gda ?

IUnknown

Lifetime Members
Jan 23, 2005
61
2
8
The wait method didn't work for me either. I'm playing around with reducing the intensity of light in my tank. GDA is the only problem in my tank, no other signs of algae, and the plants are growing very healthy. I haven't tried excel, but I will try that next. I've been using a diatom filter and UV filter on my friday WC days. I've doubled my ferts to try to get the ammonia down. My red plants are turning green and the rest of the tank is growing like crazy.
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,699
786
113
Yes, reducing the lighting is a very good idea if you do not want explosive growth!!

Algae grows less also.
Some have suggested higher GH's.
Not sure.

I have several tanks and after inoculating them, some have it, some don't, some go a logn time without getting it also.

There's some other way to induce it other than light, that's been fairly constant in each of the 7 test tanks.

Plant biomass also is different in each tank, so there's a few things yet to learn about it.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

Patrice

Guru Class Expert
Jan 6, 2006
159
0
16
I'me late on this post but find it realy interesting.

Question: how does doing a full gda round is supose to make them not come back?
 

shane

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Nov 29, 2006
269
1
16
Ya, how does this "let the GDA do its thing" work? Do all the spores in the water attach to the glass and then you can scrape it off?
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,699
786
113
Zoospores are very resistent and tough, they have tails and can swim back after scraping them off.

If they reach maturity on the glass, then they produce "resting spores".
These are more like "seeds".

At this point the zoospores have "done their duty" and start to die and slough off.

Why might this alga have such a multistage life history? What advantages can you think of that would help this alga survive?

The zoospores can swim anywhere and land in an ideal spot and is able to detect light, it's got about less than a month to grow and produce a different spore that detects other conditions that signal a favorable place to germinate.

Figuring out a life history and the stages is important for management and control of weeds and pest. You can find out what induces it that way.

I have not found all the reasons for the inducement/germination.
High light seems to help, PC's, T5's etc, but not MH's.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

EssexPete

Prolific Poster
Aug 13, 2006
43
0
6
Billericay, Essex, UK
Tom Barr;12772 said:
I have not found all the reasons for the inducement/germination.
High light seems to help, PC's, T5's etc, but not MH's.

Regards,
Tom Barr

Tom
Are you saying that high light (from PC's, T5's etc) helps inducement/germination of GDA, whereas MH light does not?

I've only had GDA since I installed MH lights in August this year prior to that I had 19 yrs of GDA-free viewing.

Thanks
Pete
 

IUnknown

Lifetime Members
Jan 23, 2005
61
2
8
A little update on the tank. I've tried everything suggested to deal with the GDA. Lights are down to 8 hours a day and the pendant is now 10" from the surface of the water. So I bought some algae fix and I am going to nuke the tank. If the algae fix actually deals with the GDA, then when I stop using it, if the GDA returns, then it must be something wrong with my dosing schedule.


Well no luck the first week. I'm hoping the algae fix takes a couple of weeks to kick in, otherwise this algae is indistructable.
 

VaughnH

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Jan 24, 2005
3,011
97
48
88
Sacramento, CA
If my experience is any guide, once you do the full life cycle thing a couple of times, the GDA that does come back is very thin, slower growing, and not much problem to control by weekly glass wiping. Of course I'm not sure its the same species of algae as the classic GDA, but it looks the same, and is also accompanied by green fuzz on the plants as GDA often is. A few more months of being more concerned with algae than plants and I will look very hard at going with lower light and a more "natural" tank. First step will be to read Diana Walstad's book.
 

IUnknown

Lifetime Members
Jan 23, 2005
61
2
8
and not much problem to control by weekly glass wiping.

But we shouldn't have to do this. I'm pretty stubborn. If other people can do it, then I want to figure it out. Tom, any advice on a good algaecide? I just want to nuke the tank so I can see if it is something I am doing wrong.
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,699
786
113
But and simple notion, agicides simply will not stop the new growth.
Any and every control mangement issues revolves around this aspect.
You cannot escape this.
Same deal with weeds.

Most weed mangement methods do not address the biomass that's there so much, rather the life history of the weed.

And that's the problem with algicides, they are merely a quick fix.

I have about 12 tanks I deal with. They all have been inoculated at one time or another with GDA.

Some will get a slight inkleling here and there with some neglect and where sunlight strikes, and also........where the CO2 is not coming on for about 1 hour due to the long lines I have on 2 tanks.

Generally, staying on top of things for a couple of weeks, maybe doing some extra water changes etc can correct most issues, good cleaning/prunign really goes a long way, fluffing up the gravel a little, cleaning a neglected filter, being careful and hitting the glass every time you do a water change.

Rather basic stuff, some seem to skip this and expect their tank's algae issues to be a quick fix because for a few weeks/months etc, they did not have to do this. So they often figure they should not have to deal with some added work here and there, that there's some other way to beat it.

That is naive thinking.
ADA works their butts off to get things looking good, they stay on top of it, they tweak the ferts, the CO2 etc, they do a lot of cleaning.

Copper is not going to kill things and most every algicide you try that does kill the algae well, tends to kill the plants some as well, Excel is the exception but often at higher doses, it too will kill most plant tissue.

Now copper is good if you have nothing but Crypts, quite high levels work and can kill off most algae species. Crypts are very tolerant of copper, but very few plants are.

I have 12 tanks, none of them have issues with GDA, after doing the wait method, I have little issue these days. I have client tanks that never have had GDA issue, they have high light, good CO2, I wipe the glass every week good, no algae on the silicone, etc.

Try doing 2x week 80% water changes, clean very good, make sure there's ample CO2 before the lights come on and until they shut off.

Clean things very well. Stay on top of water changes/wiping.
Do this for a couple of three weeks, then slowly back off once plnt growth fills back in more and the tank settles down.

It takes about 1-3 weeks for most tanks to settle in after issues with various algae. Once stable again and growing well, the algae do not bother you nearly as much.

But some quick fix IME, never works for long.
Generally, the person fixed something else and attributes it to the algicide if the issue is long lasting.

GDA, GW, BBA, BGA, Hair algae are all annoying.
But they have weaknesses.......and you, as well as everyone has has long persistent issues with at least one or more of these algae.

A quick fix on any one of them and the folks you all here having issues with say BBA, are all linked. How many times have we seen a poor schulep insisting they are doing everything right only to later realize it was somethign else?

Hell, I screw up and spot things later after scratching my head, see the CO2 burnt me again thread recently.

I got a much worse case of GDA during that time.
Some tanks had no GDA though also.

I have more than one tank is my point and each tank has the same substrate(ADA AS), same filter, same water, same water changes, same lighting/time etc.

CO2 was about the only real variable I could see.
Some diffusers would start adding gas later than others, invariably, those tanks also had the GDA.

I think there is more too it than this, but that was fairly interesting.
I also noticed I got more GDA when I skipped water changes for a week as well.

In tanks with good biomass, good CO2, I seldom have any issues with GDA.
I've still had a somewwhat hard time inducing it, but the CO2 abnd sunlight trick is pretty consistent. So is not doing a water change for 2 weeks etc.

I'd pass on algicide, try workig the tank more, this will help the plant growth, watch the CO2(clean the diffuser often) and see what it does each day and different times.

This will help plant health no matter what.
Which is a good general way to beat algae.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

PatrikS

Prolific Poster
Jun 4, 2006
60
0
6
I had GDA, I waited 4 weeks, it turned really really grey, I wiped it of, it never came back. I had 3 x 11 w PC-light on a 35 litres tank. CO2 was supplied via mist: I let the bubbles be chopped by a powerhead. I wouldn't suggest wiping GDA off if its very dark green - wait a little more.

One thing I observed is that ottocinlus ate GDA with great pleasure! After wait-and-clean method, and upping the CO2, one of the two ottos starved to death... I would recommend adding a couple of ottos by second or third week of waiting.
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,699
786
113
I think perhaps the wait method, needs more waiting involved.
16-20 days may not be enough for some cases, might need 3-4 weeks.
Could be.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

IUnknown

Lifetime Members
Jan 23, 2005
61
2
8
Finally, first week with out GDA. It was the second week using algaefix. The only other changes I made from recommendations from other people are the following. Dosing schedule was
Po4- .5 ppm every other day
No3- 4 ppm every other day
Flourish - 5 mL every other day
Changed to
Po4- .25 ppm every other day
No3- 2 ppm every other day
Flourish- 3 mL every other day
Don't really think such a little change does anything personally. I set the Co2 to come on two hours before the lights come on. Maybe the algae was taking advantage of the light early on as the Co2 ramped up? I also replaced the filter floss when I did a good clean, assuming lots of GDA could build up in the floss. I'm going to run the algaefix for a couple more weeks and then see how it goes from there.

My cherry shrimp are being very patient during the whole process,

IMG_6786.jpg
 

IUnknown

Lifetime Members
Jan 23, 2005
61
2
8
I think it is kind of weird that the algaefix worked on the second week. Why would it not have worked the first week?

Tom, you brought up the 'Co2 turned up before the lights come on' suggestion. Does that really play a big role? How is your Co2 setup, solenoids with separate timers from the light timer?
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,699
786
113
Howdy, yes, I think it most certainly does.

Here's some observations:
I have 8 small tanks.
I had a CO2 gas tank slowly running out. Some of the diffusers ran fine with lower pressures, others did not.

You can guess the pattern of GDA.
The tanks that had funny CO2 and the diffusers that had a bit too much back pressure at the lower tank pressure.

But the other tanks, even with scrubbing with the extact same algae pad, directly transfered to the next tank, coated with fresh live GDA, never grew in those tanks.
Now I know the other tanks had the alga, but it would not grow, even with fresh live inoculum:eek:

Water changes, substrate(ADA AS, and one tank with ADA AS + PS), dosing, lighting, temp, all very similar.

After resolving the CO2, I've never had it again in the tanks, no algae fix required.

Now why could I not keep GDA prior????????????????
I could only keep it a week or two at most.

It always died off. But I had good CO2 then.
No wonder.

Other folks kept having issues, yet I could not grow the damn stuff.
The only differences I could figure: CO2.

I know I had the same nutrients/EI dosing etc, substrates did not matter, flourite, sand, ADA AS etc, no patterning there. Hard vs soft water? Naw, I have liquid rock and had it and other tanks had super soft water also.

Adding CO2 earlier, about 1 hour to 30 minutes prior, getting it going good and juicy before the lights go on, seems to help and starts the pearling asap.

To me, this is a good idea, it gets the most O2 production out of the light energy/electric sooner and prevents most algae from what I can tell.

But, the only factor is CO2 that would cause dramatic differences in the result near as I could predict. So I added more and stablized the levels, non lethal to shrimp and fish obviously.

Now the GDS is gone not in just one single tank, but 4 tanks!!
I lowered the CO2 again, Cladophora grows better and starts to take over I noted. After a few days, the GDA also pops up.

I recently(am still) started working on Cladophora.
It takes a serious beating whenn the CO2 is optimized and added early in the day before the lights come or starts adding CO2 very sooner there after.

Most CO2 systems take a little while before they start adding CO2 to the tank when the lights come, especially diffuser stones and small tank set ups etc with lower flow rates.

That CO2 delay allows the algae a window to grow when the plants are starved for CO2.

So the question now is, how much variation and at what level will the algae grow well in the tank? GDA? Cladophora?

That is why I am being very anal and interested in very precise CO2 measurements.

You need that type of accuracy to get the resolution to say that GDA will grow if the CO2 is varying between say(just an example) 5-20ppm in the first 2 hours of the tank lighting cycle. While most plants will still grow fine for the entire day and just be slowed for that initial 2 hours, the effect is still there and allows some species of algae to grow still.

This, in effect, lulls folks into thinking that the plants are fine(and they are) and they still have algae for some unknown reason even though they measure haphazardly their CO2 levels.

Now you can certainly take the approach and add plenty 1 hour before the tank lights come on and see how that affects growth of algae and plants, few will tell you that it does not help (But they tend not to have algae issues either, now plant growth issues).

Now think about CO2 for a moment.
I make the claim that 95% of the algae related issues are due to that or else something to do with NH4(about the other 3-4%). But still, most is CO2 related.

Think about how a plant growth very fast, under high light, under non limiting nutrients, then suddenly in the start of the day, you stop adding enough CO2, and the tank is low in CO2 to start with.

How might that impact new tip growth if there is not enough Carbon skeletons to make tissue?

Then later, you gets some CO2 and start to grow again?
Some plants may have issues with that 1-3 hour lull.
Other species may be fine and able to regulate their growth without bad appearances.

Another example of CO2 related growth problems is Java fern with a mixed batch of plants. Say a Myriophyllum matogrossense and high light. The java fern demands a lot of CO2 under high light. So does the Myrio, but the Myrio has far more surface area for the same dry weight biomass as the java fern.

So it's a lot more efficient and a better competitor for CO2.
Thuis if you run the CO2 at a slightly lower than optimal level, the expression of poor growth, blackening of the leaves, etc will be expressed 1st in the java fern, while the Myrio will grow just fine and dandy.

Now lower the CO2 a tad more. Now you will see a worsing effect on the java fern, perhaps BBA. Now look at the Myrio! It's starting to see the effects and becomes fragile and whitish, the stems start to fragment (and hopefully flow downstream and fine a better location for growth, this is like seed dispersal almost).

My point is that there are various grades/transitions of CO2 levels when we have higher lighting.

You have less flexibilty.

Mainly with CO2, as it's the lion's share of the plant's uptake and one of the most ephemeral..........

So in a low light tank, repeat the above with the Myrio abnd java fern. You will have a much harder time seeing the differences between things as you lower the CO2, the demand is for CO2 is now much less.

Thus a myth is born.

See next post for more.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,699
786
113
Why is it that folks claim Anubias and Java fern are low light plants?
They can tolerant low light.

But they do fine at very high light also. Folks sometimes fail with them there though.

Now is it because the plants do not like high light really? Or is it that we are not adding enough CO2 relative to the other more CO2 tolerant plants?

I'd have to say the latter because I can gow java just fine under a 250 MH light (550 micromols of light at the leaf tips- about 7-8 w/gal of PC equilvalency) when I have plenty of CO2. If I lower the CO2? Blackened leaves.

The good thing about high light is more for experimental issues, it allows me to determine how much, how fast and destbalized things/relationshiops that we might otherwise miss at lower light.

Same with algae.
Taking what I learn from the higher light, I apply it to the lower light for confirmation and I see the results, although they are slower, they do occur in virtually every case, I even tried this with non CO2 planted tanks, it works extremely well.

So while we often assume our CO2 is great, KH related issues(now can be solved with a lab certified KH reference solution), tannins, ADA AS, driftwood, etc can play havoc on that assumption and often does..............

....there are time related issues as well and a gradation of CO2 levels.

So there's the issue of: 1) Adding enough CO2 right as the light come on.
2) Making sure every plant is getting enough CO2 for a given light intensity.

I think if you do this and dose simple EI, perhaps do more frequent water changes/larger %, you will dramatically improve the horticulture and get away from algae issues althogher.

Then you focus on plant-plant interactions.
Such as competing for CO2, which definitily does happen along with nutrients in natural systems. But adding EI resolves that and provides non limiting conditions there. So the CO2 and light are all that are left really.

CO2 can be varied and see the impacts fairly easily.
But good measurement is still key.

CO2 is 40-45% of the dry weight biomass, N and the others are no more than 1-1.5%, so the changes there make large changes in the pheotypic morphological expression in the plants, and upset that balance we have in the tanks, thus algae have an opportunity.........

I think many folks believe we know everything about CO2 and that all this is for not at the end of the day, but the understanding about CO2, the passion I have going after it like I am is well founded.

It has explained a lot more than any other so called alternatives.
Even if one does not believe so right now, the focus will help optimize CO2 more and more and allows better results whether you attribute it to the CO2 or not.

There is a very practical side to it.
It either works, or it doesn't.

Rather than looking merely at the algae, try also looking more at the plants, are they doing what you think they should/could?

When they do, most all of the species of algae go away.
So you can go back and pretuerb the systems one variable at a time and see.

Was it really the algefix(let us be very specific here, this product is simply copper sulfate, one of the oldest algicides and herbicides known and used) or was it the CO2?

I did not use algae fix, I do not have GDA now either.
So algae fix alone does not explain it.
CO2 does explain much much more.
I think the wait approach is less valid thinkign this through, but it liely works because the life stage is less tough at that point and hopefully folks added a bit more CO2 etc and changed things there during the wait.

Not sure, but getting GDA with out lower CO2 during that 1st part or low in general is extremely tough even with live inoculum, where it's easy to induce with the low CO2/varying it etc.

I'm less concerned about algaicides.
They really never induce any species fo algae I am aware of, and when you can control new growth, you got any algae licked and do not need to waste your time with algicides/testing/paying for them etc.

The root of the problem rather than the band aid approach.


Regards,
Tom Barr
 

IUnknown

Lifetime Members
Jan 23, 2005
61
2
8
Thanks for the informative post Tom. After doing planted tanks for five years, there is still so much to learn, and I always manage to miss the small details.

I'd have to say the latter because I can gow java just fine under a 250 MH light (550 micromols of light at the leaf tips- about 7-8 w/gal of PC equivalency) when I have plenty of CO2. If I lower the CO2? Blackened leaves.

I notice the same thing happening with my Anubias.

I remember going to Erik's open house and having the feeling that he was keeping something secret about how he managed to grow his plants so well. I remember on his 75 gallon thinking that it was really weird that he had Co2 blowing all around the tank. I had thought that it was visually unappealing, but now understand that plants grow better that way.

So maybe rather than recommending the wait method, we should also make sure people are running Co2 a couple hours before the lights turn on.
 

VaughnH

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Jan 24, 2005
3,011
97
48
88
Sacramento, CA
A couple of hours before the lights come on sounds about right to me. I have mine come on an hour before, and it still takes at least an hour for it to build up to the level I want after the lights come on. I will change my timers accordingly. Please, don't ask me why I have been hesitant to do so before - beats the heck out of me???
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,699
786
113
IUnknown;13816 said:
Thanks for the informative post Tom. After doing planted tanks for five years, there is still so much to learn, and I always manage to miss the small details.

I notice the same thing happening with my Anubias.

I remember going to Erik's open house and having the feeling that he was keeping something secret about how he managed to grow his plants so well. I remember on his 75 gallon thinking that it was really weird that he had Co2 blowing all around the tank. I had thought that it was visually unappealing, but now understand that plants grow better that way.

So maybe rather than recommending the wait method, we should also make sure people are running Co2 a couple hours before the lights turn on.

Exactly.

It's good you have become more pragmatic and wise about such simple things like CO2. I know there that are out there that are not humble enough to see this.
In time, (not sure, everyone is different there), they too will figure it out if they continue to pursue it with enough passion.

But there is a great deal we do not know yet, you are most certainly correct.
Things I thought "experts" knew really where not even scratching the surface.

Yep, we all miss small details, we are all human and we all over look things.
that's why we go back and try and make it simpler, remove our assumptions carefully etc.

Step by step we get closer.
But then once you attain the understanding, that opens up a whole new area of questions.

I've accused science of being more complexing the more you know, thus you realize you know less at the end of the day than when you started. You learn and answered 1 question only to find 5 more took it's place.

You have to ask crazy questions sometimes to get away from normal lines of thinking. You have to go back and measure things carefully, precisely and over various time scales.

I think given the empheral nature of CO2, that fact it's 40-45% of the plants dry weight, a lot more focus for aquatic horticulturist should be placed on knowing everything we can about it.

You can go from 30ppm to 3ppm or less inside 1 hour in many tanks.
Try this sometime. Try that with 10ppm of NO3 or 20ppm of K+. Plants have a little reserve back up, but not that much compared to N, P or K. There's just so much more demand for CO2 than anything else, where would they store it?

Well, for giant hygro, the large adult leaves closest to the apical meristem are cannibalized for carbon. The lower leaves are unaffected and the apical meristem will stunt a little, but recovers.

If you keep the CO2 lower, the plant gets much smaller apical meristems and the leaves are much smaller.

Nutrients on the other hand are fairly easy and straight forward in most respects to control. They have complex issues as well, but for general growth, algae issues, stunting and so forth, CO2 is really the key player.

Good you see this and relate what Erik was doing with the CO2.

Add as much CO2 as you can when the lights are on.
That's pretty simple.

We do not need any CO2 when the lights are off, so adding a bunch right before the lights come on, then about 30 min before they go off is ideal.

Note your plants that tend to get algae over time, does algae now colonize the newer leaves at the same rate?

Is algae like Cladophora, GDA a problem any longer?

Not for me.
I do not think Erik nor myself really realize how important some of the things we have done, nor Amano.

Only by going back and repeating the test on purpose do you see many of the things and can say with more confidence what is likely going on. But nothing is 100% for sure. Even then, you might be wrong, but you are less likely to be wrong than just by observation alone.
So given those choices, I'll take the the testing any day.

I think one main thing to always focus on and keep in one's sights: what makes a plant grow better and how might we measure it?

Plants grow due to light, CO2 and nutrients. That's it.
Measuring it without destroying the plants: namely dissolved O2 meters/test kits.

So using those as the basis helps keep things in the sights.

Plants only use CO2 during the light peroid.
Higher light=> faster growth=> more CO2 demand=> more likely to see expression of growth related issues and have a more significant difference in data over time.

I do not have 6-12 months to maintain stable conditions, I have 3 weeks.
I cannot maintain things at a very high level, be critical and stable for much longer than that, I slack off.

Once I know what happens at 800 micro moles of light, slowing it down to 150 micromol allows me to make a model based prediction.
Such predictions work, and they work amazingly well.

CO2 uptake and supply is critical, and folks have so much more light today and thus, they also have to focus more on CO2 as result.

Note Amano's suggestions, crank the CO2, not much light for the 1st few hours, they he cranks it but only for 3 hours or so, then the light goes back down.

That allows plenty of CO2, and it builds up fairly high, and the CO2 gets used for that peak period.

Now Amano will not tell you this, likely because his approach is more trial and error and he thinks it's something else etc and will say something relating to natural systems. Anyone that talks to him will not get any science, but you will get a smile. But he, near as anyone that's met and talked with him, is no scientist, plant physiologist by any stretch.

Horticulture is not nature.
It might be used to invoke nature, but it's not nature.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

fishyio

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Apr 29, 2006
10
0
1
Waiting Method

For what it's worth I'd like to confirm the wait method worked for me by default.

I suddenly developed green algae on the glass a few weeks ago and over a couple of days the contents of the tank disappeared from view. I scraped off the algae and did a water change, but after 2 days it was as bad as before - never seen it so bad or so rapid to develop. Due to commitments I couldn't attend to the tank till 2 weeks later, that is today.

This morning the tank was looking greeeen, but as I advanced towards it tonight with the algae scraper I was amazed to discover I could see the fish and the back of the tank once more, it's about 95% gone I'd say.:)

Glad I visit this site, or I would swear the tank had been cleaned while we were out today, by a burglar who is also an aquarium enthusiast.