[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Aquatic Plants Digest V2 #224
:
>
> Aquatic Plants Digest Saturday, 28 September 1996 Volume 02 : Number 224
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: "David W. Webb" <dwebb at ti_com>
> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 15:52:05 -0500
> Subject: Re: Airstone anathema
>
> >From: Elizabeth Worobel <eworobe at cc_UManitoba.CA>
> >
> >To suggest that airstones are somehow 'bad' for aquatic plants is wrong,
> >wrong, wrong (to repeat a recent post)! There is clear research which
> >indicates that photosynthetic rates in aquatic plants increase with
> >increased rates of aeration ... the reason is that increased aeration
> >increases water movement and therefore decreases the thickness of the
> >boundary layer. It is this boundary layer which is the limiting step in
> >CO2 acquisition so the thinner it gets, the faster the uptake of CO2.
>
> The research I've read indicates that water flow increases photosynthetic
> rates, not aeration per-se. It's relatively easy to set up a tank with
> plenty of water flow to decrease boundary layer thickness without using
> aeration. Dupla recommends a swirl-pattern with a vertical axis down the
> midpoint of the tank. I've done this on two tanks now and get very good
> plant growth with very little surface interaction and no aeration. Plans
> for this type of system are on the Krib for viewing.
>
> >Airstones also do not 'drive' off CO2 ... they will equilibrate all the
> >gases in the tank to atmospheric levels, nothing more, nothing less. This
> >idea likely got started by proponents of CO2 injection who couldnt stand
> >to see their CO2 levels drop even slightly ... in fact in most cases CO2
> >injection is unnecessary.
>
> Since in an aquatic system without a great deal of surface interaction, CO2
> levels tend to build up to higher levels than if aeration, waterfalls, etc.
> are introduced, it can be argued that aeration does drive off CO2. The
> point of discrepancy lies in what's considered 'normal'.
>
> >There are only two instances where it is
> >beneficial ... the first is when there is a daily fluctuation in pH which
> >indicates that the demand for CO2 by the plants exceeds the abil
> >ity of the water to absorb it (of course in this case aeration will also
> >work) ... the second is when growing plants which are unable to utilize
> >bicarbonate (about half of aquatic plants have this ability).
>
> In your first case, aeration will help. CO2 injection will help a lot
> more. CO2 injection will also prevent biogenic decalcification in tanks
> like mine that don't get frequent water changes.
Why would aeration help? From what I've read, aeration tends to
raise pH (though I haven't yet read an explanation as to why) and
pH fluctuation in a plant tank already means a rising ph in the
day. Could you explain this one a little more fully? Thanks!
>
> David W. Webb Enterprise Computing
> Texas Instruments Inc. Dallas, TX USA
> (972) 575-3443 (voice) MSGID: DAWB
> (972) 575-4853 (fax) Internet: dwebb at ti_com
> (972) 581-2380 (pager) Text Pager: dwebb at ti_com Subj:PAGE
>
>
> ------------------------