This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We are after as many aquarium plant images that we can get, doing so will assist us in completing the aquarium plant database.

    https://barrreport.com/threads/aquatic-plant-images-wanted.14374/
    Dismiss Notice

PAR and EI

Discussion in 'Estimative Index' started by yme, Oct 4, 2009.

  1. yme

    yme Lifetime Charter Member
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Messages:
    641
    Likes Received:
    17
    Local Time:
    7:18 AM
    Just thinking....

    Since it seems that more and more people get PAR meters: isn't it a good idea to include recommended PAR levels into the sticky of EI?

    greets,

    yme
     
  2. Gerryd

    Gerryd Plant Guru Team
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    18
    Local Time:
    7:18 AM
    Hi yme,

    I was under the impression that EI was developed originally using high light as a benchmark. I do not know the PAR values used however........
     
  3. yme

    yme Lifetime Charter Member
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Messages:
    641
    Likes Received:
    17
    Local Time:
    7:18 AM
    hi!

    I am under that impression as well :D

    And like you, I forgot what is considered "high light". putting it into the sticky saves me (and possibly others) time search time and provides everyone who reads it a little piece of extra information.

    edit: just measured my PAR values (again): 200 umol at the surface and 100 umol at the substrate. I think this is not really "high light". I can imagine that my plants need for instance less TMG to stay healthy.(less TMG = more money for other stuff) Like Tom states: EI is not written in rock, you can tailor it to your tank needs....

    greets,

    yme
     
  4. JDowns

    JDowns Lifetime Charter Member
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    22
    Local Time:
    7:18 AM
    I’ve done numerous test runs over a week or three week time period using very high light (450 micromoles/m^2/sec @ 8 cm from light source) and many different species of fast growing stem plants. This will give an assumed “maximum uptake rate”.

    From the Orignal EI Sticky in the Articles page.
     
  5. Gerryd

    Gerryd Plant Guru Team
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    18
    Local Time:
    7:18 AM
    Jdowns,

    Thanks, I was too lazy to do the research.....

    yme,

    How is your tank? I know you had a thread a while back with some issues where Tom and I thought it was c02 but the c02 meter showed a good ppm..

    What was the outcome? Did you get a handle on it all?

    Very curious.........
     
  6. yme

    yme Lifetime Charter Member
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Messages:
    641
    Likes Received:
    17
    Local Time:
    7:18 AM
    @Jdowns:

    nice! count me in as lazy :D

    @Gerryd:

    no everything is still kind of crappy...

    quite some hair/thread algae: in the past weeks/months I bought 60 amano's. they eat quite some, but cannot clear the tank completely...

    quite some stunting still: macrandra, wallichii and ammania still don't like my water. bought even new stems to start of healthy, but within 3 weeks... stunting

    And with 200 umol of light at the surface and 35-37 mg/l CO2 with good current and excel addition rules out CO2. or at least, that is what I decided. I lost too many fish/shrimps due to pushing CO2 too high.

    I am a bit at a loss right now...

    maybe I should update my thread in the near future :D

    greets,

    yme
     
  7. JDowns

    JDowns Lifetime Charter Member
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    22
    Local Time:
    7:18 AM
    I wouldn't have responded if I didn't just read that the other day in reviewing that old thread. So count me in as lazy also :D
     
  8. Philosophos

    Philosophos Lifetime Charter Member
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,346
    Likes Received:
    0
    Local Time:
    7:18 AM
    In my opinion, there's really no need to list PAR requirements by the time you've got a PAR meter in your hand. You should probably already understand that 50 = low 100 = mid 150 = high 200 = wear goggles. Anyone with a PAR meter should probably also know the approximate application of EI relative to WPG of various bulbs and inverse square.

    -Philosophos
     
  9. Biollante

    Biollante Lifetime Charter Member
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    3,210
    Likes Received:
    1
    Local Time:
    7:18 AM
    Hi All,

    I tend to agree with Philosophos, the whole Estimative Index thing is really just a starting point, adjust up or down by what you see, or for that matter don't see.

    My US 2 cents.:)

    Biollante
     
  10. Tom Barr

    Tom Barr Founder
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    18,648
    Likes Received:
    556
    Local Time:
    7:18 AM
    450 at surface, 140 at the bottom.

    I still run 150 at the surface, 50 or so at the sediment, and modify it to use ADA AS, then a richer PO4. NO3 typically at 15ppm-20ppm.

    My ADA As is older now, so I add more NO3, prior, 5-10ppm was plenty.
    Watching growth rates is pretty telling.

    Regards,
    Tom Barr
     
  11. Tom Barr

    Tom Barr Founder
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    18,648
    Likes Received:
    556
    Local Time:
    7:18 AM
    Hi,
    I have a similar tank, 120 Gallon, 120 cm x 60cm x 60cm.
    I use a Tek T5 fixture. 8x 54 W bulbs.
    Typically, I use only 4 bulbs, so about 1.8w/gal and about the lower end of the light range listed, 120 surface/50 at the sediment).

    If I'm feeling green and gardening if more interesting, the aquarium is fine, noi algae, I bump it up to the full 3.6W/gal.

    I re started this tank after a move.
    It did many/most of the issues you also have had.

    I took inoculum of algae from this tank and tried to induce it in the other tanks with the same light/color temp/sediment/plant species etc etc.

    Never could get GDA, and most other species to take.

    Another tank had a simiklar but milder problem.
    Both where overflow sump/wet/dry filters that had issues.

    I changed the sump and sealed up the wet/dry.
    I made a concerted effort to maintain the water level inside the sump/aquarium
    I cleaned the over flow and sponge filters 1-2x a week.
    I added a cansiter in post filter on the 120
    I did not add any canister to the other problem tank(milder issue).
    I started out with most rotten plants when I did my move in Aug.
    I got the plants growing again pretty good.
    I had many rare hard to find species, so I knew I would rather get algae and have some decent plant biomass, than letting the plants grow in a bit and possibly lose them. So I was impatient there, but I took advantage of it for another reason.
    I did 2x a week water changes(could have done every other day).

    I cleaned the CO2 disc every 2 weeks rather than 4(Bleach it with toilet bowl cleaner/add dechloro).
    I focused much more on CO2.

    Dosing was the same.
    Sediment the same.
    Lighting the same.

    I did change the lighting later after a bout with Spirogyra. One algae that I'd only had some unconclusive success with. So wanted to test some ideas on this agressive green algae since I had the rare chance to work with a bloom stage. GDA has been far more difficult to work with.

    So.........

    My algae bloom had started and I had very nice plant growth, but very fast algae growth. The CO2 was also good. At least I thought.

    Still, I had an algae issues with good plant growth. It was not the optimal growth I know and love, but it was pretty good nonetheless.

    This makes for an interesting system.



    I wanted to work with a light method to control algae, but different than the typical less or shorter day cycle. It was more like a "siesta" approach, but much longer.

    Same idea though.

    I do a 60-80% water change(algae often sporulate after a large environmental change) . Turn off CO2, do not add any ferts after etc(GH might be one if you want to keep the TDS up). Cover so that no light gets in, trash bag etc a few layers thick, wait 3 days, remove and do another change, add CO2 back and try and tweak it slowly.

    Wait 2-3 days till you see the algae come back a little bit, then repeat the blackout again.

    After 3-5 cycles of this, the CO2 is really good(observing it and adjusting it slowly after each blackout). The algae has been tweaked out and stressed a great deal, plants do fine with enough light every few days followed by 3 days of darkness.

    You can keep on doing this as long as it takes.

    Algae never over runs the tank while you are adjusting things!

    I used the 1.8/w gal light during this time and then after I thought the algae was on the run, I left it on for 2 weeks and trimmed and removed any places that the algae seemed to catch and accumulate. The CO2 is well adjusted and over the last month, the tank has really bloomed out well, even though the CO2 is the same.

    I would get issues if I did not do the water changes early in the day, not clean the filter, keep the CO2 in good clean shape, too much water level change, I also add a fair amount of flow(600 gph wet/dry, 250 Gal via a powerhead).

    My overflow pipe degassed a lot more CO2 than I thought and the other 60 Gal has a better overflow that resulted in a less problematic algae issue.

    The issue was multiple, even though the general bioinidicator was poor CO2.
    While many will suggest "oh yes, it's a CO2 issue", and it many ways that is the root, the solution and causes are many.

    I tend to take issues case by case, not general.

    I think you can resolve the issues in your 120 Gal tank still yet.

    Mostly via the blackouts/refocus on adjusting that CO2, providing good current(you lose more CO2, but can add more easily too) and better filtering/cleaning frequency to provide good high O2 for fish.
    Change flow patterns around the aquarium etc.

    Trim off some plants that do poorly, keep the tank clean, do water changes, 60-80% and do them after 1-2 hours after the lights are turned on.
    This post water change planted tank is a good "reference", look at the aquarium good that night before the lights go off. That is the optimal. So you can do many water changes, maybe 2-3 a week to get the aquarium into better shape.

    All this work/effort is required to get the tank to start growing plants well, without algae issues. Once you get there, it's MUCH easier.

    Once you tip the scales, it's easy.
    Try the blackouts, cleaning, and CO2.

    Regards,
    Tom Barr
     
  12. Tom Barr

    Tom Barr Founder
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    18,648
    Likes Received:
    556
    Local Time:
    7:18 AM
    Also, the light and CO2 are key to most everything, nutrients can be, but tend to be less effective at getting at the root and controlling algae to the same degree and generally are indirect in their effect(mostly on lowering CO2 demand).

    Regards,
    Tom Barr
     
  13. shoggoth43

    shoggoth43 Lifetime Charter Member
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,078
    Likes Received:
    4
    Local Time:
    7:18 AM
    Can you expand on this a bit more?

    What kind of overflow pipe were you using? What made the 60 gallon one better? I've been looking at the Herbie style one lately which doesn't pull air into the overflow pipe and that seems as though it would be a real winner overall. The coast to coast wier they tend to use might not be the best ideal though as it seems as though there will be lots of surface turnover which is kind of a double edged sword for CO2 but it may not be all that bad either.

    -
    S

    "My overflow pipe degassed a lot more CO2 than I thought and the other 60 Gal has a better overflow that resulted in a less problematic algae issue."
     
  14. Tom Barr

    Tom Barr Founder
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    18,648
    Likes Received:
    556
    Local Time:
    7:18 AM
    The nature of the overflow pipe was using a CPR(60 cube) vs a a regularly stand pipe built in overflow box(120 Gal).

    The CPR seems to reduce both noise and the degassing.
    Easier to use and easier to clean. Takes up less space also, easier to hide/keep shrimp and fish out of or from being sucked into.

    I can also remove the weir box for a picture.

    I think most of the prefilter overflow hang on boxes work pretty well, I opted for the CPR, however, they stink for one reason, you need a continuous pump to remove any air in the siphon, otherwise the sump runs dry and the tank overfills and floods.

    I use a tom's pump for that, so not a big issue, still, it could be an issue and it's another thing to go wrong, the other overflow boxes using a normal siphon do not have that issue(or nearly none).

    They are also much quieter than the typical built in overflow section.

    Huge issue for me.

    Regards,
    Tom Barr
     
  15. shoggoth43

    shoggoth43 Lifetime Charter Member
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,078
    Likes Received:
    4
    Local Time:
    7:18 AM
    I've found that water level seems to be the determining factor for noise wrt the standpipe. As long as the standpipe can't suck air the overflows are pretty much silent providing the drop from the tank waterline down to the overflow chamber isn't doing the Niagara Falls bit. Good to know about the CPR unit, I think I'll skip that one.

    -
    S
     
Loading...

Share This Page