# Are We Making This Too Hard?



## Moo (Apr 27, 2006)

This is a result of a current thread about the need of co2 in some systems.

What makes a plant a high light plant? what makes it low light?
Is there a record of certain plants in nature and the amount of light and nutrients it takes for them to grow?
Wouldn't that make sense?

I don't undertand why co2 becomes so nessecary..it doesn't make sense.
This isn't done in nature.
there's no co2 injection in nature, infact most streams and rivers, ponds are sometimes exceptions, the water surface is pretty heavily agitated compared to the home aquaria. 

I dunno I swear as soon as I get this 58 gallon setup. I'm going to start a 20 gallon dedicated to the observation of growing techniques and plants.

Somehow I just think we as aquarists make this way to hard. Granted it's hard to replicated the power of nature especially the sun, and in falling short im sure we create other problems, but has to be something.

Anyone have any opinions or experiences about growing plants in a way other than "suggested" with results?

-moo


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

The best explanation I have seen is Tom Barr's: we are not trying to duplicate nature in our tanks. Instead we are trying to duplicate a well run farm. Good farmers certainly don't try to use "natural" methods to grow corn, wheat, etc. They use methods that result in the best production from their land. We use methods that we hope result in the best growth of quality plants in our tanks.

Nature does supply CO2 to natural bodies of water - not all, but many. Spring water is normally carbonated, and many streams and small lakes get a lot of their water from springs. The natural bodies of water with the most vigorous plant growth with the minimum of algae tend to be those with some natural CO2 in the water. And, of course rain will be at equilibrium with the CO2 in the atmosphere, or as much as 3 or 4 ppm of CO2.

Then, you can make choices with this hobby. You can go the natural style, with relatively low light, no added fertilizers, no CO2, soil based substrates, and it is very possible to have beautiful tanks doing that. You can also use manufactured substrates, high intensity lighting, plentiful fertilizing, maximum CO2, and it is very possible to have beautiful tanks that way too. So, the best idea is to decide what appeals to you and follow your own drummer.


----------



## tom_zg (Oct 20, 2006)

I would add that, taking into consideration the proportions, it is not likely to find such a large quantity of aquatic plants in one place. If such a large quantity of plants were to grow like that in the wild, majority of them would be bound to die off, caused by the lack of nutrients/CO2, which is one of the basic elements of the photosynthesis. Apart from that, most of the plants we grow eventually come to grow above water surface, using in that way the atmospheric CO2. On the other hand, what we do is trying to keep them in the water, rather than letting them grow above the surface.


----------



## eklikewhoa (Jul 24, 2006)

your tank is no where near what its like in the wild. 

there are things, actually lots of things that play a role in how plants thrive,survive and flourish in the wild that just arent coming out of your tap.


----------



## MatPat (Mar 22, 2004)

Moo,

You're a bit upstream from me but here in Dayton, but the natural CO2 content in the water (Greater Miami River) is between 22 and 25 ppm depending on which treatment plant the readings were taken. Also, if you take a look at Kasselmann's book, there are some decent CO2 readings taken from many of the rivers she visits. 

I grow plants in both high light CO2 injected tanks and low light, non-CO2 tanks. Both grow plants well as long as you select the right type of plants for each tank. A lot of the plants that are considered "fast growers" (most Hygro species, Anacharis, Hornwort, etc) are weeds in a CO2 injected system and may need trimming twice a week. These same plants grow nicely in non-CO2 systems and may only need to be trimmed monthly or even less. 

Other "shade" type plants like Anubias and Java Ferns will grow well in non-CO2 sytems with lower light but grow a bit faster with the addition of CO2. In a higher light system, these plants will do better if planted underneath other plants so that they receive a bit of shade. When planced in the open they may develop algae.

I started out in a similar fashion as you I think. First was the high light, CO2 injected 75g tank. Then came a couple of 55g tanks, one high tech (200w and CO2) and one low tech (80w and no CO2) along with a low tech 30g tank. I wanted to see what different light levels and CO2 would do for the plants 

I planted many of the same species in each of the 55g tanks. In the low tech tank the majority of plants remained much smaller with smaller leaves. Some plants, such as Hemiantus micranthemoides, Heteranthera zosterifolia, and Rotala rotundifolia looked stunted without the addition of CO2, but they still grew. In the high tech 55g, these plants grew very fast with much larger leaves. The only difference I noticed in A. barteri 'nana' and Java Ferns was slower growth. 


Hope this helps


----------



## essabee (Oct 11, 2006)

tom_zg said:


> I would add that, taking into consideration the proportions, it is not likely to find such a large quantity of aquatic plants in one place.


In my experience, I have normally found the plants in large water bodies concentrated in patches, I believe that is because of the depth and soil conditions. These patches would be supplied with nutrients dregged out of the entire area of the floor and the streams that flow into the waterbodies. The surface of the large water bodies are normally agitated, except on very calm days, by the winds. That would add the CO2 from atmosphere. CO2 loss because of surface turbulance could not take place below the propotion of the CO2 in atmosphere. You are right to a certain extent Tom_zg.

Then I agree with Moo also.

I think we are overdoing the lights. The requirement of intense light should be about 5 hours a day to the intensity required for the survival of the most light-hungry plant. The rest of the inputs should be balanced to this light supply, including CO2 & fertilisers.

In a fish and plant aquarium we should always remember that we have not only concentrated the plants but also the fish. CO2 could have been balanced in that manner.

I am not against CO2, but from the trend of the threads I have been following, I believe we are overdoing everything. Let us discuss the matter more logically.


----------



## Moo (Apr 27, 2006)

because in nature most plants don't grow as densely as we plant them in most of our tanks, the balanced needs to be amplified.

I see what you mean about the natural Co2, it seems as though outside Co2 comes a bit easier than inside. figures? lol

I still think there's something wrong with this whole WPG you HAVE TO HAVE so many WPG to grow plant "x"


I really wish there was some documentation on the plants we grow, amazon sword for example, and it's Natural home.
What nutrients are in the water, what the amount of light is that it gets and the photoperiod.

I mean okay, look at it like this.
Plant "y" grows in Ohio and plant "x" grows near Texas.
Take the temp and everything out of it but the lighting.
Both of these plants on any given day get the same period of lighting.
Okay, but one plant is considered High light in the home aquaria and the other is considered Low Light?

What makes the sun brighter in Texas? This rule never really made any sense to me.

Obviously if you try to plant the high light plant with 1 "wpg" it would more than likely die or not do very well.

I've read lots about the WPG rule not being exactly true..
that smaller tanks actually need more light proportionally than a larger tank. to get the same WPG due to surface area. This is where people measure the output of bulbs how much is reflected, what spectrum is easily absorbed, it actually gets really technical and almost believable. 

I dunno, I guess my question is what makes a plant "hight light" and "low light"
They all get light from the same sun. and generally have the same amount of it in time. Unless elevation plays a role...
blah.

I'm actually kind of experimenting with this for my 58 gallon that is soon to be done. I put a 96 watt PC bulb over it.
that's puts me at the good 'ole 1.6 wpg...
granted I'll only be growing anubias and crypts, but I'm going to try some of these "high light" plants. 
I'm determined to prove this lighting thing wrong.
hahah.
keep posting those ideas and everything guys.


----------



## Satirica (Feb 13, 2005)

Well, for a counter opinion I think CO2 makes growing plants easy. I do not think that high light levels makes growing plants easy. And I think that you might have these two things connected in your mind.

While I'm certain there are plants that require high light levels for growth -- X wpg -- most of the plants that I have read about that absolutely require 3 or 3.5 wpg grow fine for me at 2.4 wpg. I suspect glosso may be one of those plants that must be grown with high light levels in order to get a lush carpet, but I haven't tried it. When I read about a stem plant requiring 3+ wpg I just say "yeah, right" and plant it in my tank. 

Every plant species I've grown has grown better with CO2 regardless of light level. Every specie of algae I've grown has grown better without CO2 regardless of light level. At higher light levels, given sufficient ferts, both desirable plants and algae grow faster.

Because plant growth but seemingly not algae growth is enhanced by CO2, I choose to inject CO2 so that I can spend time learning to aquascape instead of just growing plants. YMMV, but I don't think it is an accident that AGA contest winning tanks tend to be filled with easy to grow plants, even low light plants, all of which are grown with CO2.

Incidentally, there is documentation of what is found in natural plant settings. Kasselmann's first book, Aquarium Plants, contains this information.


----------



## Bert H (Mar 2, 2004)

IMO, on any tank 30gal or larger, 2.5-3wpg will be enough light to grow just about any plant you wanted to place in it. This assumes you have all other requirements met (CO2, ferts, etc). People keep getting sucked into the wpg race thinking that more light equals better plants. Usually they end up with algae outbreaks and wonder why.

There will always be certain plants that just won't do well in your particular system. As an example, I have 2 50gal tanks one 30" long the second is 36" long. The 30" is lit by 2x55W lighting, the 36" lit by a 96W and a 30W strip. For reasons I cannot figure out, L. aromatica will drop the bottom leaves on the 36" tank, while maintaining them much longer on the 30" one, though it has overall lower lighting. After a while you get tired of re-inventing the wheel and go with it, even if it has some bumps in it.


----------



## essabee (Oct 11, 2006)

What are the most light-hungry plants? What are their minimum WPG requirement? Is the data available?


----------



## Craig Tarvin (Jul 26, 2005)

Moo said:


> I really wish there was some documentation on the plants we grow, amazon sword for example, and it's Natural home.
> What nutrients are in the water, what the amount of light is that it gets and the photoperiod.


Plants aren't something that are manufactured in a factory, so they don't come with an "owner's manual". I'm sure the conditions vary from creek to creek, swamp to swamp, etc even within a small area. Not to mention that most of the plants we grow are usually found growing _above_ the water (emerged).

The title of your thread is "Are We Making This Too Hard?", and the answer is yes, _you_ are.  There are several methods... EI, low tech, PPS, ADA, etc... just pick one and try it out, if you have problems, post your questions here. I think that a lot of people are really overthinking it.


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

Moo said:


> I dunno, I guess my question is what makes a plant "hight light" and "low light"
> They all get light from the same sun. and generally have the same amount of it in time. Unless elevation plays a role...
> blah.


To answer your question, high light plants are called "high light plants" since they tend to need more light in order to thrive compared with other plants. Here are a number of reasons why a particular plant might be classified as "high light":

1) Metabolic rate (faster growing plants generally need more light to power this growth), 
2) status in the environment (plants have developed over time a particular "niche" in which they have found the least amount of competition with other plant species - light is one of the most competed over resources), and, 
3) how efficient the particular plant is at turning the different wavelengths of light into energy (certain wavelengths contain more usable energy than others).

The only thing that is really meant by "requires high light - x - wpg" is that that species of plant will do best / show its best colors / fastest and healthiest growth at this light intensity when compared with other light levels. This recommendation is not a rule, it is merely an in-depth summary of how much light a particular plant will need to thrive (at maximum growth rate) given its specific metabolic needs, status in its native environment, and efficiency at which it gathers light underwater.

In reality you can, in fact, grow a high light plant (recommended at) 3.5wpg in 2 watt per gallon of light, but when compared with a plant grown in the recommended range they usually pale in comparison (looking as though they are hanging on for dear life).

*note* There are also similar recommendations (such as the high light----low light recommendations) that detail what nutrient levels and other conditions a particular plants like to have in order to show its most visually pleasing form.


----------



## redstrat (Apr 3, 2006)

also as far as high light vs. low light, think about shading created by a dense canopy of rainforest over the river, this would be where plants requiring lower light, basically like shade plants in the garden. High light plants would get more direct sunlight in the wild, these plants would be more like full sun plants in the garden. although plants that require lower light aren't restricted to these lighting conditions they can surely survive if not thrive in a high light situation but they can just as well grow and be most importantly be healthy in lower lighting conditions as well.


----------



## Moo (Apr 27, 2006)

this really doesn't have much to do with c02, I'm completely aware that co2 injection usually if not almost all the time results in better growth, but also isn't always nessecary.

I understand what most of you mean, and yeah I know about EI, low tech, PPs..all that jazz.
I dunno, mabey it's inexperience.

I also wonder if the "production" of most plants i think it's hydroponics, emerged growth effects plants in any way?
One example i know of it an Amazon sword, grown out of water and close to high wattages of light it grows short rounded leaves, grown submerged in high or low light it grows long blades. odd.

I swear I'm going to figure out how to grow a 3 wpg plant in less than "reccomended" lighting and make it look like it's counter part grown in highlight.

I know it doesn't require thought, there are a lot of different techniques out there to try that work perfectly fine and produce great results. I just wonder if even those are too complex. 
then again, nature as simple as if looks is pretty complex... I'll just pray for low algae in my new tank...lol


----------



## joephys (May 9, 2006)

I have about 2 wpg with some DIY CO2. I add some ferts on a regular basis. I don't do a whole lot of calculating or fiddling with things. My tank is algae free and the plants grow well. I don't put a whole lot of effort into it.

For me, plants needing high light are stem plants that don't grow leaves as well in the lower parts of the tanks because they are shadded, or plants that generally need high light to be red. Other than that, I don't think that most plants need high light to atleast grow and survive.


----------



## eklikewhoa (Jul 24, 2006)

stop fighting it and get some co2 already you know you want to, no need to justify not getting it :drama:


----------



## tom_zg (Oct 20, 2006)

Errr... where is this repulsivenes towards CO2 comming from? Of course, you are welcome to do it the way you want and experience warious methods, but why fight something if it is proved to be effective and working? Or maybe you're making a science project?   

Btw, the shape of Echinodorus grown above and below the water surface is a matter of adaptation to different conditions. There's nothing odd about it.


----------



## Moo (Apr 27, 2006)

oh no, I don't mind doing c02, i mean I Could, buy a system. :: shrugs :: i just don't really find it needed in my tank, unless I start having algae problems or anything like that.
It's simple enough, hook up a compressed tank of some sort, and diffusor...finished. haha I know It's easy.

This all just came about, because of that thread and I was picking plants for my new tank. And thought, okay they have this stem plant listed and low/medium and and this stem plant listed as High light.
It just bothered me, mainly because both plants come from the same biome and the same body of water. I just wondered if we make things to hard.
Mabey there's a simple fix to growing that hard to grow plant.

I dunno.
I'm not fighting against you guys, don't get the wrong idea. haha
I agree with you, mainly because this is the place where I learned mostly everything I know about Fish and planted tanks. And man have i learned alot!

I just wondered if there's a simple way to make that high light, sensitive plant grow more easily, in our pretty closely controlled tanks.


----------



## redstrat (Apr 3, 2006)

eklikewhoa said:


> stop fighting it and get some co2 already you know you want to, no need to justify not getting it :drama:


I think a lot of the aversion to CO2 people have comes from the initial cost to set it up, its an additional peice of equipment, seems complicated at first glance, and it seems like overkill when really your just keeping things in balance, more light = higher need for CO2 and ferts... high light even with less demanding plants will require CO2 to prevent algae, in almost every case. If you want to avoid CO2 then your options become somewhat limited when trying to avoid Algae. You can live in denial about the need for CO2 in a highlight tank but I garantee, if your close the 3wpg in a new tank, with now co2, you WILL more often then not experience algae and I mean all kinds of algae. Why not start with CO2 and avoid these problems from the start, its something that almost everybody says they wish they did from the begining when they make this mistake.

not to say its impossible to grow these plants in other circumstances without CO2, its just significantly easier when it is used.


----------



## Moo (Apr 27, 2006)

what about low light tanks, like the 1.6 im setting up?


----------



## redstrat (Apr 3, 2006)

I would still recomend CO2 to avoid potential problems and to maximize what you can achieve with 1.6wpg but I wouldn't say its required, but it woudl definately simplify things. 

I think in order to make this less complicated your better off adding CO2 to avoid the problems that can occur with algae. Adding CO2 is much less complicated than it seems and the benefit that seems to go unnoticed by most is the fact that it helps prevent problems and basically allows a little more room for error in the long run. there is no harm in adding it as long as safety for your fish is respected.  

like the good old saying
"an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"
this definately applies here. 

who wants to suddenly realize that they need to drop $150-200 to compete an algae bloom that could kill all their prized plants, that could have been completely avoided if CO2 was implemented from the begining. The same goes for adequate fertilization. To me its just not worth it to fool around with no CO2. 

granted at 1.6wpg problems will arise much slower than 3+wpg.


----------



## Moo (Apr 27, 2006)

I considered it, I know it helps.
When originally planning this tank I was hoping to keep it lower tech.
But, as soon as I get a few things paid off. It's probably getting put in.

I know it's easy.
I have to DIY systems running right now.
I'm fighting some sort of short black "tuft" type algae. but those tanks are alright, the plants are a bit stringy though...most likely needs fert tweaking.
So I dunno...


----------



## essabee (Oct 11, 2006)

I was reflecting on my own question when this struck me------ normally in all large bodies of water you find the plant area in patches. These patches would not deplete the CO2 at their peak photosynthesis as the large surrounding of water would form a bank for CO2 supply!!!!

In our aquarium we do not have this bank of CO2, so we must contrive something at peak times.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Why do planted tanks "need" CO2? There are several reasons. First, the growth rate of any plant is determined by the "nutrient" that is least available. This can be light, carbon, or any of the "traditional" fertilizers such as Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, or traces. Plants that grow out of water have ready access to CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 diffuses rapidly into the plant, even at relatively low atmospheric concentrations. In a submerged situation, CO2 diffuses into a plant much, much more slowly. I forget the exact ratio, but its several hundred times slower. High CO2 levels help to compensate for this.

Also, natural bodies of water frequently contain huge quantities of CO2, sometimes even in turbulent, aggitated streams. Where does it all come from? The atmosphere? No. The natural decay of organic material produces large quantities of CO2. All of the rotting plant and animal debris at the bottom of the river or lake releases its carbon into the water. To say that CO2 addition doesn't take place in nature is incorrect.

In my opinion, the addition of carbon dioxide is the single most important thing an aquarist can do to improve plant health, period.

Now, regarding lighting......

Watts/gallon is a poor measure. Everyone knows that. What matters to the plant is the actual light energy falling on the leaf in appropriate wavelengths over a given period of time. Since this is very difficult to measure, we're stuck with a substitute term such as WPG, flawed as it is.

As a general rule, actual light intensity for most planted tanks falls far short of maximum light intensity produced by the sun in tropical regions of the world. Plants have evolved to fill all different niches in nature. Some are able to make the most of lower-light situations and some demand quite high light levels. You are certainly free to try growing anything you'd like at "lower" light levels. Just don't expect lots of luck with some of the more demanding species. Generally speaking, they get their "reputations" for a reason.


----------



## raggamuffin (Nov 11, 2005)

instead of looking at certain plants as 'high light plants' perhaps it would be more accurate to consider them the 'less adaptable plants.' because you're right, moo, in nature all plants receive relatively the same light. its just the plants that are less adaptable to different light levels that become classifed as the hard to grow high light plants.

also, in nature, i beleive that in many cases the high levels of co2 in the water where plant life is anumdent, comes from the decades worth of rotting plant and animal material that falls to the plant bed and breaks down on a molecular level, leaching carbon into the water. there would often be quite a few meters worth of degrading material in the ground from which these plants grow, feeding the plants not only co2 but everthing else they need to grow. the couple of inches of substrate in our aquariums is pretty insignificant compared to the magnificent fertility some creek beds would offer.


----------



## Moo (Apr 27, 2006)

wow, I completely missed the plant and biomatter decay giving off co2, but wouldn't that also give off nitrates? I'm sure this isn't as big of a problem because of the large volume of water.
So why don't we do this in our home tanks?
just let the plants rot?
I know this releases lots nitrites and nitrates, but really. Couldn't this be done?
mabey it has and I just don't know about it yet??? lol seems possible at this point.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

I looked up some info from Troels Anderson's excellent article in the latest TAG entitled "Plants' Acclimation to Life Under Water." Regarding CO2, he states"... molecular diffusion is 10,000-fold slower in water than air." "As for light use, CO2 limits photosynthesis and growth at low CO2 concentrations, while other resources limit growth at high CO2 concentrations."

Stating that plants receive the same amount of light in nature is also not correct. Some are suited for exposure to direct sunlight. Some prefer growing under a canopy of taller plants, and some grow beneath river banks, where light levels are quite low. The available ecological niches for plant growth could hardly be more varied. Troels describes a situation of a cluster of Crypt. wendtii growing near a spring in Sri Lanka. Some of them were in direct sunlight and others were in regions of shade. The plants in direct sunlight received more than 100 times as much light energy as the ones in the shade. Those who keep crypts know of their ability to tollerate a wide range of lighting conditions. The majority of stem plants are less adaptable.


----------



## Beasts (Apr 14, 2006)

A very thoughtful, challenging thread! In considering everyone's input I have been making more and more sense of what has been happening in my aquariums and getting one idea after another about new experiments to try. As an example; my water source is our half acre pond which, undoubtedly, has a high CO2 concentration and a lot of organic inputs. Why not do continuous low volume water changes with water filtered just to remove biological organisms to provide a constant input of nutrients? Any thoughts?
As I read more and more about high tech approaches I frequently think of similarities in nature where the more mankind tinkers, as in mechanized chemically dominated agriculture, the less stable the system becomes resulting in more and more dependence on artificial inputs. The system becomes increasingly fragile and more susceptible to catastrophic failure. In the aquarium, obviously we have to provide all of the inputs necessary for plant and fish health and we can push our little ecosystems as hard as we like, but the greater the production we demand the greater the effort required on our part to maintain a very delicate balance. We all seek a balance between effort (and dollars) and enjoyment. And many of us find enjoyment in the effort and the learning curve. Others simply want to sit for hours and just watch the results of our labors. And then there are those who are really greedy and want it all - the work, the learning curve, the relaxed viewing time, some place to spend all of our excess money. As a community we are advancing a search toward increasing ease in following any of these approaches.
I needed another challenge when I chose to return to the aquarium hobby and, boy oh boy, have I found it in the planted aquarium! Personally I hope that my growth in this area will continue for some time.
Beasts


----------



## Moo (Apr 27, 2006)

guaiac boy, I see what you mean about lighting. I mean duh.
I really didn't think about plants in the shade getting much less light, but obviously it makes sense.
And yes I'd agree that crypts are incredibly adaptable.

So we've basically established that in all tanks, while not completely nessecary co2 will almost always provide some good for the the tank.

But about the soil thing.
What about some sort of compost? or a way of adding "compost" like material to a tank.
Preferably a way that wouldn't cloud water. haha good luck right?
and a way to manage nitrates?


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

The difficulty in the aquarium is that we don't have the constant water flow that continuously dilutes the "compost" like in a river or stream system. Your idea is one that others have been trying for years.

ADA's substrate contains a fair bit of nitrogen and other nutrients that essentially accomplishes this. People report all kinds of success using it. The trick is to make it available enough that the plants have access to it while not allowing it to all quickly dissolve into the water column. Walstad-type "el-natural" tanks also make use of soils which contain a certain quantity of organic material. Eventually though, any substrate will run out of gas, meaning it either needs to be changed periodically, or fertilization must be done via the water column. Fert tabs can be used too, but they're pretty hard to regulate and disturbing them often results in problems.

The original question you asked is "Are we making this too hard?" Most of us have found that the easiest, simplest solution to acheive what we're after is to supplement CO2 and supply nitrate, phosphate, potassium, and micros by dosing the water column.

It all depends on your goal. If you want a low-tech, low-maintainence tank that you can sit and enjoy that's perfectly fine. Tanks like that can do quite well with no CO2 supplementation and essentially no fert dosing. For me, more than half of the enjoyment is tweaking all of these gadgets and ferts to accomplish a goal of an algae-free fabulous looking tank with consistent, lush growth. I chose high-light to allow for more experimentation with plant species and to bring out the best form & color from the plants.

There are some great looking tanks out there that don't use CO2 or significant ferts though.


----------



## Satirica (Feb 13, 2005)

Moo, you might want to check out the El Natural forum and read Diane Walstad's book. Compost is not a great idea, but what you are talking about achieving can be done with soil.


----------



## Moo (Apr 27, 2006)

i figured as much. 
This sounds like a great use for that 10 gallon I've got laying around here somewhere.


----------



## Naja002 (Nov 15, 2005)

> What makes the sun brighter in Texas? This rule never really made any sense to me.


Its the tilt of the Earth on its axis.  The Intensity of the sun in Northern Ohio is less than in Southern Texas--and the photoperiod is less. Northern hemisphere gets less intensity and photoperiod in the Winter and more in the Summer. Opposite for the Southern hemisphere--except their season's are opposite of ours also: Their Summer is during our winter and visa versa. The equator gets roughly 12hr days and 12 hr nights all year long, intensity remains roughly the same and temps average about 70F.

This is all 9th grade Natural Sciences stuff......


----------

