Well understanding each part and the rates to achieve a goal is important.
Carry on and on about just one aspect, say nutrients, is foolish. Whole plant responses are more than mere nutrient physiology alone.
These can be explored but taking it with the context of light and CO2 in critical manner really let you see what affects occur when you go to these extremes, whether they be nutrients, light or CO2.
Unfortunately, many folks simply have not done this and seem to ignore or only give minor credence and lip service without actually having done it.
I tend to very synthetic and
a posterior in my approach. See Kant for more references there.
So unless you experience it, it's difficult to broaden the mind and see if such things are really what they appear to be or not. Having varied lighting and various set ups over the years, I've found out a lot about lighting.
Likewise, I am obsessive about CO2, more so than about anyone else.
Nutrients are just part of the picture.
Still you need to have them stable when you approach the other issues, Likewise for the nutrient exlporations, you musty have a good ahndle on the other lighting/CO2 to have good observations.
Too many aquarist do not have these down packed. so they are lead to believe the wrong thing when they have issues.
Once you master one part and make some safe assumptions, then you start exploring the upper and lower ranges of CO2/light and can see how these affect the RGR of many plant species.
Mistakes can become useful as you know what happens when you run off of CO2, or do not dose for a week, or add too much light, or do not add mulm from the start or enough plants.
You start to figure out why and have a nexus of information that explains why aquatic plants grow and why algae grows.
I've been at that stage several years ago, but I'm learning a lot more and have much further yet to go yet.
As you learn more, you have larger questions and such trite arguments as to a nutrient dosing routine being better or worse is inconsequential as long as they some how supply enough nutrients for a given rate of growth.
Getting someone else to see this and acknowledge it is tough.
So what drives such gowth besides the nutrients? How is CO2 accurately and decisively measured?
PPS does not talk about that. Nor does PPS measure the lighting, just responds to it.
You can rapidly figure out who is really looking into things deeply and critically and re evaluating methods and assumptions, not just hyping their own method, I have many and can use everyone well. It gets back to each person's goals and habits. That allows me to help anyone with any method.
I do ask them to look at the trade offs to achieve their goal, but this is much more fair critical look rather than hype.
I've actually done the test and explore these ranges from near nothing to toxic levels if I could find them (without just being plain silly). I've not met anyone really in the hobby than thinks and approaches things to that extent.
I knowe of no one that has a PAR meter, nor an O2 meter other than George Booth and myself.
Two of the most basic things needed to do evalutions for aquatic plant growth.
I have a crotchety prof that teaches the Advanced Crop Physiology graduate course here at UC Davis. I made a very good arguement and he agreed with me about aquatic plants and roots and allocation of resources based on environmental changes. Other papers got ripped to shreds in the class, not mine
He found it very interesting to use Aquatic plants as a model for resource allocation/partioning.
He agreed with me and I agree with him. Ole and Troels from Tropica also, the folks at IFAS also. UCSB as well.
The researchers I've met over the years have all seemed very responsive and encouraging to the hypothesis I've presented about aquatic plant growth.
I did get ripped good when discussing Allelopathic chemicals and periphyton when I used some the data from Diana's book. The tabkle used no concentrations, used no hard data, yes + and -'s. Look at the editor listying there, George Bowes was the person that rip me, and he seems to know more about aquatic plants in terms of phyisology than anyone I've met to date. I had to admit he was right, I did come with a good response after the talk was over
Hate that.
Regards,
Tom Barr
Regards,
Tom Barr