# [Wet Thumb Forum]-Do bare substrates ever work?



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

One of my peeves is the fact that aquascapes with partial or fully bare foregrounds in aquascape contests seem to be doing pretty well in the judging, and I don't understand it. Does an aquascape of high caliber ever really pull this off well? Here are some examples:


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

One of my peeves is the fact that aquascapes with partial or fully bare foregrounds in aquascape contests seem to be doing pretty well in the judging, and I don't understand it. Does an aquascape of high caliber ever really pull this off well? Here are some examples:


----------



## FISA (Feb 17, 2005)

Hey Rob...in my opinion... I wouldnt mind a bare or partial bare foreground but it depends on your substrate...looking at these pictures I would definately want really fine substrate or sand rather than gravel sitting bare in the front.


----------



## Wally (Aug 31, 2003)

If you look at nature there are lots of bare spots with no plants.

Also if you have bare sand like in lots of your pictures and the ones I see in online contests its quite easy to "cheat" a bit. What I mean is that you can just dump a little brand new gleaming white sand right on top of the older more dirty stuff and it makes for a quite a nice picture.


----------



## Margolis (Sep 22, 2004)

Personally I think all of those tanks are beautiful.


----------



## JERP (Feb 4, 2003)

I think bare patches have a more, not less, natural appearance. When's the last time you stood in the sandy bottom of a creek or lake? I often think people overplant their tanks to the point of looking "busy".


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

Well the first three I can accept, but the last three I do not think work well at all. The last picture actually won first place! It is far too simple looking in my opinion.
The common theme in all these tanks seems to be using white sand. How often do you see plants growing in white sand in the Amazon or other places? How natural is that?


----------



## imported_shalu (Feb 13, 2004)

Thumbs down from me. White sand works better in a reef tank


----------



## WolverineFan (Nov 28, 2004)

My personal bias is against an all plant tank. My preference is to have rocks, wood and gravel as well as plants be a part of the scape.


----------



## tsunami06 (Feb 6, 2003)

Interrupting for a second here, but the substrate one would find in the Amazon River and its tributaries would be bone white sand. It's perfect for those discus, creating a low maintenance layout with a bare foreground for them to feed from. Furthermore, it reflects their natural habitat.

One would find lots of driftwood, decaying leaves and plant matter, stands of Tonina fluviatilis, Mayaca fluviatilis, and, periodically, drowned Echinodorus sp. in a discus habitat.

Carlos


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

White sand in an amazon river? really? thats the first I have heard of that. Do you have any reference for that? I thought Discus were from Black water with heavy leaf litter and laterite. But regardless, I do not think leaving a substrate totally bare except for some swords, rocks and wood shows much skill in aquascaping. The substrate is even flat in the picture. If that really is a biotope enviorment, then thats not what it is being judged on.

But what do you think about this in general Carlos? You are real big on aquascaping. Is this considered acceptable by Amano standards? Or by Dutch standards? Do you think it works as an element of a top notch design? I am not trying to argue this to death, but I would be interested in more insight.

Everything I read by the experts and artists on the principals of aquascaping says the foreground is the most critical elemant of the whole design.










Here is another tank from the same person. Just as simple a design, except this one has a carpet foreground. In this picture, the foreground is strong, but the background is weak because it pretty much just looks like one row of sword plants too close together.

Now just imagine if you took the foreground from this picture and put it in the pic with the bare foreground and the groups of sword plants. Then you have a strong foreground and a strong, balanced background. Am I the only one that sees this?


----------



## Paul Higashikawa (Mar 18, 2004)

Robert, I think I can understand what you're trying to say here. Effort-wise, it just wouldn't be fair to subjugate a tank for comparison without foreground plants to a tank that has one. I think maybe some people would be more satisfied and content if that bare-substrate tank was entered in the Biotope category. That is, if according to Carlos the discus really can be found in Amazon where there are white sands. I've never been to the Amazons so I cannot say anything. Maybe that would've been a fairer idea....Just my morning yap.


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

I am trying to focus on an aquascaping PRINCIPAL ot TECHNIQUE more than anything else. It is not a personal critique of these people, I am merely using their pictures to illustrate this conversation. All of these people are considered accomplished aquascapers, and some even call them artists. They are all nice looking aquariums, but what we are discussing is technique.

I agree Paul. If Jeffs tank is a biotope representation, then I would think that is how it should have been entered.

There are other reasons why not to use white sand or gravel. It is too bright looking, and it takes away from the view of the plants, distracting in some instances. It also reflects light in photography making it appear even more bright white. The second picture looks like snow covered ground or a sheet of ice. The judges in the AGA contest actually made those same comments about the substrate in all but Jeffs picture.


----------



## JERP (Feb 4, 2003)

Artistically speaking, it is just as important or more important to know when to paint and when not to paint as it is to know what to paint. Knowing when and where to stop is key. I think that bare gravel accentuates this point tremendously. It's a radical departure from the Dutch traditions of Aquascaping but it is significant nonetheless. I don't think that bare gravel is less or more effort. Having bare spots may well be more effort when it comes to self control. I would stare at a bare spot with gritted teeth "MUST NOT PLANT" just because I have more room to plant stuff, no matter how good my tank looked. Difficulty and complexity are not aquascaping judging criteria, creativity and balance are.


----------



## Hawkeye (Aug 20, 2004)

As a Aquascaping Technique the bare sand fails. I fine it to be distracting from the over all design. I fine growing foreground plants to be the hardest part of a plant tank and shows the health of a tank. They are nice looking tanks but I think they are more for showing off fish.

Hawk


----------



## Margolis (Sep 22, 2004)

> quote:
> 
> Originally posted by JERP:
> Artistically speaking, it is just as important or more important to know when to paint and when not to paint as it is to know what to paint. Knowing when and where to stop is key. I think that bare gravel accentuates this point tremendously.


couldn't have said it better myself


----------



## JERP (Feb 4, 2003)

Thank you Margolis.

Hawkeye,
I agree with you on white sand. I don't like the color. The color is too white and artificial. It seems like they are trying to give a saltwater look to a freshwater tank. I do however, like the perspective the bare spots create for creating and removing focus. I consider it to be a legitimate 'scaping tool.

The sand actually got me thinking about other kinds of sand/dirt/gravel. Has anyone tried sand with large amounts of quartz/mica? I went to Yosemite a couple of months ago and the river bottoms glittered from all the flecks of mica and quartz in the otherwise plain brown sand. I think it would look stunning in an aquarium.


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

Using a bare white substrate is a technique, like using stone or using driftwood. No technique works well all the time or ever will work all the time.

Personally I think that bare foregrounds have a role. The bright white sand is more eye-catching than a foreground carpet and provides a stronger contrast to darker stones and wood. Bare areas also provides an open space where cory's can poke about. Foreground lawns always obscure the lower parts of stones or driftwood, which is somtimes undesirable. Some foreground lawns are dirty with healthy plants layered over mulm-choked lower layers of dying plants, all with the odds and ends of algae, riccia and bits of moss grown in. By comparison the bare substrate is not only more attractive in detail but probably better for the overall health of the tank.

I have to disagree with Carlos about the naturalness of white sand. There are rather few freshwater environments where a white sand substrate would be found. Certainly large rivers like the Amazon would not be a good place to look. The material carried by rivers is mostly silt and organic sludge. Where I know pure white substrates are found -- like in parts of the Pantanal -- they are composed of marl. Normally marl is mixed with enough decaying organic matter to turn the whole substrate grey or even black.

JERP, the very white substrates used in aquariums is quartz. Mica would be a troublesome addition. Vermiculite is a sort of treated mica and it makes a mess when added to aquariums.


Roger Miller


----------



## tsunami06 (Feb 6, 2003)

Well, I tried my best...

A) If you have ever seen the documentary on cardinal tetras on the discovery channel, you will see that the substrate is composed of white sand in the aerial shots.

B) This site, taken near Manaus at the mouth of the Rio ***** in the state of Amazonas, clearly shows mauve sand:

http://www.pbase.com/pliborio/manaus__brazil_out_of_the_center

C)
http://www.galahadserben.de/bilder/gross/*****/negro24.jpg 
http://www.galahadserben.de/bilder/gross/*****/negro25.jpg ]http://www.galahadserben.de/bilder/gross/*****/negro25.jpg[/IMG]

The site:
http://www.galahadserben.de/themen/*****.htm

It does make sense that the Amazon River would have white sand. Considering how old the basin is and for how long the soils have been leeched of organics.

Anyone who went to the AGA and got the free ADA magazine showing the Amazonas/Cardinal tetra article will see all that white sand. In many places, it is covered in leaf litter but there is sand underneath it.

I don't use white sand substrates myself, but I do like them and have considered them in future layouts. To say they are not natural would be incorrect, considering that the Rio *****, second longest tributary of the Amazonas, contains altum angels, cardinal tetras, discus, green neons, Nannacara sp., Nannostomis sp., Apistogramma sp., and a host of other species common to the hobby and very commonly kept in our aquariums. Plants would be more unnatural to these species, since there is a paucity of vegetation in the blackwaters of the Rio *****, although some have adapted such as the various Toninas and Mayaca spp.

It's a leaf littered, driftwood laden, tannic water stained, white sand world these fish live in.

The Senske's didn't aim for a biotope, I feel, considering that they used solid blue discus and hybrid swords. Takashi Amano, who first began to use the white sand foreground technique, may have started using it after his visit to the Amazon. Regardless, Senske probably drew the inspiration from Amano.

I have spoken to him over the phone, and he states that the white sand is PERFECT for discus tanks since it gives them room to feed. If anyone has kept discus before, they'd know how they love to pick at the food off the substrate. A dense carpeted lawn wouldn't be as functional.

It works for me.

Carlos


----------



## imported_locus (Feb 2, 2003)

It's all relative to the effect you are trying to acheive.

Are you making a biotope, or are you making a "nature aquarium" that takes its cues from nature (not just the aquatic environment).

Perhaps it is best to consider the substrate as important a part of your hardscape as driftwood and rocks. There are times when it should be covered, and times when it may look better bare (totally or in part).

I think it is encouraging that people are trying different approaches to aquascaping, success should be judged on a case-to-case basis. The underlying question should always be: is it an appropriate choice and does it work well in this case?


----------



## Margolis (Sep 22, 2004)

> quote:
> 
> Originally posted by tsunami06:
> Well, I tried my best...
> ...


thanks for that. Black water, white sand!!!!









wish I would have seen the special about the tetras. The only one I have seen regarding popular aquarium fish was about pacu's and arrowana's.


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

Carlos,

"Whiteness" is often relative. I think the sand bars and banks in some of the photos you link to appear to be near white because they are the most reflective feature in the photo, not because they are really white.

http://www.galahadserben.de/bilder/gross/*****/negro26.jpg

is from the same group of photos from which you chose to post two examples, and it looks like the photo may show the same bank that is featured in your photos. In this photo the sand is distinctly tan -- similar to the sand shown in the photos from Manaus. The major difference in the photos is that in this last example the sky rather than the sand is the brightest feature in the photo.

That's about the same color as sand in the Rio Grande or most any other river I am familiar with. It is definitely not white. It might be a little lighter than the Tex Blast grit that has been used in aquariums for years.

Petty disagreements over color aside, I agree that substrates bare of plants are common in nature and have a function in aquascaping.


----------



## MOR B. (Oct 9, 2003)

i myself preffer to stock the foreground with short plants, but i realy love the aquariums with the white sand in the front. 
every time i see such aquascape im thinking to myself how the white sand will look after a few months and lough to myself...


----------



## TWood (Dec 9, 2004)

I like mine, but it doesn't photograph as nice as those others.

TW


----------



## Shae (Feb 15, 2003)

I agree with Roger, the white sand can provide a huge contrast in the tank. I think it takes a lot of skill to make the sand look correct and not awkward. The bare foreground can either stand out as a detriment or as a benifit to the tank. As also mention, just think what the sand will look like in a few weeks. It would take a lot of maintainance and excellent water conditions to keep the sand as white as possible. The bare foreground, even a non-biotope tank, can be artistically correct. As was said, the goal is to know what and where to plant. Is that not aquascaping? By leaving the bare substrate, the 'artist' has simply decided where to plant and is trying to cause people to focus on the other dimensions of the tank and make everything integrated.


----------



## imported_russell (Sep 14, 2004)

i'm not a big fan of bare foregrounds


----------



## jake (May 25, 2004)

It was my understanding that many aquascapes were meant to represent landscapes. Actually, I read that on this site. Keeping that in mind, it's hard for me to believe that all landscapes are covered with plants, rock formations, wood, etc without any bare spots whatsoever anywhere. 

I think bare areas provide some realism. Obviously, if done wrong it looks akward instead, but the same can be said of many plant placements or other arrangements.


----------



## skylsdale (Jun 2, 2004)

Personally, I prefer a little bare substrate over the obligatory lawn of foreground plants. But, I prefer a more natural/authentic look in tanks and areas of bare substrate reflect much more what I've seen in the wild while snorkeling, diving, etc. in freshwater streams, rivers, and lakes than a uniform blanket of green.


----------



## skylsdale (Jun 2, 2004)

Hey Robert, where did you get that pic of HarryPlanter's tank? I love it, but can't find anything else about it.


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

That Harry planter pic was entered in MY aquascaping contest. That is an example of a two tone substrate, dark on one side, white on the other. That does not look natural or balanced artisticaly. I can understand the arguement for bare spots, but not of different colors.

Those pics look like dark muddy red water to me, not bright white sand. I also don't see ANY plants growing there. When I was in Maine at Moosehead lake, I saw open water with sand and no plants. The back water lagoons and streams were rich in plant life without sand on the bottom. Instead it had dark muddy silt with lots of organic matter, wood, rocks, and an entanglement of plants and roots. Where there were plants they grew thick and carpeted the bottom. I would think the Amazon would be very simular. Open water, bare bottom, little if any plants. Go further into the jungle where the shorelines have not been cleared by man the landscape/aquascape is different.


----------



## skylsdale (Jun 2, 2004)

Thanks, Robert. I really like the layout of the tank, but like you, agree that the two-tone sand is unattractive.

(I tried accessing the contest results here: http://aquabotanicwetthumb.infopop.cc/groupee but the link wasn't working.)


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

Somehow the link got messed up

http://www.aquabotanic.com/contest2004/

http://www.aquabotanic.com/contest/index.asp


----------



## Jeremiah Hill (Feb 20, 2005)

The question is: Do bare substrates ever work? 

Short Opinion: Yes
My Longer Opinion: Well whether a bare substrate vs. a planted substrate is better, it would all depend on the type of tank you are creating. In a bio-tope or natural tank a fully planyed front is extremly un-natural and forground plants can be put into a lawn like many like but the lawn should thin out and lead to an open area like there would be in nature. But it is the important aspect of all natural aquariums that we know that if we want a real natural aquarium we might as well put mudd leaves in the bottom of the tank and add a rock or two, or choke the entire tank with plants as they most likely would be in nature, but we don't do this because it is unattractive. So we just add all the various elements of everything in the habitat to make a better looking and hopfully attractive setup. While in a dutch/garden tank it is the objective to show of plants an leaving a bare spot would be considered and insult to the dutch aquarium community.

So basically it all depends.


----------



## scalare (Feb 18, 2003)

I also agree with JERP, that simplicity is sometimes better than an overly busy display. your mind/eyes can be drawn in easier with a display like the bottom discus tank than a heavily planted tank.


----------

