# [Wet Thumb Forum]-Diana Walstad's Approach to Planted Tank



## hubbahubbahehe (Mar 29, 2004)

Hi everyone I was wondering if you could share your experiences using Diana Walstad's methods from her book Ecology of the Planted Aquarium

Some examples include,

(1) soil substrate
(2) water changes every 6 months
(3) using sunlight 
(4) fish food for only fertilizer source

what has worked and what hasn't worked for you


----------



## hubbahubbahehe (Mar 29, 2004)

Hi everyone I was wondering if you could share your experiences using Diana Walstad's methods from her book Ecology of the Planted Aquarium

Some examples include,

(1) soil substrate
(2) water changes every 6 months
(3) using sunlight 
(4) fish food for only fertilizer source

what has worked and what hasn't worked for you


----------



## Justin Fournier (Jan 27, 2004)

I have a 29G at my girlfriends house that has been running for 3 years using many of Diana's methods.

These include a soil substrate covered by a few inches of small diameter gravel, only 2 NO bulbs, no ferts other then fish food. It rarely gets a water change. It has been doing exceptionally well, though it took a while to get up and going. It's not aquascaped much, looks like one of her tanks really, with the plant growing however they see fit.

This tank has not been as rewarding for me, that's why it's not here. It lacks a lot of the plants I want to work with, and things happen far too slow for my like. I prefer my "High-tech" approach for results in the plants, but prefer the 29G for the maitnence


----------



## Steve Hampton (Feb 13, 2004)

I have a 20G that is somewhat inspired by Ms. Walstad. I don't use 100% soil for a substrate. My substrate is part sand, garden loam, laterite, plant mulm, and peat. I don't use any direct sunlight, but it is a low light 1.5 wpg setup. Water changes are done about once every 2-3 months, sometimes it goes 4 months. The only filtration is an AquaClear with a single foam and rarely every gets any attention. I never add any fertilizers or traces. This tank is very slow growing. The aquascape remains very static and essentially, this tank just sits there. The tank is home for a pair of angelfish and lots of ramshorn and MTS.

I am not knocking this style tank. It has been a learning experience, but for me it's too pedestrian. I'm going to break the tank down and make it into a paludarium in the very near future.


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

Most of us are into planted tanks as a hobby. Hobbies are supposed to give you a diversion that occupies your time. Ms. Walstad's methods give you a hobby that doesn't occupy your time. I'm confused. What's the point?

I understand that Ms. Walstad's methods work, and provide a simple, stable aquarium that requires little care but doesn't look great. Not everyone has "great looking" as their primary goal. A friend visitmg my home a few years ago looked at one of my tanks and said "It looks like one of Diana Walstad's tanks." It looked that way for good reasons; my methods were much like Ms. Walstad's. The tank wasn't maintained to look real good and it didn't.


Roger Miller

"The indispensible first step to getting the things you want out of life is this: Decide what you want" -- Ben Stein


----------



## Slappy (Mar 2, 2003)

You have any pics of that tank, Roger?

----------------------------
Fish Slapping Extraordinaire


----------



## Paul Higashikawa (Mar 18, 2004)

I think Roger has a good point about this method. I don't mean any disrespect, but maybe this could be refered to as 'the lazy man's method', hehe! But of course, aesthetic is a relative thing, so~ Beauty in the eyes of beholder. I don't really know what those kind of tanks look like, but I believe Roger when he said they are not good looking. Hobby is suppose to be something you actually put efforts into







All I know is ever since I joined this forum, I have a more strong perception about planted tanks than tanks with mainly fish and little plants. Too bad I didn't start out that way and have now tanks full of fishes but little plants. Wish I could start a new tank with nothing but plants~
Sigh.....

Paul


----------



## Cody (Jun 26, 2004)

Hi Algae Grower,

I've set up 2 tanks using most of Walstad's method. I've got the soil substrate, no added ferts other than fish food, lower than 2 wpg of lighting. Only one tank gets any direct sunlight. I do water changes every 2 to 3 weeks, however, because a) the tanks are relatively new, and b) the fish seem to like it.

I chose to go this route because I wasn't interested in spending a small fortune on equipment and supplies, but still wanted a healthy, thriving and great-looking aquarium. For me, this method has been great. The plants were slow to get started, but once they were established growth has been suprisingly fast. I haven't had any problems with plant health and issues with algae are practically non-existant.

If you choose Walstad's method I believe you have to start off being realistic. If high-light-demanding stem plants or little air bubbles is what gets you going this isn't the method for you. You'll also need patience. Most plants will grow beautifully, but not overnight.


----------



## Faruk Gençöz (Nov 4, 2005)

For many years I have followed Waldstad’s philosophy. I went farther, in fact. I covered a 40G tank with transparent plastic and made a real closed system. The only addition to the system was light. The system worked very well for at least 4 months. Then I begun see very resistant red algae. I did nothing. In one month it was everywhere. Then came the blue-green algae and covered everything including the red ones. When the red ones could not get light they eventually disappeared, but blue greens remained. Approximately at the end of the sixth month, because I needed a tank space for my breeding fish in another tank, I uncovered the plastic cover and changed 50% of the water. It was that night I saw the blue greens last time. Two ancistrus successfully survived in the tank. After changing the water they died within two months.

I also had many trials with natural sunlight. 6 months ago I have covered 3G aquarium and put peat moss as the lower layer and granulized red clay as the top layer of the substrate. I also put a granite rock in the middle so that upper portion of it is above the water level. Then I placed some java moss on it. There were several snails on the moss. Today everything looks fine under indirect sunlight. Java moss grows both emersed and submersed. The aquarium smells humid moss or sand which is an indicator of healthy cycle in the aquarium. 

These trials were very useful for me to understand the ecology of freshwater. But now I agree with what Roger says about the aquarium hobby. I want to change the water, artificially feed the plants and fight with the algae. Now, I want to see “what I can do” rather than “what nature does”.


----------



## gpodio (Feb 4, 2004)

It is very possible to balance things out to acchieve such goals, however many of us are too tempted to add more fish and keep higher light plants to correctly maintain such a setup. I've been keeping low light planted tanks for some years now and if done correctly they look no better or worse than a high light tank, it's just another type of tank that's all. For those who want to keep many tanks, low light tanks are one way to reduce your weekly task of maintaining them. Although I haven't used 100% soil substrate in a while, it does work very well, however it doesn't last forever, it needs to be replaced when depleted or start using substrate fertilizers which would make it similar to using traditional gravel substrates. Sunlight must be a little difficult at first to control, many people have outdoor tubs with soil, fish and plants, it's very similar I guess, just harder to control. I've always wanted to have a skylight installed above an open tank one day but I would probably still have some extra lighting for those cloudy days.

A more moddern approach to low light tanks is to use a mixture of gravel substrate such as flourite, onyx, peat and small quantities of soil and fertilize it using substrate tabs. A well balanced tank will need no liquid fertilizers at all and no water changes for many months. I currently do monthly water changes on my low light tank but looking at my NO3 reading, it's alway a steady 5 or under, so if I needed to I could easily let it go for longer periods. I would just have to put up with a little yellow water from the driftwood, that's all.

I have to disagree with the idea that a low light tank is not as "pretty" as a high light tank, it's just a different type of setup with it's own requirements, pros and cons. IMO some feel like this because many people start off with plants in a low light environment, those who fail often blaim the lighting, then they go into higher lighting and start to use ferts and the "correct" way of doing things. But there is also a correct way of keeping a low light planted tank, their prior failure with low lighting can often depend on other factors. It's true it's nice to fiddle with chemicals and water changes but it's also true that at times you just want a beautiful planted tank that doesn't require a lot of work, specially if it's not your only tank or it's in a place such as parent's house, office or other location where you can't spend too much time working on it. You can have successful low light and high light tanks, growth can be very nice in both setups if the right conditions and plants are chosen. Actually I have to admit that my current low light tank looks as good if not better in some people's eyes than my high light tank. If it's done right, both setups look great IMO.

There is one important thing however, having a high light tank allows you to really learn about plant nutrition, you have no choice, learn it or grow algae. This allows you to know better and will allow you to also setup a better low light tank. I know my last couple of years working with high light tanks has greatly increased my understanding and ability to setup more successful planted tanks, both low and high light.

Giancarlo Podio


----------



## George Willms (Jul 28, 2004)

Giancarlo, you've got PM.

George

5.5: mid-tech and maintenance, 29: high-tech, mid maintenance, 45 high: low-tech, low maintenance.

More complete tank specs in profile


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

Giancarlo,

I don't mean to say that a tank has to have bright light to look pretty. That wouldn't be true. But moderate light is only one of the features that Ms. Walstad recommends.

Other factors figure into making it difficult to get a great looking tank using some of her methods. Soil substrates can't be disturbed without making a mess out of a tank, so it's best not to do that very often. Low CO2 levels lead to very slow growth rates, so damage to plants stays evident for a long time. The lack of fertilizers other than fish food lead to plants that aren't very robust. The general philosophy of keeping "hands off" the tank means that the aquascaper doesn't take an active role in making the tank look real good.

Some people find the unkept jungle look. Some don't. The appeal of that kind of tank usually has to come from an interest in the natural method; it certainly is not the best route to what most people would call an attractive tank.

I've always used the photo on the cover of her book as an illustration of the results you can expect from her methods. Overall, the picture looks like it could have been taken of the back of a tank, instead of the front. Some of the plants (e.g. C. balansae and sword plant) look healthy. Some (like the C. wendtii in front) are probably healthy but aren't very strong. Others (like the stem that looks like it might be R. rotundifolia) just aren't very healthy.

Ms. Walstad's approach used to be more popular than it is now, and a lot of people thought her results were admirable. I spent years developing the same sort of methods. The bar has raised considerably since then and a lot of people now won't settle for those results. For my part I walked away from that whole concept just days after I first saw Nature Aquarium World.

Slappy,

There aren't any pictures of that tank. I would be too embarrased to put them up. It's a 38 gallon tank lit by 2x30 watt cool white fluorescents. It has a large, unhealthy stand of Java Fern in the middle, a bit of driftwood to the right of center with some 2-inch high dwarf sag growing in front of it. The back right corner is a thick stand of C. wendtii. The whole end of the tank to the left of the java fern is an open stand of weak-looking, indistinguishable crypts -- maybe C. walkeri. There's also a pervasive infestation of BGA that is thick enough to be visible, but not thick enough to hurt anything much.

I think that at the time my friend made that comment, the right side had a large stand of A. nana instead of the driftwood, sag and C. wendtii. Also at that time, everything had at least a little black brush algae growing on it.


Roger Miller

"The indispensible first step to getting the things you want out of life is this: Decide what you want" -- Ben Stein


----------



## gpodio (Feb 4, 2004)

I too am not crazy about many low light tanks you see around, including on the cover of Diana's book, they don't need to be like this at all IMO. Soil is definetly a pain in the rear, that's why I limit myself to 4-5 handfulls of peat moss as the fist layer. It's true that you can't prune a slow growing tank continuosly as it's too slow to fill in and hide the cut stems but like you said, some of us like that natural bush that the plants end up forming. I don't agree with the weak growth in a low light tank, if you have weak growth then you are doing something wrong or using plants that are not suited for the conditions, or too little light. Obviously our thoughts on what makes a tank low light or moderate light may differ slightly, I consider my tanks low light when they don't require liquid fertilizers to grow healthy plants. Perhaps some may consider some of my tanks moderate light tanks with a heavier fish load to compensate.....

I find many of the plants in my low light tanks grow just as healthy as my high light, just slower. Colors are nicer too in some cases, such as the sunset hygro, red lotus and ludwiga. If you like I will post a photo this weekend of the current overgrown state of one of these tanks, I need to do a large pruning this weekend as the tank has reached jungle proportions with several flowers now hanging out of the tank, but the plants look great, I can't see any growth problems at all. Here are some photos of this tank from last month. It's a very simple setup:

Tank size: 90gal
Filter: Eheim 2217 (no surface agitation to reduce CO2 loss)
Temp: 27F
Lights: 3x32W T8 fluorescent lights
Substrate: Peat moss, crushed tabs and mulm in the bottom and flourite on top. 4" deep.
Light Duration: 12hrs
Fertilization: Flourish tabs in substrate, replaced every 3-4 months. No liquids.
Fish load: 40 cardinals, 20 rasboras, 20 false runny nose, 3 angelfish, 4 badis badis, 3 coridoras, 10 ottos, 3 adult platties with about 30-40 offsprings and many snails.
Water changes: 25% monthly
Algae: Some thread algae appears towards the end of the month but you really have to look for it. Glass and plants remain very clean on their own. Had some BGA and BBA on the pre-filter during the first couple of weeks of setting up but cleared up on it's own.

Photos:






















































There's more photos on my website if you want to see more.

Plants:
Limnophila Aquatica
Ludwigia mullertii 
Ludwigia repens 
Nymphaea Lotus zenkeri 
Hygrophila difformis 
Hygrophila polysperma 
Lobelia cardinalis "small form" 
Ceratopteris thalictroides 
Java Ferns
Nymphoides aquatica 
Ceratophyllum demersum 
Lemna minor 
Sagittaria subulata 
Hottonia palustris 
Anubias Barteri
Anubias Caffeefolia
Anubias Hastifolia
Anubias Heterophylla
Crypt Wendtii Red
Crypt Wendtii green
Crypt wallissi
Aponogeton Crispus

True it's not your ideal tank to practice aquascaping and keep you busy like all hobbies should, but I for one would not have been able to maintain a higher maintenance tank in my wife's office. It was this or nothing. And the prior state of the tank (plastic plants, fake corals, an oscar, large pleco and a big bubble wall) was horrible IMO. This tank keeps many kids and adults busy while they wait to be attended to and I don't have to slave over it every week, so I guess it serves it's purpose as a true low maintenance tank. Might not be everyone's cup of tea but I don't think it looks bad personally, a little messy perhaps... Of course I do have a high light tank to keep me busy too







, just don't have the time to tend to multiple high light tanks.

Wow, hope I didn't put anyone to sleep








Giancarlo Podio


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

Giancarlo,

That is probably the best-looking low-light tank I've seen photographed. I particularly like the colors. What kind of 32W T8's are you using?

While your tank is low-light it does go beyond the methods that Ms. Walstad favored. Especially, you aren't using a "real" soil substrate and you are fertilizing

And to be quite clear, The weak-looking plants I've seen in low-tech tanks were not necessarily weak-looking because of the low light. The most likely problem was low potassium. Normally tap water doesn't contain much potassium and the amount contained in fish food is low compared to other plant nutrients. If you don't add extra potassium then the plants are dependent on whatever is stored in the substrate and that is depleted over time.


Roger Miller

"The indispensible first step to getting the things you want out of life is this: Decide what you want" -- Ben Stein


----------



## gpodio (Feb 4, 2004)

Well I originally started with high Kelvin bulbs, I had them from another tank and tried them out. Then I changed to the ones that came with this All-glass triple T8 light fixture and liked them better. I'm not sure what kelvin these bulbs are, I was told they are quite high but have a large amount of red in the spectrum so they appear warmer. The picture of the whole tank is with these bulbs (a little over exposed) and the other pictures are with the 10,000K bulbs that I no longer use. The greens are nicer with the 10000K but the reds are all washed out.

You can compare more photos here if you like:
10,000K bulbs
http://www.gpodio.com/aqua/photos/09_2003/

All-Glass supplied bulbs
http://www.gpodio.com/aqua/photos/10_2003/

If I were using soil I wouldn't be using the substrate tabs, or perhaps just a couple... For the reasons you pointed out and other obvious ones, I prefer to mix a little "modern tech" with some good old wisdom so I have replaced the soil substrate with a fertile gravel. Like you say, it's not exactly the same as Diana's "natural" setups but still a low light tank. I'm sure the root tabs do make a big difference, I have more control over the amount used and know that I'm giving the plants everything they need, something that some soils may lack or deplete over time. Unfortunately many people blame light for unhealthy plant growth, sure there's a point where you can have insufficient lighting, but nutrient balance, as you pointed out, is probably the greater cause of grief for folks having plant problems. This is basically the point I was trying to make.

I also didn't mention that while the full tank photo was taken after a water change and clean-up, the rest of the month the tank is left on it's own and quickly gets covered with duckweed and hornwart. So besides having low lighting, it's further reduced by the floating plants. Here's pictures taken before the monthly water change and removal of duckweed and hornwart:



















This is after removing the duckweed but not the hornwart









Well this weekend is d-day for this tank, all the plants are pretty much going away as a raffle prize, I'll keep some small cuttings and let the jungle re-create itself over the next couple of months. Definetly need to get rid of the crispus, it's leaves have all joined the duckweed at the surface. Will be trying riccia in the foreground too, not sure how it will go but worth a try.

Regards
Giancarlo Podio


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

The blue content of the lights probably is the reason for the good color. 

Riccia actually can grow pretty well in low light. It takes on the dark green, sinking form and isn't as attractive as it is under higher light. I find it every now and then growing in deeply shaded parts of my 150.


Roger Miller

"The indispensible first step to getting the things you want out of life is this: Decide what you want" -- Ben Stein


----------



## gpodio (Feb 4, 2004)

> quote:
> 
> Riccia actually can grow pretty well in low light. It takes on the dark green, sinking form and isn't as attractive as it is under higher light. I find it every now and then growing in deeply shaded parts of my 150


That's cool, I like it even more if it sinks on it's own. What's the growth rate like in low light?

Thanks
Giancarlo Podio


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

It don't think it grows very fast. I tried to remove all of it from my 150 in February because it was infested with algae and utricularia. In July I noticed a fist-size globular mass of it growing near the back of the tank below the C. balansae. So, from a wayward sprig to moss-like glob in 5 months. That was with a moderate amount of CO2. 


Roger Miller

"The indispensible first step to getting the things you want out of life is this: Decide what you want" -- Ben Stein


----------



## gpodio (Feb 4, 2004)

I'll try it, if it doesn't grow as quickly as dwarf sag it might be a nice alternative for me for the foreground.

Thanks
Giancarlo Podio


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

I like dwarf sag in a low-light tank. It's one of those plants that is probably better under low light than higher light, where it gets fairly tall. Unfortunately dwarf sag can be pretty agressive.

I put some in my 38 a long time ago and it disappeared. Years later I found some small mystery plant with thread-like leaves caught up in the dark in the lower leaves of the java fern, I moved the plant to another tank with light and it took off. It was the dwarf sag. So I put it back in the 38 but planted it in a small open space. The plants stay small but I have to beat it back every now and then or it starts to strangle the crypts.


Roger Miller

"The indispensible first step to getting the things you want out of life is this: Decide what you want" -- Ben Stein


----------



## gpodio (Feb 4, 2004)

Very true, it stays very clean in low light but just as agressive as in high light. I too have same sorry looking sag in a poorly lit fry tank that just won't die. It's where I got the starter plant for the 90 gallon, I had originally gotten rid of this plant and wasn't expecting it to survive in the fry tank.

BTW, do you cut the leaves off leaving the roots and runners in place or do you pull out the entire plant (or chain of plants) when thinning out a dense patch?

Giancarlo Podio


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

I usually try to start from the edge of a thick stand and work in, following runners back as far as I can. I don't like the stands to get real thick, so if it comes down to it I'll uproot the entire stand, separate out a few plants and replant them.

Roger MIller

"The indispensible first step to getting the things you want out of life is this: Decide what you want" -- Ben Stein


----------



## corvus (Apr 9, 2003)

Well, my first attempt at a planted tank was low-light with soil/peat/gravel substrate. It is still running 1.5 years later, I like it. The main reason I did it was that I was broke! I had tank, stand, magnum cannister, and shop light on hand. (was getting back into my tanks after a period of burn-out). In any case I had all these things on hand, but really no money, so I surfed around the net, found her methods, more or less, and set it up one day. Got plants from friends, my pond, and a local lake. The tank does quite well. I let some parts get really jungly with val and sag, another part with Java Fern and crypts. My dwarf puffers are great in there, they love the jungle.

I like the tank, it is virtually no work, and looks different from the rest of mine. For me, it was a good cheap way to get into planted tanks, gave me a lot of confidence that I could do it, before I went out and spent $$$ on my high-tech tanks. I'm glad I did it, and would recommend it for folks who are hesitant to go high-tech right away.

main tank,90gal, 440watts vho, 100% flourite, press. Co2, 4 more tanks +3,500 gallons of ponds.


----------



## Celano (Dec 17, 2003)

I started using Walstad's system back in November and I like it alot. My plants look better and the number of species I can keep successfully has increased. 

It's a good system for us "lazy" folks (actually,I am a busy, poor student.) who would rather spend more time watching our fish an less time in soaking in water up to our armpits and dripping all over the floor. (Fish watching is my true hobby; I spend at least an hour everday doing it.) Though really, I find I'm actually putting a bit more effort into my tanks now that they look good to me. (While I like fancy garden tanks, I like the random jungle look too.) I spend about 2+ hours every Friday testing water and cleaning hoods and the outside of the glass. I no longer have to clean the inside glass, as the algae has ceased to grow on it. Some pre-Walstad algae does remain on the sides of two of my tanks, as I never clean the back or side glasses. It's disappeared completely in my most heavily planted tank. I prune as needed, and if the need is daily, then daily I prune. 

I have the soil substrate with gravel on top. I moved recently, and my new tapwater has 0gH and 2kH and my plants, even the easygoing Java fern, hated it. I have boosted my gH and kH to 7 and 4. I have also added a source of potassium. I removed my filter cartridges (cheap Aquatechs) after discovering that a tank I had removed the cartridge from had better water parameters (specifically, 0 nitrate) than the other tanks. I concluded that the filter cartidges were a trap for trash that if it wasn't stuck in the filter would either be eaten by snails and fish or removed by me. I have 1.5 watts per a gallon, and indirect sunlight. (No access to direct, but I'd like to try it.)

The only real deviation I've got going is I kept my airstones because I like the way they blow off the crude that accumulates on the water's surface and that they increase water flow which the fish seem to enjoy.(I keep small schooling species.) However, I'm now wondering the film's accumulation had something to do with the gunk in the filter. I'm may trying turning the stone in my most heavily planted tank off and see what happens.


----------



## skylsdale (Jun 2, 2004)

I've never read Walstad's book, so although I know the basic components of her style...I'm a little unclear as to their purposes. 

For instance, is the potting soil supposed to provide nutrients for plants as well? If not, what's its purpose? Would kitty litter work in place of soil (ion/cation exchange)? 

Why the infrequent water changes--to keep as heavy a nutrient load as possible in the water column for the plants?


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Although a bit on the technical side her book is the best resource I've come across yet on keeping planted aquaria. You canget it at the AGA store www.aquatic-gardeners.org

Best,
Phil


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

> quote:
> 
> For instance, is the potting soil supposed to provide nutrients for plants as well? If not, what's its purpose?


The purpose of the soil is to act like, well... soil. It is the primary source of some nutrients, a secondary source of other nutrients and a storage reservoir for many nutrients. It also houses bacteria, provides for reducing conditions and does all those other things that soils do. I should point out that the role is not reserved for potting soil. She claims that any soil will do.



> quote:
> 
> Would kitty litter work in place of soil (ion/cation exchange)?


No. Not that you can't make beneficial use of kitty litter (cats love it), but it isn't soil.



> quote:
> 
> Why the infrequent water changes--to keep as heavy a nutrient load as possible in the water column for the plants?


I don't know that she actually advises infrequent water changes, its just that she doesn't need to do them so there is no reason for the additional labor.

Roger Miller

------------
_"The indispensible first step to getting the things you want out of life is this: Decide what you want" -- Ben Stein_


----------

