
suitable
>for newbies.
 
Or the max uptake is at the limit.
Growth/assimilation takes time.

As far as what's best for newbies:
I look at each one different. They have different goals, I try to tailor my
advice to each newbie's situation.
I try, but might not succeed always, to do this.

>We should be cautious about saying that hydroponic regimes (excepting Fe)
>are just as good as geoponic (substrate fertilization) at producing high
>growth.

Yes, I have done something better:
RFUG's are inert except for bacterial films(we will assume they do not play
a role, but they certainly do IMO). I used these for about 10 years with
plants and grew most all the plants folks normally keep(200+ ssp).
Since reluying on the water column is the only source of nutrients, one
really can gauge the relative effects of dosing something to substrate in a
semi controlled manner.
 
>Recall from our recent messages, the C blassii grown in the deep soil
>substrate was much larger (28") than the hydroponic ones (18") you
>mentioned. Of course final size is not the same as growth rate but still
>desirable. You didn't mention if 18" was the maximum size attained. Tank
>size & competition are confounds too.
 
The tank was a 55 gal, low light 1.6w/gal, CO2, lots of crypts, dosed
weekly. 
The plant got 18" before I pruned it. It would have gotten bigger.

>My understanding is that scientific research tends to support better growth
>with N & P in the substrate. Here is what Dr Dave wrote to me in 1996:
 
And in nature, this might be true.
BUT, sunlight is a lot more intense than anything we have.
CO2 is not added to the natrual systems either.

These two major changes dramatically alter this comparsion.
Ignoring that is a large oversight.

Reduced light/more CO2 changes the mode of assimilation and uptake.

" Preference for root uptake of P and N:
 
"In a landmark paper published in Science 207: 987 to 989 (1980) two
Canadians by the name of Carrignan and Kalff clearly demonstrated that
rooted aquatic plants will absorb the majority of P from the sediment EVEN
UNDER HYPEREUTROPHIC CONDITIONS! This was the first paper which
unambiguously showed the preference of aquatic plants for sedimentary P."

And I have Dutch/Danish research showing something else from Freshwater
Biology 2001.
They chopped then roots off just in case.
Growth rates were the same.
 
I also have lots of tropical and substropical shallow lakes WITH
macrophytes that shows plant biomass increases with additions of PO4 to the
water column and no shifts to an algae dominated system.  
I do not doubt Dave's data/conclusions for that system they studied, but
the application directly to aquariums does not fit the observations I have
seen and this includes natural systems here in Florida.

Sub/tropical shallow lakes with plants, that's pretty close to what outr
tanks are like.

"Nitrogen studies are somewhat less clear, mainly because N is so difficult
to work with. Nichols and Keeney, Fresh.Biol.6:145 to 154 were perhaps the
first to indicate that rooted aquatic plants acquire the
majority of N from the sediment. After that was an excellent study by Barko
and Smart. They turned the question around somewhat and asked "which
nutrients can be left out of the water". Their results clearly showed that N
was not needed in the water column for optimal growth. I asked the same type
of question in a paper published in 1982 and came up with the same result
(Huebert and Gorham (Aquatic Bot. 16: 269 to 283). These experiments, and
several others, indicated that with a fertile substrate the only nutrients
required in the water column are Ca, Mg, K and of course CO2 (I must admit,
though, that the evidence for micronutrients is scant and it is in fact
likely that water column additions of micronutrients is a good strategy ...
though my swords and Sagittaria are completely indifferent to whether or not
I add micronutrients) Little work has been done since the mid eighties since
the dozen or so published studies were fairly clear in their results and
there is not much money for this type of research (its also difficult and
time consuming)."


 
"On the other side of the coin, there have been a plethora of studies
which indicate clearly that rooted aquatic plants will not grow optimally on
a sand or other infertile substrate no matter how richly you fertilize the
water column (perhaps the earliest is by Pond, 1905)"

Some plants. 
 
>Thomas, you've also mentioned good CEC as a desirable quality of Fluorite.
>You must feel there is a benefit to having nutrients attached to those
>binding sites. Note that the highest CEC is from organic material: peat
>(100-150) or humus (200 cmol/Kg)."

Yep.
 
>BTW, I never try to FORCE my plants to do anything. They are completely
>?indifferent to my begging, pleading or threats. I'm sure they do not
>appreciate anthropomorphic comparisons. How uncivilized of them! I prefer
to
>think that they do like gentle encouragement & praise. ;-)
 
>Teban (too many Steves around here lately)

Regards, 
Tom Barr



_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/aquatic-plants