Nutrient Deficiency

Do this, add more CO2 and direct it at the Plant with some current, CO2 mist particularly.

Add the PO4, KNO3, TMG, GH booster at standard EI levels.
(you can do the PMDD style like I suggested on the EI thread and dose it daily via liquid)

Check your KH also, it might have gone up.

Direct the CO2 mist right at the plant.

That will ensure good CO2 and nutrients.

Then wait about a week or so.
It should grow back.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

But BBA is never a nutrient issue
Ever..........you might slow the growth some, but it because you limit the plant growth via nutrient limitation thereby reducing CO2 demand.


So...........if you are limited with say K+, or Ca++, or NO3..............then adding more CO2 is not going to do anything.

Your limiting rate step is still the K+ etc........not CO2.
This can relieve some CO2 stress by using PO4, K, NO3 etc as limiting nutrient.

So you bounce between CO2 limitation and a nutrient limitation...........

It's only when you realize that providing non limiting conditions for all the nutrients, as well as CO2 do you get an algae free tank.

Everyone that fails at EI fails pretty much for the same reason and this one reason accounts for about 95% of all algae related issues: CO2.

I sound like a broken record but I've shown 100's of times that excess nutrients do not cause algae with good CO2..........the problem is that many assume they have good CO2.

Virtually every method to measure CO2 under shoots the ppm.
So they think they are fine there.

Or they have a method that they over shoot and gas their fish, then they are gun shy and never add enough thereafter..............

You should always adjust CO2 SLOWLY and carefully.
Plants are the gauge.

R macrandra is CO2 sensitive and will stunt like this with poor CO2, I've seen this perhaps 100 times over the decades.........I've never seen it stunt due to high PO4, NO3, fish loads, sediment types, high K+, high Fe/Traces etc etc.....

Ever............

I have seen it many times with CO2 however.

Many think they are doing great but really have not mastered CO2 fully.
When they limit PO4 or reduce their nutrients way down in effort to try something else, they happen upon secondary reduction oif CO2 demand and assuem that it's better to have limiting nutrients.

Too strong of a limitation, then they get algae and stunting............

You can grow and balance things that way, but until you have full mastery and control of CO2, you cannot suggest that limitation is the reason for algae control, you have confounding factors such as nutrient limitation which down regulates CO2 demand.

The test and data are not independent, they are dependent...........that makes figuring any thing out very difficult if not impossible and leads folks to make erronous conclusions.

Only by providing non limiting conditions for every thing except the nutrient of interest, can you fully test.

Be careful with CO2, figure out a way to add it faster and better to your tank, that is a very worth while endeavo for your tank/hobby etc, more than any other.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

The smallest concentration?

Sounds like a simple question.
It's not and the answer is hardly "any".
That assumes a few things though.
1#, the nutrient is replentished rapidly and continuously.
Some tanks can have this via fish waste or tap etc as well as dosing, some have sediment sources as well.
2. Rate of growth is very very very important, some want faster growth for pruning and scaping, some want slower growth for lazier approaches, plants can grow very very very very slow if you want......I've seen Anubias plants 8 years old that grew a leave once every 1-2 years and they were fine and nice looking plants.

Rate of growth also implies nutrient demand for that rate of growth.

3. Light and CO2 also play huge roles in the rate of growth and the rate of nutrient demand.

4. How do we assess " nutrient demand"?
Luxury uptake is more than the plant really needs, but like us and a fat reserve, they use the excess for leaner times etc, how lean should a pklant get and how close to limitation do you want to be?

It's clearly not needed nor provides a more stable environment for the plant on a biochemical, enzymatic, molecular, ecological or physiological level.

But some seem to want to argue that they do
Even in face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and of course I'm the bad guy for pointing that out with the tidal wave of evidence from a wide range fields.

Self imposed barriers, assumptions and limitations.
I'm not sure why some folks put those upon themselves when it's clearly not required nor needed.

If you look at enzyme uptake, plants can and do adapt to various concentrations, especially K+. So at 1ppm, they have one type of enzyme transportor, at 10 ppm, they have another, at 0.1ppm, they have yet another.

It takes time for these enzymes to adapt and be "built". It takes less energy for the plant to take up the higher K+ concentration than the lower one.

We also know that higher does not influence algae.

Here's an example of graph used to show this for K+ in molecular plant science:




Regards,
Tom Barr

 

Do you have high light?
Try reducing that first(intensity), then perhaps less hours, not much below 8-9 though.

Then you mess with CO2.

You need less CO2 with less light to have the same good growth vs algae and you also have more time to allow the plant to translocate the nutrients to the new tips.

I think it's more an issue of stablility in your case.

If you bob between high and low levels, that's bad.
I have no idea how many times folks have thought they had good CO2 AND NUTRIENTS........onkly to later see they did not.
Nutrients are easy to resolve with a massive water change and redosings thereafter.
CO2 is more tricky.

Good current, CO2 mist etc, and decent surface movement really make huge differences(allows more to be added and directs it to the plants more).

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

The water's surface should not break.
A ripple is fine, but not air or bubbles, some prefer a slight ripple, others a faster one.

If you look at the example of water current, that stream has about 1-3km/hr water velocity where things are algae free and plant growth is good.

Lakes and ponds with good mixing also possess good plant growth vs the slower moving types.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

Good, stick with things and keep on the water changes etc.

Regards,
Tom Barr