Hello
I am trying to convince someone of the 'excess nutrients' don't cause algae but getting nowhere. Can someone give me something to answer the following post on another forum as my science is not awesome and my theories will never convince anyone but those who know me and see my results. lol
I won't plaguerise it and will credit the poster before copying the
This is his post:
A lot of the waterways in Australia are stagnant pools, certainly for half the year they are, and that’s assuming they don’t dry up completely.
Most Asian plant farms don’t have filters on their plant ponds.
All the government departments that I know of are still blaming nutrients for algal problems in metropolitan waterways. They have plenty of scientists and lots of money to study the problem. And if nutrients like nitrates & phosphates aren’t causing the algal blooms in the rivers, then what is?
If algae is triggered by ammonia then why don’t all fish tanks have algae problems? Every aquarium has fish producing ammonia and the filters pick it up and convert it to nitrite and nitrate. The average aquarium has a slight trace of ammonia being produced continuously by the tank inhabitants and this level goes up after feeding, (albeit only for a short time). On the other hand, if the filters are working really well and getting rid of all the ammonia straight away, why do some tanks get serious algae problems even when they have a 0 ammonia reading?
Plants generally don’t grow in the middle of rivers because the water is too deep and not enough light gets to the bottom. The same applies to corals in the ocean. Most corals only grow in the shallows because that is where the light is. As you get into deeper water any corals that remain are plankton feeders and do not photosynthesise. There just isn’t enough light getting down to them in the deeper water.
The only fast flowing creek around here is full of a Potomageton sp. It lives in low light and shallow fast flowing water and doesn’t do well in tanks.
I am trying to convince someone of the 'excess nutrients' don't cause algae but getting nowhere. Can someone give me something to answer the following post on another forum as my science is not awesome and my theories will never convince anyone but those who know me and see my results. lol
I won't plaguerise it and will credit the poster before copying the
This is his post:
A lot of the waterways in Australia are stagnant pools, certainly for half the year they are, and that’s assuming they don’t dry up completely.
Most Asian plant farms don’t have filters on their plant ponds.
All the government departments that I know of are still blaming nutrients for algal problems in metropolitan waterways. They have plenty of scientists and lots of money to study the problem. And if nutrients like nitrates & phosphates aren’t causing the algal blooms in the rivers, then what is?
If algae is triggered by ammonia then why don’t all fish tanks have algae problems? Every aquarium has fish producing ammonia and the filters pick it up and convert it to nitrite and nitrate. The average aquarium has a slight trace of ammonia being produced continuously by the tank inhabitants and this level goes up after feeding, (albeit only for a short time). On the other hand, if the filters are working really well and getting rid of all the ammonia straight away, why do some tanks get serious algae problems even when they have a 0 ammonia reading?
Plants generally don’t grow in the middle of rivers because the water is too deep and not enough light gets to the bottom. The same applies to corals in the ocean. Most corals only grow in the shallows because that is where the light is. As you get into deeper water any corals that remain are plankton feeders and do not photosynthesise. There just isn’t enough light getting down to them in the deeper water.
The only fast flowing creek around here is full of a Potomageton sp. It lives in low light and shallow fast flowing water and doesn’t do well in tanks.