Riba;23425 said:
Perhaps this is of use,
Overview Map
Well, it's a nice diagram, however, i do not agree with nearly 1/2 of it, and I think while a nice looking model, much about what is said is simpkly not correct and speculation at best and worse, just plain wrong.
I have done more than ample investigation inot each nutrient s as it pertains to aquatic plants, not terrestrial plants, not just what I think, rather, what research has been done under controlled conditions.
99.9% of aquarist do not have controlled conditions and cannot isolate nor tell heads from tails about what they are seeing.
Simply measuring light or CO2 is is woefully inadequate.
Not calibrating test kits each time they are used, many issues.
Some of the observations on the diagram I know are not true as well.
If you take a much more conservative approach to assumptions, many of the comments would need revision.
And then how on earth could a planted aquarist get any use out of this monstrous diagram? Could they find specific issues?
Perhaps.
There are too many overlapping interactions to make things significant.
there are way too many species of plants that have very different expession under the same nutrient level.
There are too many issues with light, current, CO2 that influence the plants far more significantly.
I think it's much much wiser to work with a step wise process to see what the problem/s is/are.
Fix one thing and make sure it's fixed and the assumption is safe.
Then move on to the next thing.
Big super charts are good for looking at global relationships, eg gene families, but they just scare most aquarist folks and lead them to be as uncertain as they where to start with.
As a lurking member of this forum (and some other fora) , I thought it might be not a bad a day to give my 2 cents. I should say that as far as I know there is quite some awareness about EI (and other fertilization strategies for that matter) amongst (online) dutch aquarists. I myself have been using (an) EI (inspired approach) for a bit over a year now. I enjoy the theoretical mathematical upper bound on the nutrition levels underpinning the approach, although I downscaled the amount of fertilizer a bit (while observing plants) as I don't have much light (especially compared to light levels commonly described on American fora).
Thanks for posting!
No need with low light.
I used high light to ask some questions and so I did not have to wait as long or have other factors play a role when looking at plant growth, things happen faster with more light.
At lower light, you are much safer.
I do not use high light because it is "better"
I just want to see effects in 2-3 weeks, not 2-3 months
It is a pity that the information on Charles site isn't updated anymore (another often referred to dutch site is
Aquarius Tubanti). RR is still used quite a bit and often very successfully (lower light implies more room to wiggle around), but my perception is that awareness about different plant nutrition strategies (EI, PPS) is increasing (although I am not (yet?) active in the offline dutch scene
).
Kind regards,
Riba
Yes, the RR allows folks to dose some PO4 so that it does not get too low.
And it keeps the nutrients from bottoming out of going too low.
There is a very wide range plants adapt to, and we see this in natural system as well as aquariums.
So the question becomes, what is the method that gives you the optimal set of conditions for your goal?
Generally: good non limiting nutrients, good ample CO2, low to moderate light.
I think knowing the rates of plant growth that you are use to is very important if you are a gardener. Thus you will resist much change to that.
You know the rates of growth and anything that dramatically changes that, is not a comfortable feeling
But then again, when you can grow any and every plant to high level and quickly, it's nice as well.
So how to control rates of growth?
Light is simply the best most stable method.
Example:
Low light.
The nutrients are really pretty rich here.
A lot is in the sediment as ADA aqua soil.
If you added 3x the light, this tank would need more ferts obviously and much harder to maintain.
Many assume they need high light and more is better.
That is unfortunately.
Light and CO2 drive that entire diagram and can dramatically alter everyone of the results.
So the usefulness is really questionable to me.
It's better to know a lot about light and CO2................... then N, P, K...........
Thanks for the input.
Regards,
Tom Barr
