I agree with your points above. Perhaps plants don't have a "stop" signal as much as they have a "don't start" signal. My conclusion that healthy plants tell algae to not grow (is it called alleleopathic compounds?) is due to observing how healthy plants mostly do not grow algae, but one sick plant or sick leaf in an otherwise healthy tank will grow algae, or seeing algae growing on rocks and decorations in well-lit areas but not on the plants in the same area. I have to ask why algae won't grow on those plants, or why it suddenly decides to grow on another plant.
algae in a month old tank
- Thread starter ramis
- Start date
No one has ever found an "allelopathic compound" secreted by an aquarium plan. People have tried, but with no success. Tropica scientists concluded that there is nothing there to find.
An actively growing leaf will be depleting the nutrients at the surface of the leaf. An unhealthy leaf won't be doing that, and if it is dying, it may be releasing a tiny bit of ammonia. That may be one factor.
An actively growing leaf will be depleting the nutrients at the surface of the leaf. An unhealthy leaf won't be doing that, and if it is dying, it may be releasing a tiny bit of ammonia. That may be one factor.
Do you think that's the only reason why algae won't grow on healthy plant leaves? I would think it would be a perfect spot - lots of light and a host to sap nutrients from. If the plant can be getting enough nutrients from the water circulation to live, certainly algae living on the surface of a plant leaf could be even if you take into consideration the plant's intake of nutrients. For instance there are plants growing very near the outflow of my hob. The plants are 100% algae free, but the filter itself has algae on it. The water is rushing so fast that I'm sure a tiny decrease in the amount of nutrients near any given leaf would not be enough to convince algae not to grow there. There must be another reason?
The other thing is that you can have substrate in nearly the same location as a dying leaf and it can be growing NO algae, but the dying leaf has algae all over it. There is waste breaking down in the substrate, probably giving off a whole lot more ammonia than that one dying leaf, why doesn't it grow on the substrate AND the leaf? Why pick the leaf?
The other thing is that you can have substrate in nearly the same location as a dying leaf and it can be growing NO algae, but the dying leaf has algae all over it. There is waste breaking down in the substrate, probably giving off a whole lot more ammonia than that one dying leaf, why doesn't it grow on the substrate AND the leaf? Why pick the leaf?
im interested to know, so how is this tank faring at the moment? i also have a non-CO2 shrimp-only tank.. i am researching all the info i can get to make my tank healthy and problem-free.. TIA
redcaptrio;25336 said:
Thank you for your interest. Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier, was just busy a work. I started doing weekly 50% water changes and dosing excell along with EI dosing for excell method. I try removing algae almost every week, but it still grows on all older leaves, only new leaves are algae free. I think I only don't have algae on my flame moss. Plants do grow, but not very fast.Brown algae is mostly gone, but I think I have BBA and some green spot algae on plants. My light is not very high, it is 28W on a 20 Gal tank, so it's only 1.4w/gal
I have included pictures of my tank, so you can see how everything looks.
The leaves that have algae are probably getting algae due to not being healthy, that is, algae is a symptom, not a cause. Your low light levels may not be enough to reach the lower/older leaves and keep them healthy, hence they start dying off and algae opportunistically starts growing on the already dying leaves. If the issue is mainly algae growing on the plants, and not the substrate or glass so much, plant health is the issue.
Carissa;25531 said:
Thank you Carissa. I noticed that higher plants, that are near the lights grow much faster and better than plants on the bottom of the tank. So I also had a suspicion that light wattage might be too low. It's just Tom Barr advised me earlier not to get stronger light, because higher light will cause algae growth. That's why I bought 28w t-5 lights (1x6700K bulb and 1x1000K bulb) . I am not trying to criticize, I just want to figure out the problem.
Algae is mostly on plants, didn't get to substrate yet, and glass gets a little bit of brown algae, but it's enough to clean it every few weeks.
I am dosing: Seachem Equilibrium 1/8 tsp 1 x week
Nitrate 1/8 tsp 2 x week
Phosphate 1/16 tsp 2 x week
Flourish 2ml 2 x week
Fluorish iron 2ml 1 x week
Excell 4ml daily
water change 50% every week
1.4 watts per gallon of T5 lights is equal to a lot more wattage of PC bulbs. I think you can assume you have the equivalent to 2 watts per gallon or a bit more, if you had PC bulbs. If anything you may have a bit too much light for an Excel only tank, in my opinion. I don't think low light is likely to be the problem.
You are dosing twice the recommended dosage of Excel, which should help keep the algae under control, but I know Tom always recommends following Seachem's recommendations for dosing Excel.
I don't really think this is a problem, but the 10000K bulb may be providing too large a percentage of its light in areas of the spectrum that the plants don't use, but algae can use. You really can't go by just the color temperature the manufacturer assigns to the bulb, so you would have to study the graph of output versus wave length to even guess whether this is a problem. That isn't something I am capable of doing.
You are dosing twice the recommended dosage of Excel, which should help keep the algae under control, but I know Tom always recommends following Seachem's recommendations for dosing Excel.
I don't really think this is a problem, but the 10000K bulb may be providing too large a percentage of its light in areas of the spectrum that the plants don't use, but algae can use. You really can't go by just the color temperature the manufacturer assigns to the bulb, so you would have to study the graph of output versus wave length to even guess whether this is a problem. That isn't something I am capable of doing.
This is the light fixture I have: 24" Aqualight T-5 - Double Linear Strip - 58020
It doesn't have a very good reflector, I think. It's just white plastic, and narrow, just fits over the light bulbs. Plant parts closer to the light are doing better than the ones closer to the bottom.
For now I'll try scaling back on Excel first to 2ml per day and see if that helps. And maybe I should replace 1000K bulb with 6700K.
Given that you don't have much of a reflector at all, and from the pic it seems like the tubes are a pretty tight fit, it could be that you are losing a decent bit of light to restrike and that inspite of the higher efficiency of T5 tubes you could still not be getting enough light near the substrate. It is hard to say though. It could also just be what Hoppy mentioned regarding the 10000K bulb. Most people who do use such bulbs in their tanks already have enough lighting from other bulbs so that the extra 10000K doesn't make too much of a difference.
Maybe Tom or someone else might have some suggestions. I hope you manage to fix your algae problem.
Maybe Tom or someone else might have some suggestions. I hope you manage to fix your algae problem.
FYI, both Ole Peterson and myself and resoundingly and definitely shown there is no evidence that aquatic plants produce any algae related alleopathic compounds in an aquarium or in natural system that anyone can possibly detect.
You are welcome to review all the literature, there's not one that shows this occurs in any natural system that's been studied to date.
None.
I took a different view but am very familiar with the research.
I tested in an aquarium using the same protocols used in research.
Diana Walstad has promoted this notion, however, she, like mpost aquarists, never tested it to see.
The test is VERY simple and is based on the same controls used in terrestrail plants where this has been shown to have affects, but mostly with plant plant interactions and is some cases, herbivores etc.
All you do is add activated carbon+ good flow rates.
This removes the allelopathic compounds easily and rapidly.
If you remove the allelopathic compounds that hold the algae back or surpress the growth= we should see algae.
However, we don't.
This cannot possibly be the cause for the low incidence of algae.
Even it was, the effect would have to be very very subtle, to the point it really has a mild effect vs the other causes for low algae presence.
Other questions: how can the plant know how big the water volume it lives in
clearly the dilution in a large lake vs a small pond(or aquarium) is at play, and there's no way plants can know this.
How about a river?
It's unidirectional, what good would chemicals released, leach out do here?
None...........
Folks need to bark up another tree.
This reason cannot possibly be correct.
It's testable in the aquarium easily using the same sorts of protocols used in research for the control.
Anyone using Carbon, say like myself or Amano who ues it quite a bit, should see algae if this hypothesis held any water at all.
But we do not again and again.
Algae spores is where to focus on and their germination. This determines when and what species grows. Not some fanciful speculation that has no support in the literature and has been falsifed over 10 years ago.
Regards,
Tom Barr
You are welcome to review all the literature, there's not one that shows this occurs in any natural system that's been studied to date.
None.
I took a different view but am very familiar with the research.
I tested in an aquarium using the same protocols used in research.
Diana Walstad has promoted this notion, however, she, like mpost aquarists, never tested it to see.
The test is VERY simple and is based on the same controls used in terrestrail plants where this has been shown to have affects, but mostly with plant plant interactions and is some cases, herbivores etc.
All you do is add activated carbon+ good flow rates.
This removes the allelopathic compounds easily and rapidly.
If you remove the allelopathic compounds that hold the algae back or surpress the growth= we should see algae.
However, we don't.
This cannot possibly be the cause for the low incidence of algae.
Even it was, the effect would have to be very very subtle, to the point it really has a mild effect vs the other causes for low algae presence.
Other questions: how can the plant know how big the water volume it lives in
clearly the dilution in a large lake vs a small pond(or aquarium) is at play, and there's no way plants can know this.
How about a river?
It's unidirectional, what good would chemicals released, leach out do here?
None...........
Folks need to bark up another tree.
This reason cannot possibly be correct.
It's testable in the aquarium easily using the same sorts of protocols used in research for the control.
Anyone using Carbon, say like myself or Amano who ues it quite a bit, should see algae if this hypothesis held any water at all.
But we do not again and again.
Algae spores is where to focus on and their germination. This determines when and what species grows. Not some fanciful speculation that has no support in the literature and has been falsifed over 10 years ago.
Regards,
Tom Barr
So back to my question I haven't yet figured out the answer for...why doesn't algae grow on healthy plant leaves but will grow on something else in the same area, even with high circulation? Why pick the plastic filter housing, for instance, and not the leaf surface right next to the filter housing? But then in a case where plants are unhealthy...the reverse occurs...algae growth on the leaves, even when it may be no where else in the tank. This I can understand better, because a dying leaf will probably be releasing nutrients of some kind or another which algae can use.
Back on topic, if the plants that are showing algae on the leaves are stem plants, it might be good to break them off and throw out the bottoms with most of the algaefied leaves and replant the tops. My stem plants do this too, after a while, I assume simply due to the shade of the upper leaves or whatever.
Back on topic, if the plants that are showing algae on the leaves are stem plants, it might be good to break them off and throw out the bottoms with most of the algaefied leaves and replant the tops. My stem plants do this too, after a while, I assume simply due to the shade of the upper leaves or whatever.
Carissa;25545 said:
A healthy growing plant is a moving target, the plastic tube, the rock, the wood etc, is not.
It does not change over time.
As far as the dying leaf, well, then the target is no longer moving and you'd likely be correct in assuming the leaching process is part of it, but the plant is no longer moving then either.
Adding another level of complexity, the cutin on the surface of a leaf, (even aquatics which tend to possess little cutin-ask yourself why that it is and also how it relates to root vs leaf uptake) once a plant leaf organ dies, the cutin rapidly degrades. At that point, the leaf makes for a nice substrate for algae to grow on.
Also, what suddenly stalls plant growth also is well correlated to a decrease in NH4 uptake at the same time..........and the same is true if you suddenly stop adding CO2 for awhile. Bacteria will catch back up and oxidize it, but for a time, they will not. And that is one of the signals algae spores look for.
Another is light availability- the more the better.
It's not just one thing, it's likely several interactions occurring at once.
And more light = more algae growth rate is a pretty good rule as is the reverse, less light = less algae growth rates.
CO2 helps plants more as long as the plants have enough time time t0o adapt and are given a stable CO2 level. This is because it takes 1-2 weeks or so to adapt the enzymes involved in the uptake of CO2 (Rubsico and all the downstream enzymes) to match the level in the environment. That's a much taller order and larger % of the biomass for plants than it is for a single or small colonial alga.
They are quick at that and have extremely low CO2 demand.
Variations there with CO2 may act as a good signal as well, BBA for example is rarely found in low CO2 natural environments and it is found in flowing water.
So spray bars are often attacked............
Anubias are more prone to algae due to the slow rate of movement- growth rate.
I think if you observe, test and try and rule out various things, look into the life history, ecology of algae, the main likely answers are already there.
You can test and rule things out, but you may never know why algae grows in every tank etc. The process of ruling things out is particularly useful however.
We use the parameters that we have ruled out and stabilized and then go on to the next one.
1st part:
So light is lowered, check.
So CO2 is non limiting and there's ample current, good flow through the CO2 reactor, good mist dispersion etc, good tank mixing, not too much off gassing, but still good rippling on the surface etc, Check.
Water changes done routinely, check
Filter cleaned often, check.
Plants pruned often- more stable tank, check.
Detritus removed from sediment, leaves fluffed, preened as needed. Check
2nd part:
Then you can move on to the nutrients like NO3 etc........
If folks go the 1st part done right, they generally have no issues with part no#2.
That's actually pretty easy compared to part 1..........
Still, most gloss over the importance of part 1 there.
I see this all the time actually, from so called experts............
I've done it in the past myself.
So has Amano.
So has everyone at some point.
But we need to be honest with ourselves and look at that part critically before stating much about the nutrients..........
Only when the test is independent of light, CO2,. current, routine tank maintenance, can we start to test the nutrients.
The other issue is time.
How long does it take to induce BBA, GW, etc..........and how long does it take for the plants to get better once stressed. This is generally about 1-3 weeks for 90% of the species.
BBA seems to take quite sometime from the poor CO2 till you get tuff formation.
Even at high light. Certainly longer than one week.
GW can induce in 30 hours or so at very high light.
Much like your advice, removal of those old slow moving plant organs(the older leaves) and prune them off, allows only the healthy nice new tips to remain.
If you stop the new spore germination, then these new plant leaves are not infected. So I focus on germination/inducement only. Once that is "cured", you can easily prune your way out most any algae issue. No new growth= easy to cure.
However, if the root germination signal is not addressed, then all the pruning will not help really.
Once you control algae spore germination, you control algae growth.
This is a very different approach and philosophy than what other aquarist/hobbyist have traditionally viewed algae.
However, few of them have ever decided to try and induce and germinate algae in an otherwise health well growing tank to answer such questions.
But algae does not bother me because I know how to get rid of any species pretty effectively in a few days.
How'd I learn?
Experience, lots of it and long time frames spent with things like BBA, Hair algae, Staghorn, BGA etc or friends that did. Not just one or two tanks that where just observational.
Adding to that, there's also a lot of practical human based advice in there as well.
You do not learn such things except the hard way.
But no need for others to suffer either and hopefully some one will pick up where I left off at some point.
Regards,
Tom Barr
Thank you for all your replies Tom. This was very interesting and complex information, but I read it carefully and I think I get your point. However, I was thinking of how to apply all this to my tank specifically.
You are suggesting to stabilize 1st part of parameters: lower light, non-limiting CO2, water changes, filter cleaned, plants pruned, sediment cleaned. Then to move on to the second part involving nutrients.
I think my problem is light and CO2, but I am not sure if I have too much light, or too little. If my light was too high, plants near the bottom would be growing well, but they are not. All algae is in the lower part of the tank. I never had green water either, just some green spot algae towards the middle height of tank. Upper portions of plants near the top are looking great, big leaves, no algae at all. So should I lower the light, or increase it?
Second issue is CO2. I don't want to use either DIY or pressurized system, that is too complex for me. I had DYI CO2 tank before, and don't want to do that again. I would like to follow the Excell dosing method. How do I get non-limiting CO2 with Excell? Other people are doing it successfully, so it should be possible.
The rest of the steps I am doing already, just need to remove more algae infected leaves. BBA grows pretty fast, after removing it 2-3 weeks ago, it's everywhere again.
thank you so much
You are suggesting to stabilize 1st part of parameters: lower light, non-limiting CO2, water changes, filter cleaned, plants pruned, sediment cleaned. Then to move on to the second part involving nutrients.
I think my problem is light and CO2, but I am not sure if I have too much light, or too little. If my light was too high, plants near the bottom would be growing well, but they are not. All algae is in the lower part of the tank. I never had green water either, just some green spot algae towards the middle height of tank. Upper portions of plants near the top are looking great, big leaves, no algae at all. So should I lower the light, or increase it?
Second issue is CO2. I don't want to use either DIY or pressurized system, that is too complex for me. I had DYI CO2 tank before, and don't want to do that again. I would like to follow the Excell dosing method. How do I get non-limiting CO2 with Excell? Other people are doing it successfully, so it should be possible.
The rest of the steps I am doing already, just need to remove more algae infected leaves. BBA grows pretty fast, after removing it 2-3 weeks ago, it's everywhere again.
thank you so much
Thanks Tom for that exceptional explanation. Clears up a few things that were bumping around in my head unanswered. I had never heard that about the cutin before but it makes sense to me now.
Light and co2 interact with each other (light drives co2 uptake, more co2 decreases the ability of plants to deal with less co2 over time, etc.). I think balance between the two as well as stability is the major issue.
I don't think that Excel will ever really provide non-limiting amounts of carbon. Going the low-tech route means that you pretty much have to stick with as little light as you can get away with, and make sure you have ample algae-eating fish available to keep up with what you do end up with.
As far as lower growth having algae - is it just lower growth as such, or perhaps also older growth? If conditions were such that the plants did become deficient in something or for whatever reason were not well adapted to the conditions at the time, and became unhealthy, and then started succumbing to algae as a result, part of your answer might simply be to remove all old growth which is beyond repair at this point, and let the new, healthy, well-adapted growth take over. Things don't happen overnight....when leaves start to die they are not likely to make a comeback even when conditions are good. It can become a snowball effect...unhealthy plants -> dying leaves -> fuels algae -> algae infests more leaves -> unhealthy plants etc.
You can also remove and bleach dip any plants that are infested with bba.... a 1:20 ratio works ok for tougher plants. I've done this successfully with anubias, hygrophila, crypts, and java fern without killing any plants or leaves in the process. Keep the roots out of the bleach and dip the leaves for 3 - 5 minutes. By the next day, the bba will turn pink and die, algae eating fish will usually clean it up for you or you can rub it off at that point.
And while this process is ongoing (constant removal of bba at least every two days), extra water changes won't hurt at all. I would do 25% every second day - you don't want to change conditions too fast and force your plants to readapt again, but removing all organic waste that you can will only help the situation. Then redose your ferts accordingly after each water change.
Also reduce your lighting for a while and see what happens. There is a point at which the plants are getting just enough light to live, but not enough excess to fuel algae, that's the point you need to find for a non-co2 tank with algae issues. Excel will afford you more light than you may have been able to have otherwise, but it won't get you into the range of high light. You have to find a level that works.
Light and co2 interact with each other (light drives co2 uptake, more co2 decreases the ability of plants to deal with less co2 over time, etc.). I think balance between the two as well as stability is the major issue.
I don't think that Excel will ever really provide non-limiting amounts of carbon. Going the low-tech route means that you pretty much have to stick with as little light as you can get away with, and make sure you have ample algae-eating fish available to keep up with what you do end up with.
As far as lower growth having algae - is it just lower growth as such, or perhaps also older growth? If conditions were such that the plants did become deficient in something or for whatever reason were not well adapted to the conditions at the time, and became unhealthy, and then started succumbing to algae as a result, part of your answer might simply be to remove all old growth which is beyond repair at this point, and let the new, healthy, well-adapted growth take over. Things don't happen overnight....when leaves start to die they are not likely to make a comeback even when conditions are good. It can become a snowball effect...unhealthy plants -> dying leaves -> fuels algae -> algae infests more leaves -> unhealthy plants etc.
You can also remove and bleach dip any plants that are infested with bba.... a 1:20 ratio works ok for tougher plants. I've done this successfully with anubias, hygrophila, crypts, and java fern without killing any plants or leaves in the process. Keep the roots out of the bleach and dip the leaves for 3 - 5 minutes. By the next day, the bba will turn pink and die, algae eating fish will usually clean it up for you or you can rub it off at that point.
And while this process is ongoing (constant removal of bba at least every two days), extra water changes won't hurt at all. I would do 25% every second day - you don't want to change conditions too fast and force your plants to readapt again, but removing all organic waste that you can will only help the situation. Then redose your ferts accordingly after each water change.
Also reduce your lighting for a while and see what happens. There is a point at which the plants are getting just enough light to live, but not enough excess to fuel algae, that's the point you need to find for a non-co2 tank with algae issues. Excel will afford you more light than you may have been able to have otherwise, but it won't get you into the range of high light. You have to find a level that works.
ramis;25517 said:
thanks for the photos.. tank looks great.. i guess algae got a good hold on some of your plants, i do hope that its still manageable though.. my 15gal is lighted by 3 CFLs at 18W, 15W, and 7W... roughly 2.5Wpg.. and the only plants are pearlweed, java fern wendilov, xmas and flame mosses, and HC.. heres a recent pic as well..
thankfully, still algae-free.. residents are RCS and malaya shrimps.. no ferts and CO2, running since Feb. 20.. i do hope i can make my HC carpet w/out CO2 supplementation.. i will observe it for a while and see how long they will survive on me.. update again soon.. thanks!
closer look...
just got my riccia a week ago (mesh covered).. i dont think they do well at all in a no CO2 tank..
rcs in pearlweed...
God bless and keep the faith!
just got my riccia a week ago (mesh covered).. i dont think they do well at all in a no CO2 tank..
rcs in pearlweed...
God bless and keep the faith!
Redcaptrio, thanks for your pictures. I love your shrimp, and your plants look very healthy. Maybe shrimps are cleaning everything up really well? Looks like you have much higher light thank I do and don't have the same problems. Do you do water changes or excell dosing?
My tank is about same age, I set it up in February. I removed all algae infected plants, did water change and cleaned everything. I also got some floating plants and plan to change my 1000K bulb to 6700K. I'll just keep cleaning and see if my tank can rebalance. Thank you Carissa for your detailed explanation.
My tank is about same age, I set it up in February. I removed all algae infected plants, did water change and cleaned everything. I also got some floating plants and plan to change my 1000K bulb to 6700K. I'll just keep cleaning and see if my tank can rebalance. Thank you Carissa for your detailed explanation.
i guess its true that you rarely see algae-infested shrimp-only tanks.. i top-off about 1.5L daily and do 30% weekly water changes.. as i've stated, no ferts and co2 supplementation at all.. as of today, plants still show healthy colors and windelov is sprouting new leaves..
btw, are there 1000K bulbs? aren't that too low? maybe you meant 10,000K.. IMO, sometimes, more often water changes can upset the tank's stability.. maybe you should create a schedule do regular water changes and tank maintenance.. your lighting schedule should be regular as well, no lesser than 6hours and no more than 12hours.. keep the faith!
btw, are there 1000K bulbs? aren't that too low? maybe you meant 10,000K.. IMO, sometimes, more often water changes can upset the tank's stability.. maybe you should create a schedule do regular water changes and tank maintenance.. your lighting schedule should be regular as well, no lesser than 6hours and no more than 12hours.. keep the faith!
ramis;25630 said:
i may add that the mosses are growing new fronds.. though it may take a while for them to cover the bogwoods but i guess its coming along nicely.. btw, i already removed the riccia because they really need co2 as i observed them deteriorating in this tank..