# Sticky  So, why does New School = no algae?



## MiamiAG

The discussion on the PPS thread got me thinking again. I know it's been discussed before. I don't think we have a definitive answer so lets give it another whack, college try, that sort of thing...

New school fertilization methods (EI and PPS) have certainly deepened our understanding of planted aquarium nutritional dynamics. They have allowed MANY more people to enjoy algae-minimized tanks.

The question is: *why do EI and PPS minimize algae*?


----------



## alexperez

IMHO I believe the reasons behind these methods are that the plants are no longer limited by any nutrients. And as long as the plants are growing the algae is kept at bay. Not very scientific, but my experience (see below) from the last 2 years have let me to believe this.



When I started keeping planted tanks, I read about the Sears and Colin paper about limiting Phosphates to stop algae growth. We'll I tried that for a few months and always had BBA and fuzz algae. I kept the NO3 at about 10ppm and the PO4 below .5 ppm. While trying this method I got a bad PO4 test kit that was giving me high readings. We'll I dosed at higher levels of PO4 (still thinking I was at .5 ppm) and the algae was getting less and less. My LFS in Arkansas tested my water and confirmed that my PO4 was over 2ppm. I got me another PO4 test Kit (La Motte) and Once again started the .5ppm Dosing and then the algae once again started appearing. I had to move to South Carolina so the tank was torn down.



In South Carolina I set everything up again and by now I had read about the EI method. So I started using it, and it working nicely. I had good plant growth and very little algae. I test almost daily (I Like to do it). And got a hold of a Bad NO3 test kit and instead of keeping up with the EI method, I believed the test kit more and so I dosed less NO3 than I should have. We'll once again the algae came back. Once I figured that the NO# test kit Was bad. I gave up and bought all La Motte kits.
Once I started to dose and keep the NO3 at about 20ppm and the PO4 at about 2ppm the algae Once again stopped growing. We'll it was Time to move again so I had to tear down the tank once more. 




I set up the tank in Florida and everything was going great nice plant growth and no algae (EI Method). I now tested only once or twice a week and just dosed .5 tsb of KNO3 and 1.5 ppm of PO4 every other day. The test kits showed an average of about 20-30 ppm KNO3 and PO4 was always above 2ppm. 
I recently had a mishap in the tank. After a water change for some yet unknown reason I lost about 70% of the Fish and about 50% of the plants. The plants that where left had stopped growing. And in a one week period I started seeing algae growing again. About 2 weeks after the mishap All the old and new plants where growing nicely again and the Algae stopped growing. 



So from the above experience I concluded that any time the plants stop growing. Due to Lack of nutrients or for some other reason algae will quickly appear. Thats why the methods work they keep the nutrient levels that the plants need.


----------



## defdac

> And as long as the plants are growing the algae is kept at bay


I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that the whole purpose of this thread is the question why this is true: Why does unlimited nutrients and happy plants keep algae at bay?


----------



## MiamiAG

Thanks Alex!

I agree with you that using the new methods results in algae limitation. The question I have is WHY do they work? If plant's growing well = algae limitation AND if algae and plants need the same nutrients (careful, I didn't say in the same ratio, levels, etc.), then can I conclude the following? 

Good plant growth = algae limitation BECAUSE:

1) Good plant growth results in limiting a key nutrient for algae; or
2) Good plant growth produces some sort of allelochemical that limits algae?


----------



## MiamiAG

defdac said:


> I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that the whole purpose of this thread is the question why this is true: Why does unlimited nutrients and happy plants keep algae at bay?


Correct!

There's a lot of very experienced and knowledgeable folks here. Let's hear your hypothesis, theory, conjecture, what not! You don't have to be right, just throw up your gut feeling.


----------



## S

_Why ask why?_


----------



## MiamiAG

S said:


> _Why ask why?_


Because it is key to deepening our understanding of planted aquarium dynamics.


----------



## TWood

I'll hazard a guess just to keep this ball rolling.

I'll propose that the higher oxygen levels in a tank where the plants are doing well acts to suppress algae. How? Um, maybe the algae is so small that it gets oxidized? That is, the oxygen molecules tear it apart?

Someone like TBarr will probably come along and say "No, I've tested tanks with algae and no algae and both had the same oxygen level." If, so, then that theory is kaput, but I'd be interested in knowing if the correlation was studied.

TW


----------



## MiamiAG

Hey TW, do you know Hanns-Jürgen Kraus? He's a person who suggested something similar to what you just did. Very controversial back in 1995-6. I have a few of his books and articles. We tried to get them translated and published here but it was a no go.

We discussed it on the APD back in 1997 if I recall. I remember Kaspar Horst of Dupla thought that Kraus' oxygen theory had been disproved. It appeared in Das Aquarium I think.


----------



## TWood

Hey Art,

No, not familiar with any of that. I just pulled this out of my, um, made it up out of thin air. [smilie=d:

TW


----------



## pineapple

Why do these methods work in contravention of what seems to be found in nature?

Using simple aquarium test kits, I have measured PO4 and NO3 levels in healthy lakes which support an abundance of aquatic plant life. The PO4 and NO3 levels were too small to be measurable - nothing like as high as the levels commonly encouraged in the planted tank hobby. In these locales the lake water was very healthy, clear, not eutrophic. Algae types were neither dominant nor obvious.

While it is difficult to compare a natural environment such as a lake with an aquarium - lakes have thermal zones, areas of run-off, large dilution factors, large surface areas for gas exchange, relatively cool temperatures, and other features that aquariums do not have - the main difference I notice is that lake water is ALIVE. In aquariums, it has a tendency to become DEAD quickly, particularly as a result of chemical manipulation by the inexperienced aquarist.

IME / IMO it is all about _water quality_ rather than nutrients - at least that is the way I tend to analyze and understand the problem or avoiding algae.

Algae prevail in DEAD water. Water changes rejuvenate the system. EI-style, which evolved in times before many people had spreadsheets etc, uses targeted dosing levels and water changes to ensure water quality is optimum. Water changes allow for unknowns to be addressed and buildups to be avoided. PPS is an analytic approach which hinges on providing enough but not too much, so as to ensure optimum water quality while having minimum water changes. When a PPS proponent fails in his/her dosing regime, they do a water change.

Nutrient dosing is just a part of the water quality story.

(Now if only that SAVE AS DRAFT button was down there I could have saved you from reading this embarrassing Plocher-like plonk).

Andrew Cribb


----------



## TWood

pineapple said:


> IME / IMO it is all about _water quality_ rather than nutrients - at least that is the way I tend to analyze and understand the problem or avoiding algae.
> 
> Algae prevail in DEAD water. Water changes rejuvenate the system.


Yeah, but -how- does water quality affect algae? How does a water change 'rejuvenate' water in a way that's bad for algae? What is the specific mechanism? At some point, doesn't this have to come down to a molecular level where the chemistry for algae life processes don't work any more? Just spitballing...

TW


----------



## pineapple

Molecular level research is beyond the means of most hobbyists. Water is a complex media in which chemical reactions take place and solutes are transported. An aquarist has the ability to observe results of some of these changes but usually cannot understand the complex chemistry involved since the methods and tools to investigate these things are not available to him/her.

To say one compononent of healthy water is more or less responsible for the prevention of algal growth seems irrelevent. Healthy gas exchange, low particulate content etc... all contribute to healthy water. If there was one magic component (such as your suggestion of oxygen) responsible for slowing or stopping algae growing, it would have been found before now by better equipped researchers.

Andrew Cribb


----------



## TWood

I don't understand the chemical processes involved when dosing NPK, but I can dose them to the 'right' levels without any knowledge of molecular biology. 

I agree that the water chemistry of an aquarium is complex, and I'm not defending my proposal at all here, it was just a thought. Art can correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the point of this thread -was- to get to specific causes. If we're going to settle for 'rejuvenated' water then we have to open the door to Plotcher again. :toimonst:

TW


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## MiamiAG

Tom, does it then boil down to a competition between plants and algae? The reason people say you have more wiggle room with less light is that deficiencies can occur quickly when creating a high metabolic rate as is the case with higher light levels. This would imply that it's a nutrient competition thing again.


----------



## New 2 Fish

I'm curious if any of these studies, and the discussion, has taken seasonal changes into account. Is it possible that the varying day lengths,temperatures and thermoclimes, mixing,etc. may have an effect on different species of algae either inhibiting others or out competing others and then making their habitat incompatible for themselves?
Anyone have links to these studies? Would be interesting reading!


----------



## pineapple

Approaching the problem from the converse: if someone were to start a thread on "_How to grow really good algae in a planted aquarium_" the consensus might be better.

Andrew Cribb


----------



## TWood

Heh.

Can a post mortem be performed on algae? If a tank with algae is turned around and it all dies out, can it be put under a microscope and the cause of death determined? Might make a good TV crime show...

TW


----------



## niko

In the last 3 years I've had 4 tanks that were either free of algae or the algae was a direct result of something I did and the problem easily corrected. My opinion is not directly related to EI or PPS but I hope it has some merit. I'd say that in all 4 cases the plants had an "advantage" at some point and they "took over". How did the plants get ahead and how they maintained their dominance I can't say. Here are my assumptions;

*Tank 1*
Densely planted 55 gal. with extremely vigourous plants from the very beginning. The plants were grown for about 3 weeks in an unsual environment were they reproduced at almost insane rates. After transferring them to a tank containing 100% new Fluorite they continued the fast growth, but not at the same rate. About 2 sq. inches of hair algae appeared about day 5 and a blackout took care of them. The tank ran for about 6 months with no algae whatsoever, no fertilizing of any kind the first 3 months, and very lean additions of N and P later (NO3=2-3, PO4=0.25, 1 ml. of Fluiorish every 4-5 days). Water changes - 5 gals every week.
Assumption, advantages for the plants
The plants had the advantage of being very strong, not transported for days, and functioned 100% from the very beginning.

*Tank 2*
100% RO and 100% garnet (inert gravel, very much like glass). The algae appeared only if I overdosed a little or if I neglected to dose. Very lean dosing of N, P, Fe, Mg, and Ca. 
Assumption, advantages for the plants
The fast growing wisteria in that tank used up all the available nutrients (not that much to start with)
The light was rather low - glosso would always try to grow vertically.

*Tank 3*
110 watts over a 25 gal., EcoComplete, Peat, Dupla Baccies. Narrow Leaf Java Fern, Anubias, Glosso. GH of 13 due to the EcoComplete. Very little fertilizing amounted to pale plants but no algae at all. Adding small amounts (N=3, P=0.25, Mg to bring the GH to 16, 10 drops Fe/TE daily) of PPS fertilizers and reducing the light period from 10 to 7 hours resulted in explosive growth. Only adding PPS fertilizers did not improve the situation. Algae (BBA, Staghorn) took over when I let the tank evaporate 50% but never appeared again when resuming good care.
Assumption, advantages for the plants
Luis magic hand. 
Strong light limits algae, almost sterilizes the entire tank, but plants survive.

*Tank 4*
5.7 wpg, 100%RO, 100% garnet. Very little fertilizing in the beginning. Severe pale growth. No algae at all. Adding PPS fertilizers up to NO3=10 and PO4=0.5 + Fe/TE and Ca/Mg did not improve the plants. Reducing the light period did not change anything either.
Reducing the light to 3 wpg resulted in explosive plant growth even with no fertilization at all. No algae at all.
Assumption, advantages for the plants
Lack of nutrients limited the algae but the plants grew (pale).
Strong light limits algae, almost sterilizes the tank.

That's all folks!
--Nikolay


----------



## defdac

plantbrain said:


> Folks considering algae not growing at higher nutrients may want to look into what a niche is and compare enzyme kintetics=> this is directly influences uptake rates and competition with plants.


But why would nice and high nutrient levels (especially N), that drives the plants Vmax higher in plants than in algae through efficient Enzymes, inhibit algae?

I understand that plants can't survive the low nutrient levels that algae can (niche concept), but I can't see why healty plant leaves with good light and good nutrient levels doesn't act as an algae-collector? Everything exists on a healthy plant leaf: Very good light and very good nutrient levels?

Or does high and efficient plant uptake rates means the water above the leaves are totally nutrient deficient?


----------



## MiamiAG

Let me try to focus the conversation. Is it competition or is it allelochemical suppression that keeps algae at bay?


----------



## pineapple

"allelochemical" in some circles seems to be about as controversial as Plocher's ideas. I've never seen any report on observed allelochemical activity in aquarium plants. I've noticed that when certain plants get to a critical biomass in an aquarium, they tend to take over and other plants tend to take on a recessive mode, until they in their turn enjoy a dominant period. But would that be what we might call allelochemical activity?

The idea of allelochemical implies that a plant has a defense mechanism, a sort of immune system analgous to the one we know and love in our own bodies, and that if the plant is not properly fed its immune system declines rapidly allowing algae to take over.

Andrew Cribb


----------



## MiamiAG

Andrew,

There is a growing body of scientific work on allelopathy in aquatic plants. Allelopathy has been known for many, many years. I think the term was coined in 1937. Allelopathy in terrestrial plants has been well documented and is scientific fact. There have been studies on Myriophyllum spicatum, Cattail, Lemna minor, nuphar lillies, hornwort to name a few.

Diana Walstead has a whole chapter devoted to it if I remember correctly and Ole Pedersen refuted many of her claims in an TAG article that you can now read on Tropica's website.

There are also studies on the impact of stressors on allelochemical production. So you immune system analogy is not too far off.


----------



## Edward

pineapple said:


> The idea of allelochemical implies that a plant has a defense mechanism, a sort of immune system analgous to the one we know and love in our own bodies, and that if the plant is not properly fed its immune system declines rapidly allowing algae to take over.
> 
> Andrew Cribb


I think it is the allelochemicals and the plant immune system that keeps algae away. Only healthy plant can produce enough toxins to kill the algae around it.

Edward


----------



## HeyPK

Art said:



> Good plant growth = algae limitation BECAUSE:
> 
> 1) Good plant growth results in limiting a key nutrient for algae; or
> 2) Good plant growth produces some sort of allelochemical that limits algae?


There is a third possibility---Good nutrient levels make nutritious algae, and the animals that eat the algae thrive and multiply and eat it all up. Poor nutrient levels result in algae so low in nitrogen that herbovires get no food value by eating it. Also, when nutrient levels are low, the algae may be able to put more of its photosynthetic effort into producing toxins that protect it.

It is important to distinguish what kind of algae we are talking about. Green water, Cyanobacteria, Red algae, Oedogonium, Cladophora, Rhizoclonium, green spot algae, etc.


----------



## MiamiAG

Good point Paul.


----------



## Jeff Kropp

HeyPK said:


> There is a third possibility---Good nutrient levels make nutritious algae, and the animals that eat the algae thrive and multiply and eat it all up.


Paul,

Can you take this idea a bit further?

I have noticed that when my tank slips into its tip-top sweet spot my ottos have to really work hard to fill their bellies. When I'm off target they have nice round tums and lounge around or play.


----------



## HeyPK

I have seen that various forms of bluegreens (Cyanobacteria) get started when nitrogen is low. They are not very green and are not so noticable. Snails are on the decline while this is happening. If I give a good shot of nitrients, the bga suddenly becomes very visible as it greens up, but then the snails start perking up, growing and eating it. Somewhere, a long time ago, I remember seeing a paper that claimed that many types of algae have a very wide range of nitrogen content, depending on nitrogen availability, ranging from too low to be of food value to quite high in protein.


----------



## Simpte 27

*Personal Epiphany?*

After reading and re-reading numerous threads here, I have come to a few conclusions..............

Algae all need the same elements to thrive, though some do it better than others. I ASSuming this is why you can't differentiate why each one shows up in your tank. (IE........bba is caused by excessive... and green fuzz algae is caused by...) I do understand that it has to be introduced into your tank to begin with (ie new plants or fish).

CO2 increases plant growth which in turn allows plants to outcompete algae (Still don't know why increased plant growth means little algae if algae needs very little nutrients to the point where they are immeasureable on our test kits).

With this in mind, why doesn't algae always show up in tanks (or at least more than we see in healthy aquariums?)

IF one takes into account the theory of survival of the fittest (Usually the simplest creatures survive) Then why do blackouts work?

I'm really interested in everyone's opinions and theories.


----------



## Jason Baliban

Check out this thread. I think this is along the lines of what you are asking. 
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/thread5514.html
jB


----------



## MatPat

Simpte 27 said:


> IF one takes into account the theory of survival of the fittest (Usually the simplest creatures survive) Then why do blackouts work?
> 
> I'm really interested in everyone's opinions and theories.


Well, here is an opinion from me on blackouts...Maybe the blackout doesn't kill the algae at all! Maybe it only causes it to go dormant. Kind of like trees loosing their leaves in the fall when the days get shorter. Maybe the lack of light is a signal for the algae to go into a resting period. Then add in the fact that after most blackouts a water change is done along with some pruning. Maybe the 'dormant' algae settles on the substrate and plant leaves and is siphoned off during the water change...

Just a thought...


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## david lim

Simpte 27 said:


> CO2 increases plant growth which in turn allows plants to outcompete algae (Still don't know why increased plant growth means little algae if algae needs very little nutrients to the point where they are immeasureable on our test kits).
> 
> With this in mind, why doesn't algae always show up in tanks (or at least more than we see in healthy aquariums?)


I believe this goes with opportunistic organisms versus equilibrial organisms. Opportunistic organisms are found in variable environments where their population densities fluctuate. Algaes tend to be more opportunistic in nature. They are capable of reproducing quickly when the given opportunity arises and overtake an area quickly. However, when resources run low and population sizes reach an environment's carrying capacity, then equilibrial organisms tend to dominate. Equilibrial populations can better utilize resources and have slower reproduction rates that can be maintained at a more constant population size specifically at the carrying capacity of an environment.

In a sense, algae will only dominate (ie. algae blooms which can last forever) when nutrients are not in balance. The issue of nutrients, I believe, varies from tank to tank though. Higher-order plants help to compete against algae since they can better utilize the resources at lower levels and prevent algal blooms by keeping the water nutrients trim. In biological terms the plants' population density is maintained at the carrying capacity which you set for the tank depending on the amount of nutrients, space, etc. available. Algae density populations have difficulty being maintained at the carrying capacity of an environment because of their opportunistic tendicies to reproduce quickly.



Simpte 27 said:


> IF one takes into account the theory of survival of the fittest (Usually the simplest creatures survive) Then why do blackouts work?
> 
> I'm really interested in everyone's opinions and theories.


Survival of the fittest works for all aspects of nature and is not limited to the simplest creatures surviving. I don't believe that survival of the fittest pertains to artifical conditions since it is a theory that discusses the maintenance of a specie's genes through natural adversities as opposed to the specific eradication of a type of organism by artificial means.

As matpat discussed, different algaes have varying life cycles. Although the only algae (which it isn't) I know of to undergo a dormant period is BGA. Other algaes I don't know about but would gander to say that they don't have dormant periods. BGA is a bacteria which is capable of entering a phase in its lifecycle as is most bacteria in a state of dormancy during times of extreme conditions including dehydration and extreme heat. I don't believe a blackout will conduce it to undergo a dormant period though.

Too many factors exist for us to say why some algaes can and others can't survive a blackout. Some algaes might store more energy than others. Some algaes might utilize the littlest amount of light entering the tank during a blackout better than others. I don't believe most lower-order plants can enter a dormant period, though, but I might be wrong. The possibilities of "maybe" and "what if"'s are endless and sadly I believe this is true for much of the hobby.


----------



## Laith

This makes a lot of sense... then this means that when the equilibrial organisms (the higher order plants) dominate, the opportunistic organisms (the algae) diminish in population to the point where they are not very visible?

I like this explanation. It re-enforces what I've always believed: take care of the plants and the algae will loose the battle.


----------



## Edward

I do believe there is more to it then just the proper inorganic fertilizer presence. The post number 27 in this thread by HeyPK may point us to the right direction. Most likely there are some microorganisms helping in algae elimination. I have tried to break in new sterilized aquarium setups without root transplanting and with sterilized substrate to find never-ending disappointment. Once, roots or old substrate was added, aquarium turned crystal clean.

Edward


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## cousinkenni

I am intrigued by the amount of knowledge that Tom has.

I do have a few specific questions for him:

I was reading a post by Adrvark in the "New to aquarium plants" forum under the "Fertilizers and chemicals that you dose?" thread and it once again got me thinking back to limnology days again. Ardvark referenced Tom in his quote:

"According to plantbrain optimum algae environment includes high light, moderate-to-high NH4, low NO3, varying CO2 and just about low everything else."

So initially I thought this might make sense most algal blooms in newhampshire occur between late spring-early fall. I initiall thought this was due to the cycling of nutrients as the thermoclines change and the water mixes. I then began to think maybe this could be due to the fact it is summer (high light) and during this time the farmers in the area are fertilizing their crops (run-off into the local ponds and estuaries may lead to eutrophication).

Then I remembered a post somewhere someone saying that you should not use terestrial platn fertilizers in aquarium tanks because the N source is usually from ammonia and may kill the fish. If the farmers are fertilizing with ammonia based fertilizers this would lead to the mid to high levels of NH3 required by algae. So there you have two of the factors that cause algae blooms or eutrophication.

My only hesitance to this statement is an experiment I remember seeing in my limnology book. Now keep in mind I haven't seen my book in about 5 years so the facts may be skewed (correct me if I am mistaken). In the experiment they divided a pond/lake into two sections with a plastic divider. To one half of the lake they added a source of nitrogen. To the second half of the pond/lake they added a source of nitrogen and a source phosphate. 

Only the side with added phosphate had an outbreak of algae. This, I believe, was the main experiment leading scientists/environmentalists to charge phosphate as the cause of algae outbreaks. If I remember correctly the outbreak was actually BGA so this experiment may hold no validity.

So Tom, do you know what the factors are that actually lead to eutrophication of lakes/ponds? Do algae outbreaks coincide with lake cycling? Does the classic experiment with adding nitrogen and phoshporus hold any water?

Thank you in advance for any information you may have  

Ken Takeuchi


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## fraynes1

I have a really dumb question, what is the ei and pps system and where would I read about them?


----------



## Edward

Hi fraynes1

You can read about the PPS here and for the EI you can search APC posts by Tom Barr, plantbrain for Estimative Index.

Edward


----------



## McFinn K.

*Inorganic vs. Organics*

I've been gone some time, but I've been lurking. And since this thread is interesting...

The more I experiment, the more I think the algae equation is based at least partly on whether nutrients are organic or inorganic. For the most part, plants can't uptake organics directly, they need bacteria or something to breakdown organics into inorganics. Algae, and especially cyano, can use (simple) organics directly.

My guess is that tanks with low organics (e.g., fish waste, decaying plants) will have less algae. This is what happens in clean, established tanks. Adding mulm helps because it hastens the process.

Dosing inorganics (e.g., PO4, NO3, K+, etc.) will not give algae a benefit over not dosing inorganics. Why? Because you can't nutrient limit algae. I've read algae can prosper with PO4 in ppb range, and it is not feasible to get it into this range (unless you want to run "reef" style). So, you might as well add inorganics to help out the plants.

In addition, some organics, like urea, break down into NH4 quite rapidly. Tom has already said that NH4 has some positive correlation with algae growth. I guess that would be another topic, though.

For reference, my tank is "old school" no water column fertilizing (see <http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/showthread.php?t=2063> where some of the current topic was also discussed). 
Peace,


----------



## defdac

Your post, McFinn, summarize exactly my own thoughts. Mostly based on my own tanks running on EI and Walstad and all the info Tom Barr gives us.

This also explains why tanks relying completely on the substrate to mineralize organic nutrients have times of "inexplainable" low growth: Mineralization is inactive due to any number of billion reasons.

EI removing substrate from the whole equation is, to me, why EI is superior compared to any other regieme where one has to rely upon substrate mineralized organic bound nutrients.


----------



## Edward

How to explain algae free aquariums with no water changes, inert substrate and high light? Where is the organics negative impact?


----------



## HeyPK

I have seen that, when N and P are at very low or undetectible levels, various kinds of algae get going almost secretly because they are yillowish or brownish colored. When N and P are added the algae greens up and suddenly become much more visible. When N and P are very low, snails decline even when the soft, surface-coating types of algae are on the increase. When things green up, the snails start growing and multiplying again. I would like to advance the hypothesis that snails play an important part in the control of soft alage---not hair algae---and that when N and P are low, the algae is so low in nutritive value that the snails starve to death eating it. With N and P high, the algae is nutritious, allowing the snails to multiply and eventually eat it all up.


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## McFinn K.

Edward said:


> How to explain algae free aquariums with no water changes, inert substrate and high light? Where is the organics negative impact?


Hi Edward,
There are no organics entering in the setup you just described. This is kind of like buying 1 gallon of drinking water, adding some inert gravel and some inorganic nutrients, and then placing it under high light. Result: No algae.

Overload the tank with fish and no filtration, and then you will start getting organics and then algae (I think). Under light load and properly established filters, the organic fraction will quickly deteriorate into inorganics.

Think about this simple experiment: Add a tablespoon of an organic fertilizer, like steel manure, to say a 5 gallon tank. In another tank, add 1 tablespoon of the theoretical equivalent amount of inorganic NO3, K+, PO4, TE, etc. Which tank would get more algae?

Just to be clear, I am not saying that organics are the only reason for algae.

Peace,


----------



## Edward

McFinn K. said:


> Hi Edward,
> There are no organics entering in the setup you just described.


 Yes there is fish and snails that I feed beef heart. Additionally, there is no filtration, just one air stone.



> This is kind of like buying 1 gallon of drinking water, adding some inert gravel and some inorganic nutrients, and then placing it under high light. Result: No algae.


 Actually I tried it and the water turned green.



> Think about this simple experiment: Add a tablespoon of an organic fertilizer, like steel manure, to say a 5 gallon tank. In another tank, add 1 tablespoon of the theoretical equivalent amount of inorganic NO3, K+, PO4, TE, etc. Which tank would get more algae?


 I would expect the manure tank developing algae first; however there may be the benefit of insect and microorganism infestation that will consume the algae turning the water clear.

What do you think?

Edward


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## Phil Edwards

plantbrain said:


> NH4+ is worth more and is a good signal for a successful bloom in natural systems than other parameters, it tells the algae spore that no one(no other autotrophs) else is around.


I'd like to add to this statement. One of the things I found most interesting in a class I recently took was the concept that NH4+/NH3 are actually toxic to plants, even though it is less energy intensive to finally use than NO3-. Since NH4+ is toxic, but nutritious, plants act quickly to sequester it in their cellular vacuoles until such times as they can synthesize it into proteins.

I'm a firm believer in NH4+/NH3 = algae bloom. I just had a load of native plants drop their emersed leaves in one of my tanks while at the same time they didn't grow submersed leaves too well. All that decay = NH4+/NH3 + high light + CO2 => lots of algae

I also did a little experiment outside in some buckets that I'm using for emersed culture. Both containers were right next to eachother so light and temperature equality weren't issues. One had old tank substrate, the other didn't have any, and both had a high biomass. At first I was using my normal aquarium fertilization regimen on the buckets (Stump remover, enema, and the like). I got good growth from this routine. After a month I added a 1/2 tsp of MiracleGro Rose Food (Urea/NH4+ based) to each container which immediately resulted in algae.

The container with the substrate exhibited significantly less algae than did the water only container. This was only a secondary observation but it seems to support the mulm-seeding hypothesis.

For a long time experienced and knowledgable aquarists have said that well growing plants = little/no algae. That's because healthy plants act quickly to remove NH4+/NH3 from the water. Just like Tom asserts, low NH4+/NH3 = "Something else is living there, stay dormant and wait for a better opportunity." = little visible algae.

What about cyanobacteria? At this point I feel it has to do more with O2 content and organic compound concentration with preference for organic compound concentration. 99% of the time when I have a problem with BGA it is in areas where lots of mulm has accumulated and there is little water circulation. That poor/no circulation allows a microclimate that gets hypoxic/anoxic quickly from the respiration of decomposing bacteria. Once that happens anaerobic bacteria such as BGA are able to colonize and thrive. Once the area is aerated again and/or the mulm is removed BGA no longer do well and die off/move to another area.

I've observed a lack of BGA even in dense stands of well growing stemplants where there is little current and decent mulm accumulation, but high available oxygen from healthy growth and photosynthesis at the lower levels. I also saw a lack of BGA in one of my early tanks where the growth wasn't as good, but there was a spraybar along the entire bottom portion of the tank right at substrate level keeping the area oxygenated.

My two-bit hypotheses,
Phil


----------



## Laith

Great post Phil!

What you say re NH4 makes perfect sense and is well explained.

It leads me to the question of organic build-up and mulm in tanks. Is the goal to keep the substrate (at least the top couple of cms) free of build-up? I can understand this for open areas of the substrate but even for planted areas?

When I do water changes, I usually run the hose lightly over the surface of the substrate to get the most obvious build-ups but never paid that much attention to build-up in the heavily planted areas. However I constantly hear of people doing their water changes by just draining and filling (Tom B mentions this often when he's talking about how little time it takes him to do water changes); no vacuuming at all. Maybe they just vacuum once a month or so?

Also I had no idea BGA was anaerobic. That could explain some things...


----------



## Phil Edwards

I don't know if the aquarium species is the same as the terrestrial types, but it's cyanobacteria that are responsible for nitrogen fixation in a number of ecosystems. I think BGA are the organisms that innoculate legumes as well. I'll have to check on that. 

I say all this about BGA while I have a major problem with it in my 20g. That stuff loves bare FloraBase!  Does anyone have any available fast growing carpet plants? I'm getting sick of the stuff and the beautiful Saggitaria PK sent isn't growing fast enough. 

Regards,
Phil


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## Phil Edwards

plantbrain said:


> I'm not sure it's the presence of these, but rather the loading rate.
> If the loading raste exceeds the bacteria break down of these, then you'll get BGA or BBA I think also.


That makes sense, I've got a significant problem with both types in the tank right now. On the up side, my filter hardware and heater are less obtrusive because they're "planted" with BBA now.

I enjoyed Phys. It's strenuous to take as a summer course, but it was fun.


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## Phil Edwards

We were lucky to get plant phys at all. I'm going to have to wait for PhD stuff to get the more advanced plant sciences.  But anyway, back to algae and "new school".


----------



## Laith

plantbrain said:


> ...
> 
> Regarding mulm and DOM build up.
> 
> I'm not sure it's the presence of these, but rather the loading rate.
> If the loading raste exceeds the bacteria break down of these, then you'll get BGA or BBA I think also.


So does this therefore mean that you avoid the whole problem by not having any (at least visible) mulm and DOM? And clean your cannister filter at least once a month to get any organics out of there too?

Then you don't need to worry about loading rates...

Or is this too simple?


----------



## Phil Edwards

That's how I took it to mean. I have a substrate loaded with organics (florbase) and haven't cleaned my filter in months and I've got BGA up the wazoo. I'm going to clean the filter today and see what comes out.


----------



## plantbrain

Edit


----------



## robitreef

Where can we find the details about dosing concentrations and what needs to be added to non CO2 tanks? 

Do you also have info on light and photoperiod, size of tank, etc?


----------



## cranetech

robitreef said:


> Where can we find the details about dosing concentrations and what needs to be added to non CO2 tanks?
> 
> Do you also have info on light and photoperiod, size of tank, etc?


Check out his website.. click the link in his signature.


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## aferreir

Sorry, I didnt hear about PPS and EI? what does it means? I am spanish speaker and sometimes I dont understand when you use acronims.


Thanks, Ariel from Buenos Aires.


----------



## vuthia

In answer to the original question:

I know that the most widely accepted answer isn't always the correct answer, but I think in this case that it is. Aquariums generally tend to have a much higher fish to gallon ratio than most natural water systems, which leads to having high amounts of organics and nutrients, which has been discussed alread at length. The reason that new school aquariums have less or no algae is because of the high light and CO2 which allows plants to grow fast enough to use up at least some of the nutrients. The plants don't have to use up all the nutrients, just one or two essential ones that algae needs. This could be phosphorous, in the form of phosphates, it doesn't matter. But why can the plants outcompete algae? Higher forms of life are better adapted to survival in their environment; Humans use their brains to survive, carnivors their strength, plants...their ability to take up nutrients even in trace amounts very quickly, begin photosynthesis faster when the lights come on, etc. This only works, however, when there is not a surplus of nutrients, when there is not enough to go around. In an environment where there is plenty to go around the weakest still get their fill even if they have to wait until after the stronger organisms have taken what they want. In the case of the planted aquarium, the plants are the higher life forms and as such get first go at the available nutrients while the algae uses up the remnants. If there is enough light and co2 for the plants to grow quickly enough to use up all of one or more nutrient, then the growth of the algae will be retarded or stopped. In my personal aquarium I have too many large clown loaches for the gallonage of my aquarium and thus too much nutrients for the plants to use up. The result is that I have algae. When my loaches were small and i fed them much less I had near zero algae, but now they are large and I have to feed them more to keep them healthy so my plants, no matter how quickly they grow are unable to use up the nutrients so that the algae growth is resticted.


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## vuthia

Kay, well you kinda tore apart every little piece of my post, but you still never really answered the question at hand. You've given a lot of reasons why my idea isn't correct, but still haven't answered the original question with any sort of clarity. I was just making observations from my experience, I'm not the expert here, so you don't need to be malicious. But please, offer your theory then. The last part of your post came closest to finally offering some insight into why algae stops growing. If you do know why, I'd love to hear, please try not to be so cryptic.


----------



## yildirim

Hi,

I think I have to have a check up for my eyes, because I haven't noticed such a useful thread like this until today. So my opinions regarding to this matter will be as follows.

IMO, I have always believed that plant growth and health is the key element for algal growth. As long as you had nicely growing plants algea will never get hold on them and you will always keep algal growth at bay. Everything we do for preventing algea (except bleech, H2O2, some chemicals, etc&#8230; which I never use) IMO is in fact for promoting plant growth and not for causing alg to suffer nutrient defficiencies as alg have the ability to utilize minimum quantities of nutrients, lights, etc. regarding to the plants. So having good growth and sufficient amount of plant were the only options here.

But after I have read this thread, I started to wonder the reason why and how good growth may effect the algal growth even tough algea will never have a problem for nutrients and light at our tanks. And I believe that this is the main concern for this thread. Wright? So I made a cross check for algal growth and plant growth and added some of my experiences to reach a conclusion.

IMO there is only two types of algea regardles of color, size, shape, etc. and these are due to their positions, mobile and immobile algea. Mobile ones are the ones propelled by their flagella can move in the water, and some have specialized cells called holdfast to get a grip on things, hence immobile. To maintain their position, most algae use specialized cells called holdfast cells. These cells do not partake in reproduction or photosynthesis processes, they simply grab hold of ground or a rock and they hold the rest of the plant there. This anchoring system, does not take in nutrients like plant roots do.

For mobile alg besides the good plant growth at our tanks there are also some other factors that helps us in our tanks to battle them. They are softer and this greatly helps for some critters to consume them easily (like the green water). If there is a sufficient amount of current in the water, photosynthisizing is a bit harder for them and this will prevent the growth for them. That's why still water has a disadvantege for being overrun by algea.

For immobile algea the favors are a bit against us and this type is also our main trouble at our tanks. By means of their holdfast cells they can attach to any place for best use of light and nutrients and their first choice is always organic places likes the leaves of our plants. After then they may attach to rocks, gravel, plastic, glass but this time holding will not be that strong and nutrient and light will be harder to reach. So here, our main concern is to prevent them attaching at our plants. Water current at our tanks will never be sufficient to deattach the holdfast cells. But for these cells to attach properly, they need the surface to be smooth and motionless. *So enhancing the plant growth simply makes the surface of the leaves change continuously and for algea imposible to attach these leaves*. Thats why we usualy see algea only at dying or completely stunted leaves, or glasses at our well maintained, algea free tanks.

Lakes were also mentioned at some posts here. But the situation with the lakes are a bit different than our tanks. Water change is continuous, nutrients are abundant, alg eating creatures are abundant, water movement continuous, lighting is much much better, plant growth and qauntity is more than sufficient. So algea infestation is not possible except some placid lakes. Besides O2 quantity is not that much of an importance for me. If it had been, H2O2 would make more than wonders for all algal problems.

So as a conclusin for this awfuly long post, I would say that what fertilizer dosing style and quantities and ingredients, lighting you choose, they are not the main issue here, maintaining adequate quantities of good plant growth with continuous leaf surface change and having some current in the tank are.


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## BryceM

Tom (and anyone else who'd like to chime in),

I agree fully that algae aren't limited by nutrient starvation. I also agree fully that they exist in a quite distinct environmental niche. I think most people would agree that if the plants are growing nicely that algae will generally not get a foothold. Your observations regarding NH4 seem to make sense - very few serious aquascapers use heavily stocked tanks. I'm pretty sure this isn't just a coincidence.

I'm still stuck on a very fundamental question:

Our tanks, without exception, provide algae with every single thing they need. Light, CO2, and every possible nutrient is provided in mega-quantities. This should fulfill their every need. They should be in absolute algae nirvana. If I were to take all the plants out of my tank and maintain the light and nutrient levels exactly where they are, the algae would go crazy. Somehow, adding plants to the equation kills / inhibits the algae, even in my hopelessly overstocked tank.

I don't want to beat an old idea to death, but isn't it possible that some form of chemical warfare (allelopathy, if you want) is ultimately responsible? If you look at the world of microbiology, very minute quantities of substances are secreted by critters to keep other critters out of their turf. One might even say that this is the rule, not the exception. Might this chemical warfare exist in the immediate vicinity of the plant's surface? Healthy leaves don't get algae. If you put it there it dies. Sick leaves are quickly covered. Something is going on there!

I've talked to a lot of people about this. Admittedly, most of them are MD's with microbiology backgrounds, not botanists, but they all reach the same conclusion. Something is inhibiting the algae. This 'magic something' only seems to exist when the plants are really living it up. It seems reasonable (but unproven) to me that plants would be smart enough to create an effective algicide.

A penny for your thoughts........ (I'll paypall it to you )


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## JLudwig

plantbrain said:


> If you have stable conditions, then you start to get one or two species that dominate, if you have intermediate distrubances, you get the highest diversity(much like many FW aquatic systems), if you get extreme disturbances, then you get few species. This is basic ecology (See Joe Connell, UCSB)


Tom, just to add to this I've seen the same analysis done on marine reefs. It seems there exists an intermediate level of nutrition where biodiversity peaks. Below that level of nutrients, you effectively have a desert and sparse growth, above that level one tends to get large mono-specific colonies. Only at intermediate levels (not limiting!) do niches form and biodiversity explodes.

Jeff


----------



## BryceM

I'm not proposing that there is a chemical that the plants secrete into the water column. The dilution factor would require the plants to make pretty large quantities and you're right - activated carbon would easily remove it. How about a substance that remains on or acts very near to the leaf surface? Penicillin mold doesn't kill bacteria across the room, only those in very close proximity.

I'm not proposing that I have proof of it's existence. I'm only suggesting that there may be a straightforward explanation that hasn't been described yet. I think almost anyone would readily admit that there is much about this process that we don't quite understand yet.



plantbrain said:


> You mention very strong inhibitors, needed in minute amounts.........well, if they where that strong, why has no one ever seen this in natural systems even once?


I've certainly not read the original article, and I really should be smart enough to keep my arguments within my own realm of expertise, but there is some interesting info on Tropica's site. They reference a study which shows that Myriophyllum species produce _Tellimagrandin, _a phenolic compound that has impressive algicidal properties on blue-green algae. (Gross, E.M., Meyer, H., and Schilling, G. (1996): Release and ecological impact of algicidal hydrolysable polyphenols in Myriophyllum spicatum. Phytochemistry, 41:133-138.)

Does this count as once?



plantbrain said:


> How is it that all aquatic plant species exhibit the same lack of algae?
> Do they all produce the same intense chemical?
> What are the odds that all aquatic plants(even non Aquatics for that matter) produce the same chemical?


You could argue that only plants capable of keeping algae away could have ever become sucessful aquatic species.



plantbrain said:


> Healthy actively growing leaves older or younger in terms of the plant?
> Time is the issue, most leaves will get crusty(say like some slower growing Anubias, we all know they are more prone to algae) over time, whereas something like Hygro? Stuff grows so fast the algae does not have time to form before being pruned.
> 
> Once the new leaves grow above the older leaves, they block a large amount of light. Basically the new growth stays one step ahead of the algae.


There are plenty of people with tanks full of slow-growing species will little or no algae. I don't think that the growth rate of the plants is the reason behind our improved success in keeping algae at bay.

I don't mean to be argumentive - I'd really like to understand what exaclty is behind this. I just don't buy the ecological niche thing. Most things will grow whenever they get a chance. I'd think something as simple as a singe-cell organism with everything to its liking would be happy to grow until limitted by some outside influence.

You say the plants soak up the NH4. Are you proposing that limitting NH4 in the water column deprives the algae of an essential nutrient? This sounds a lot like earlier theories regarding limitting available phosphate.


----------



## Elkmor

There is another view.

Stress is something that can stop or suppress survival.

Man becomes sick when he is stressed (lost work, broke car).
Child can sick when stressed (lost mother's attention, lost games).
Plant can sick when stressed (low light, low nutrients, bad temperature).

Simple, algae is disease, no mater what form it has.

Plant can't recover itself. Instead they can change their's generation and make health children. So if you have algae, then first make great environment for plants then change sick plants with new healthy ones, or wait a little until your sick plants make new ones and then remove old.

So EI and PPS simple makes stressless environment for plant.


----------



## Roy Deki

Can anyone explain "Phytoncide"?


----------



## banderbe

Roy Deki said:


> Can anyone explain "Phytoncide"?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoncide


----------



## Roy Deki

Thanks Barry I already read that definition...i guess what i'm looking for is this what actually keeps algae from forming on healthy robust plants?


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## Dave7739

Why is my name attached to your every thread?


----------



## Glouglou

*Thinking loud....*

As we know, algae, cyano and else are really primitive life forms. The forms that we encounter today are the one that evolve and survive the multiple great extinctions that appears in the timeline of our planet. They are the toughest buggers of all time, a success of evolution.

Some theory bring the possibility that cyanobacteria was so abundant in the early ocean that they are a major player in the apparition of a non-toxic breathable atmosphere that give us our chance.

Life have tendency to fill empty space and the only purpose of our greenish champions is to multiply and conquer.

Well, lucky we are, other forms of life start to compete with our friends, always finding new way to outcompete them, smarter and complex new designs, giving us today our diverse type of plants that we try to constrain to a big jug of water.

Those plants are another success of evolution, we are not, and for that reason we gather here to pierce the secrets of life.

By the law of nature if the higher forms of plant thrive they will take the place, but not eliminate their simple ancestors, algaes.

I was a partisan of PMDD but those new approach ring a bell.

Always have just the right amount of nutrient without overdosing, good levels of light, water movements ( good for Prandtl boundary), oxygen and all. Bring every week lot of new well prepared water with the right basic parameter.

Just thinking... Somebody try to ad peroxide to oxygenate RO water?


----------



## dc88

Hi

Being new here, glad to have found this thread.
Hope to find an answer too. Much liked the comic of the guy climbing up the mountain to find the Guru so to seek the ultimate question in life that "why plants grow well will have no algae ?" :hail: 

What if every theory every hypothesis is right ?

We were told to limit P, it works.

We were told to limit Fe, it works.

We were told to only feed from the substrate, it works

We were told to water column feeding, it works

We were told to portion the right amount each week, it works

We were told to limit NH4 and feed everything inorganic to the plants' content, it works.

May be the answer could simply be "because plants grow well hence no algae." (Hey, I think that was what Tom try to tell us all this while ! What's wrong with you people ? Why can't we take that as THE answer - period. : )


Cheers !
dc


----------



## defdac

dc88 said:


> May be the answer could simply be "because plants grow well hence no algae."


Everyone that has planted tanks already know this. We want to know why algea stops growing when the plants grow well and are happy.

Tom Barr aka plantbrain are the only one offering a glimpse of the truth of what might be going on here. Algae are tiny organisms that only bloom if there are no competition like happy plants and they seem to be able to know if there are other happy well growing organism around them - and it seems algae "listens" to variations in NH4-levels and Oxygen-levels.

When oxygen-levels drops and NH4 rises - time to bloom.

Happy plants means relatively small variations of high oxygen levels and tiny variations of very low NH4-levels.

How algae are able to listen to oxygen and NH4 I have no clue about though


----------



## dc88

defdac said:


> Everyone that has planted tanks already know this. We want to know why algea stops growing when the plants grow well and are happy.


Alright, it was wrong for me to say that then (it was a late night post...), so let me also try to chip in my 2 cents of speculation then....



defdac said:


> Tom Barr aka plantbrain are the only one offering a glimpse of the truth of what might be going on here. Algae are tiny organisms that only bloom if there are no competition like happy plants and they seem to be able to know if there are other happy well growing organism around them - and it seems algae "listens" to variations in NH4-levels and Oxygen-levels.
> 
> When oxygen-levels drops and NH4 rises - time to bloom.
> 
> Happy plants means relatively small variations of high oxygen levels and tiny variations of very low NH4-levels.
> 
> How algae are able to listen to oxygen and NH4 I have no clue about though


May be it is not that algae learn to known oxygen and NH4 variation. But because that low oxygen and high NH4 were exactly the kind of environment they were first evolved in ?
Algae came before plant, didn't they ?
So for plant to came to the evolution scence they have to turn the table around or else they would not have become "plants" and would just be another "algae" ?

Oops, then this will lead to the speculation of the plant actively shape the environment to their advantage..and then the active carbon test will disprove this....

BTW talk about the active carbon test, wouldn't the micro nutrient will also be removed in such a test hence not conclusive ? (No allelopathic chemical but also no Fe or P so we can't really demonstrate the absence of allelopathic chemical ?)


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## dc88

Oh Yes ! The writing is indeed on the wall ! Didn't notice in the first read.
Quot "
Low O2, High NH4 => algae spore germination
"
(So there needs to be a threshold initial to kick start these thing ?)

The other staffs (NO3, Fe, P, etc) are perhaps "growth limiter/promoter"? but if there is no "spark initiator" liked signal of high NH4 and low O2, even high level of "growth promoters" may still not trigger algae to bloom ?

If to further the thought, could it be such that : if algae spore germination started (e.g. we see BBA in our tank) we reduce the level of NH4 but up the other nutrient it just speed up the algae life cycle which ended them into the spore generation waiting for the next NH4 signal hence we see algae actually disappear ? (Hence added NO3 or PO4 at this stage may actually "reduce" the algae ?) And then we learn the lession to limit NH4 so the next spore germination do not happen ?

Is my speculation any ground ?


----------



## defdac

Exactly, so now you only have to explain what in the algae makes NH4/jumpy CO2 a "spark initiator" 8 )


----------



## plantbrain

edit


----------



## MiamiAG

Unfortunately, Tom has decided to remove all his posts from this thread so we can't consider his opinions on this topic.

I, for one, find this topic interesting and feel that there isn't a true answer yet. I do hope that someone takes the time to study this topic in detail and post their experiment/findings so that we can get to a true answer.

For the time being, we will continue to treat this as a black box. We fertilize in a certain way and we end up with little or no algae. We are not sure exactly why no algae is the result. 

The focus seems to be on NH4 as triggering algae spores to germinate. In my experience, I have seen algae blooms when something happens that interferes with my plants' steady growth. So, for example, one time I ran out of CO2 and didn't notice for a few days. This impacted my plants' growth. As a result, uptake of NH4 dropped presumably thereby increasing its presence in the water column. If the hypothesis is correct, this caused the algae spores to germinate. Hence, my algae bloom.

This is all conjecture, of course.


----------



## banderbe

Art_Giacosa said:


> In my experience, I have seen algae blooms when something happens that interferes with my plants' steady growth.


Same here. My CO2 ran low a couple weeks back and bam! Plant growth came to a screeching halt and BGA was all over the glosso the next morning.

Bumping my CO2 back up and increasing NO3 didn't do anything to the algae, it merely got the plants humming along again, which _stopped_ the algae from growing any further. It didn't get rid of it until I cut the lighting and killed it off. Hasn't come back.

The happy plants have some magic something they secrete into the water column that makes algae very unhappy.


----------



## Robert Arnold

So what about a tank with some "happy plants" and some almost happy algae. That is my current situation. I have seen some tanks with prolific growth of both the plants simultaneous with an algae bloom. One will succeed eventually. In my case, I'm pretty sure some nutrients were limited which helped cause the bloom as well as too many organics. Its primarily a filimentous algae I am dealing with at the moment. I did notice a decline of some of my pearling and introduced some new Manzanita wood and replanted a few plants in the process. So the balance of the tank was changed. Do you think all these simultaneous changes might have been the trigger. Don't many believe a change in CO2 or other stable things will be one of the bloom "triggers"? 

BTW, this is a very interesting thread.


----------



## marvelous

*Gut Feeling*

I feel we are all trying to achieve a common goal here - having a thriving, beautiful planted aquarium with little to no algae growth. The problem here is that each one of us may be using some of the same equipment and fertilization methods, or lighting intensity / duration, but there are several other factors like water chemistry and source, atmospheric differences, what we have on our arms when we stick them in the tank - etc, that can play a small (or large part) in how our gardens grow. These variables lead to a somewhat chaotic situation when trying to break down how or why our plants are growing or not growing. I am not a Chaotician nor am I a professional at any of this, but I do know we are trying to reproduce nature to some extent, and while at some fleeting moments we may feel as though we have achieved this glorious goal - we have in fact only managed to satisfy certain requirements at a certain moment that satisfy what *our image *of nature *really* is - but man is it fun! IMO


----------



## Jimbo205

> Unfortunately, Tom has decided to remove all his posts from this thread so we can't consider his opinions on this topic


Why would he do that?

And HOW did he do that?


----------



## Edward

banderbe said:


> The happy plants have some magic something they secrete into the water column that makes algae very unhappy.


The magic is called allelochemicals. Too bad we don't know enough about it.


----------



## Jimbo205

I tried to follow your link for allelochemicals but did not find what you were trying to link to.


----------



## JERP

I believe that O2 concentration is linked to algae outbreaks. I have a BBA outbreak whenever we have a heat wave. It goes away after a couple weeks without treatment. The local lake/pond also has a nasty, smelly algae outbreak soon after a heat wave. There's a known relationship between temp and O2 concentration. When water temp rises, O2 concentration drops.


----------



## banderbe

JERP said:


> I believe that O2 concentration is linked to algae outbreaks. I have a BBA outbreak whenever we have a heat wave. It goes away after a couple weeks without treatment. The local lake/pond also has a nasty, smelly algae outbreak soon after a heat wave. There's a known relationship between temp and O2 concentration. When water temp rises, O2 concentration drops.


Yes, but plants also don't grow as well in hotter temperatures.. most plants anyway. As the temps rise the growth slows and algae gets a foothold. I've never heard of any relationship between oxygen and algae.


----------



## Edward

Interestingly, changes in water flow cause existing algae to die and new types to appear.


----------



## redFishblueFish

I think one important factor is the types of algae growing. In most cases (except for cyanobacteria) algae are found in the kingdom protista, a "grab-bag" of organisms that don't fit precisely into the animal or plant kingdom. For example, included in the protista kingdom are multicellular and unicellular organisms, eukaryotic and prokaryotic, and organisms that range from autotrophic to half-autotrophic/half heterotrophic to heterotrophic. Because of this, each variety of algae has entirely different triggers/niches.

This is one of the reasons that I have doubts about allelochemistry playing too large a role in plants' competition with algae. It seems that a plant that is effective at combatting one type of algae would have a hard time with another, as allelochemistry works to block specific enzymes. Of course, the allelochemical could target a single enzyme that is common to all photosynthetic protista, but this seems unlikely IMO when you take the variety of protista into consideration.

Hornwort is the plant about which I have seen the most research relating to allelochemistry. Has anyone noticed whether hornwort combats all algaes equally effectively in a broad range of conditions, or is it more effective against a specific type?


----------



## lili

*devil's advocate: want to grow algae*

hi, i followed a thread from aquaticQuotient to here and find this very fascinating.

i am having algae problems in my 20g planted tank (with fish), so obviously would like to control it.

HOWEVER, i have a dream of growing my own algae: spirulina, and possibly using fishwater as a source of nutrients for the algae tank.

here is my plan so far: i have an empty 35 gallon tank, which i hope to set up as a normal planted fish tank, and grow the spirulina in a separate tank which would also double as a sump for the 35 gallon, thereby cleaning the fishwater while feeding the algae. will it work?

i have no idea what New School, EI or PPS means, but i would like to learn as it sounds like it could help me with my existing algae problem (GSA, BBA and hair) and also allow me to figure out how to optimally grow spirulina algae.

any thoughts, suggestions, reality checks would be great!

lily


----------



## auqaman59

I have found this wonderful little bottle at my local pet store , it gets rid of algae bloom / green water over night and it kills snails too . good or bad depending on if your trying to keep snails .. AlgaeFix by aquarium pharmaceuticals . inc . have used it a few times works great !


----------



## epicfish

auqaman59 said:


> I have found this wonderful little bottle at my local pet store , it gets rid of algae bloom / green water over night and it kills snails too . good or bad depending on if your trying to keep snails .. AlgaeFix by aquarium pharmaceuticals . inc . have used it a few times works great !


lol. I think it contains copper. BAD FOR INVERTS. ie: shrimp too.

You have to figure out what's causing algae or it'll always come back!


----------



## dirtmonkey

OK It looks like this thread is pretty much dead, and I came too late to see anything Tom/plantbrain wrote. I am sorry I missed that. But I'll add a couple comments anyway. Art asked us to play sea cucumber in the beginning of the thread, and I took the bait.

Art, I understood the reason in starting the thread, and you asked a simple and specific question- but I could accuse you of trolling in your own space! (j/k!)

Optimist:

I believe most of you are exactly right; and that it's a _combination_ and _balance _of nutrient/light competition, and allelopathy. Simple and/or complex, on either end.

I mean allelopathy in a broad sense, which to me may include oxygen levels/redox potentials, where locally regulated by the higher plants, or other "universal" higher plant processes I wouldn't guess at. Complex chemical algicides wouldn't necessarily be the only 'true' allelopathy. Yes, that's fuzzy, overlapping simple competition, but that's how I see it. Interactions overlapping interreactions on a continuum, not anywhere near simple discrete one-cause one-effect systems. I've been out of the hobby for several years, so can't use EI and PPS as specific examples, only maybe as a means of forcibly tipping complex series, or networks, of balances. Oxygen, and maybe peroxidase difference (was that brought up here?), is just the easier example for me.

I said "regulated by the higher plants", because obviously the algae and cyanobacteria are doing the same thing at the metabolic/photosynthetic levels: Redfishbluefish's post (#104) reminds me that chloroplasts (and such) in all organisms are really all various cyanobacteria, evolved as endo-symbionts, as we are symbiotic with our mitochondria*. The biggest difference would seem to me to be sheer mass- it only takes a few higher plants to equal the dry bulk of a tank overgrown with most kinds of algae.

The spirited discussion would be because of each person's variably unilateral approach, weighing one or few parameters as 'the important'. I'm sure it won't be an eternal argument, just insufficient data for now, as mentioned several times already.

* _No matter how factual, natural, and logical, it still seems a feels a little creepy thinking about how my minute-by-minute survival, and very existence as a species, is completely under the control of a bacterium in my cells that I am fundamentally unrelated to. Kind of makes the strict idea of Linnaean Kingdoms melt down in my head too. More continuum. In the fourth grade, I read a series of books by by Madeline L'Engle, including A Wind In The Door, involving sentient mitochondria and "farandolae". It influenced and scarred me for life._

And, Pessimist (or skeptic):

Art Giancola wrote:


> I remember Kaspar Horst of Dupla thought that Kraus' oxygen theory had been disproved.


Andrew Cribb wrote:


> If there was one magic component (such as your suggestion of oxygen) responsible for slowing or stopping algae growing, it would have been found before now by better equipped researchers.


The best funded research specifically for _aquarium_ environments would be supported by major aquarium supply companies. If I were CEO, and one of my research teams found that magic bullet, I would lock it up unless or until I could get a profitable product or system out of it, which couldn't very quickly or easily go DIY. Extend that thought however you see fit. Although the explosion of peroxide use probably impacted some algicide sales, I am again not only referring to oxygen, it's just the example quoted.

Redfishbluefish: I don't have an answer on your hornwort question, and haven't grown any in a long time. It was most useful to me to combat diatoms, rather than algaes, possibly through sequestering silicates. But your post reminded me of the whole symbiosis thing. I think I need to have a talk with my endosymbionts, and make sure we're in full accord, before I go to sleep!

Thanks for letting me ramble. My mind has been stagnating the past several weeks, it's outgassing now.

Vincent


----------



## gibmaker

I would think that healthy growing plants mean less algae because there are not extra nutrients in the water. The EI method makes it so that there are not an over abundance of nutrients that are not being taken in by the plants. Broad spectrum ferts on the other hand are not an exact science as far as measurment goes (old school) not to say that old school does not work. I am a broad spectrum guy and my tank is beautifull. Too many unused nutrients in the water column and the algae gets a good chance to go gang busters on you. with the EI method you are giving the plants exactly what they need (to a certain degree) and not dumping excess ferts in the tank.


----------



## Edward

This thread started two years ago and we are still not absolutely sure what the correct answer is. However, two more years of experimenting proved again that older the water better. And this comes with fully planted aquarium and very well aerated water. Why is this? A few ideas:

*=> **Allelopathy** produced by plants*

*=> Water filtration by plant uptake*

*=> Water aeration - gas equilibrium, **1**, **2*

*Allelopathy** produced by plants* is real. Higher plants produce minute amounts of momentarily active chemicals to suppress competing organisms like algae. 
*Water filtration by plant uptake* plays a significant role. Plants have the ability to remove almost everything from Gold, Uranium, Sodium to Aluminum leaving water clean. Tap water is not clean and water changes contaminate aquarium again.
*Water aeration* is a new topic here I would like to introduce. According to Henry's law about solubility of gases we have a problem in aquariums without aeration. Plants are trying to dissolve Oxygen, Fish and denitrification process Nitrogen, etc. and on top of that we are trying to pump CO2 in. It gets out of balance fast and stops working the way we would like it to. By aeration dissolved gases become balanced again where the extra gases escape to atmosphere freeing space for new gases we need, like CO2. 

Thank you
Edward


----------



## rhodophyta

TWood said:


> I'll hazard a guess just to keep this ball rolling.
> 
> I'll propose that the higher oxygen levels in a tank where the plants are doing well acts to suppress algae. How? Um, maybe the algae is so small that it gets oxidized? That is, the oxygen molecules tear it apart?
> 
> Someone like TBarr will probably come along and say "No, I've tested tanks with algae and no algae and both had the same oxygen level." If, so, then that theory is kaput, but I'd be interested in knowing if the correlation was studied.
> 
> TW


That theory might get some support from the people who dose their unplanted fish tanks with hydrogen peroxide to "bleach" the algae. Once the algae turns white, it rarely returns. A higher oxygen level in a planted tank might just work the same way bleaching the chloroplasts out of the algae cells.


----------



## standoyo

I think this article about BGA is the best one yet and provides insight from a time before Oxygen was abundant on earth. ainkille http://www.skepticalaquarist.com/docs/algae/cyano.shtml


----------



## apistaeasy

I think this discussion has stepped away from the original question a little too far.

Recently most posts have been discussing cyanobacteria, which is not algae, but instead a photosynthetic bacteria. Applications that relate to plant and algae competition do not necessarily apply to bacteria. I believe that a discussion about cyanobacteria and plant competition belongs in another thread.

In regards to allelopathy. It is my understanding that allelochemicals actually work through bacteria. In this way, if allelopathy were occuring in our tanks, we should actually be looking at the way bacteria and algae compete for the same nutrients.

Also, in response to a comment on hydrogen peroxide. H2O2 kills algae not by raising O2 levels, but by oxidation in the same manner hydrogen peroxide kills bacteria in a wound. Algae is more susceptible to H2O2 treatment because of thinner cell walls than plants. Plants can be killed in the same way if their cell walls are thinner, like mosses or damaged parts of a leaf. 

Interestingly on my local forum we have recently been having a discussion on the same topic. Here are my thoughts:

I believe that there is a critical balance between light, CO2, nitrate, phosphate, and traces (I'm including potassium in traces here). When something happens to change the balance algae sense the balance. This tip on the balance tells, or signals to, the algae that this is their time to have the outbreak we all hate.
I don't really believe there is such thing as an algae free tank. All the algae are there, they are just in a dormant phase. When a specific type of algae finds the conditions it likes it goes nuts. Some algae like low phosphate - GSA (green spot algae), some algae like low nutrients - staghorn, and some algae like almost every kind of imbalance we can create.
For each person their is some sort of unique imbalance that they create with their dosing schedule. For me it's GSA. My home tank has plenty of light (4.5 wpg), plenty of ferts, very healthy plants, is mature, hasn't had a water change in almost two months and is doing great with the only exception that every couple of weeks I start seeing typical GSA spots on the glass. My dosing schedule in the show tank at work is conducive to hair algae (I believe this is due to a low N ratio, and in my case it's 'cause the P is too high).
Take an example from nature - algae blooms often happen in streams and lakes where runoff from fertilized farms contaminates the perfect balance. The imbalance usually comes from phosphates. An algae bloom results.

So, to sum things up a bit...I believe the best way to keep algae at bay is to simply keep a proper ratio of light, CO2, macros and traces.


----------



## fastang80

Nice thread. Very informative.


----------



## brenmuk

A great thread!!.

I take it that after 3 years or so of this thread running that there isn't a simple definitive answer?

I have been keeping planted tanks on and off for the last 15 years with varying degrees of success and fighting what has seemed at times a losing battle with algae.

But that is nothing, plants and algae have been slugging it out for the last few 100 millions years. Higher plants I would say have broadly won the battle for 
the well lit and
well nourished niche because when we provide these conditions they thrive and algae does not but when things are 'out of balance' then algae thrive.

When ever you see this type of competition evolve however in nature you often see a multitude of adaptations and strategies by both sides, if it was just one simple mechanism
that plants or algae use to dominate an ecosystem then it would have only been a matter of time before a counter strategy evolved - examples of this are antibiotics produced by fungi and enzymes produced bacteria that deactivate the antibiotic - it's a kind of arms race.

I think allelochemicals do play a role but I don't know how important they are. People that do large weekly water changes and use activated carbon would surely
be removing them all the time but I never see people complaining that they had an algae outbreak when they added activated carbon to filters.

In a broader sense though I think allelopathy is still the key, you seem to either get good plant or good algae growth and not both together. Even in well fertilized tanks where there are plenty of nutrients, there should be plenty of nutrients for both algae and plants but either one or the other thrives not both (by thriving I mean actively growing because you can as we all know get a well planted tank that is taken over by algae).

So if allelopathy does exist [whatever the mechanism], then this implies that even in a well lit and well nourished tank that plants and algae are still fighting over some vital conponent that is limiting.

The only thing I can think of is CO2, and even with extra CO2 injection I would say that CO2 is limiting, just not as limiting as a tank without added CO2.

Diana Walstead in her book explains that CO2 concentration is quite often many times higher in aquatic systems than surrounding air but that does not compensate for the fact that C02 diffuses thousands of times slower in water than air (I'm trying to remember the details of her CO2 chapter of the top of my head).

As far as I understand vallis is one of the aquatic plants that can use bicarbonates, in my tank that uses the el natural method, CO2 is probably limiting. I have noticed that when I removed most of the vallis I was able to get better growth from other plants and a more diverse range of plants. The vallis I assume, is encouraging the conversion of disolved CO2 to bicarbonates to replace the bicarbonates it has removed thus removing CO2 and making less available for plants do no use bicarbonates. The effect is lessened when you add extra CO2 or trim the vallis back. At least that is my observation.

My observation of vallis growth may not be an example of allelopathy but perhaps shows that a slight advantage one plant has over another plant or algae can make a big difference to its success in a fish tank. Perhaps as well a slight advantage provided by allelochemicals is enough to tip the balance for either plants or algae for the continuing battle to get enough CO2.

These are just my thoughts I'm not an expert and will probably change my mind by next month but it is a fascinating subject.


----------



## BryceM

Yeah, I think this is perhaps the single best question ever posed here at APC. Certainly "the answer" is not a simple one.

My own thoughts about allelopathy have shifted a bit since this thread started. People like Tom Barr will adamantly state that this does not play a significant role. When I see algae in my aquarium, it generally shows up on older, unhealthy portions of the plant. I doubt that waterborne allelopathy has much effect. I do think that there's a possibility that "plant defenses" might be active within a local area in healthy plant tissue. Plants don't have an adaptive immune system in the classic sense but they do employ innate systems of immunity. It's possible that they can deploy proteins or protective barriers on their surfaces that prohibit the growth of certain other organisms. Unhealthy plant tissue would therefore be unable to resist algae colonization.

Certainly there is much more to the picture. It's pretty clear that certain algae "watch" for environmental clues that tell them that it's a good time to activate, grow, and reproduce. Avoiding these activating factors is probably a big part of the soultion.


----------



## Brilliant

HeyPK said:


> Art said:
> 
> There is a third possibility---Good nutrient levels make nutritious algae, and the animals that eat the algae thrive and multiply and eat it all up. Poor nutrient levels result in algae so low in nitrogen that herbovires get no food value by eating it. Also, when nutrient levels are low, the algae may be able to put more of its photosynthetic effort into producing toxins that protect it.
> 
> It is important to distinguish what kind of algae we are talking about. Green water, Cyanobacteria, Red algae, Oedogonium, Cladophora, Rhizoclonium, green spot algae, etc.


Another vote for that. We only have a problem with nuisance algae. 
My nonscientific explanation...perhaps healthy hardworking plants sweat which makes nuisance algae unable to grow.


----------



## ShaneS

I proposed this question to one of my professors (Horticulture Phd, specializes in Floriculture) and he suggested allelopathy. There is very little research on the subject and not nearly enough for anyone to have a complete understanding, especially in aquatic environments. We know that a lot of large canopy trees will 'poisen' the ground under them with leaf litter and chemicals that are released as the leaves decompose. This frees more nutrients for their roots and keeps other trees from growing into their canopy and shading them.
Now there is proof that allelopathic chemicals exist, and it is a pretty sound theory, he is an intelligent guy. Algae can use No3, po4, and whatever so obviously in the case of EI (I am so far unfamiliar with PPS) the algae should be growing. In an empty take with lots of light and these chemicals (In ANY RATIO, the ratio is not important to algae and plants) we expect to see algae. Therefore something about the presence of healthy higher plants prevents excessive algal growth. I think of algae as a scavanger, it will take in nutrients down to the part per BILLION, and is more efficent than higher plants and living off low levels of nutreints (Although probably wont be prolific at low levels).
I dont think we can answer this question, but we can make some educated guesses. I'm still in college trying to figure things like this out... maybe one day i will have a better answer haha.


----------



## blackBRUSHalgae

ShaneS said:


> I proposed this question to one of my professors (Horticulture Phd, specializes in Floriculture) and he suggested allelopathy. There is very little research on the subject and not nearly enough for anyone to have a complete understanding, especially in aquatic environments. We know that a lot of large canopy trees will 'poisen' the ground under them with leaf litter and chemicals that are released as the leaves decompose. This frees more nutrients for their roots and keeps other trees from growing into their canopy and shading them.
> Now there is proof that allelopathic chemicals exist, and it is a pretty sound theory, he is an intelligent guy. Algae can use No3, po4, and whatever so obviously in the case of EI (I am so far unfamiliar with PPS) the algae should be growing. In an empty take with lots of light and these chemicals (In ANY RATIO, the ratio is not important to algae and plants) we expect to see algae. Therefore something about the presence of healthy higher plants prevents excessive algal growth. I think of algae as a scavanger, it will take in nutrients down to the part per BILLION, and is more efficent than higher plants and living off low levels of nutreints (Although probably wont be prolific at low levels).
> I dont think we can answer this question, but we can make some educated guesses. I'm still in college trying to figure things like this out... maybe one day i will have a better answer haha.


THE HAPPENING!!!! (movie) The granddaddy of allelopathy!!


----------



## rpmsongs

ShaneS;444344 maybe one day i will have a better answer haha.[/QUOTE said:


> any news?


----------



## DeChaoOrdo

It seems to me the answer is far simpler than most of the postulates in this thread. photosynthetic organisms need four things, basically: 
water
nutrients(NPK-SFeMgCa-various micros)
a carbon source
light

In an aquarium we control all of these to some degree. Both EI and PPS are about creating a situation in which the light is the limiting factor. Any limiting factor other than light leads to the much faster adjusting algaes capitalizing on the excess light, and what is deficient determines what algaes will persist. Higher plants will monopolize the light so long as their other needs are met, leaving any algaes to starve.

The reason I rule out allelopathy is fairly simple. If the reason were allelopathy, then not only would the algae disappear but we would also see a single plant species completely overtaking the system. Occasionally this may happen, but for the most part planted aquariums grow multiple species in a single tank with only minor competition starvation issues. True allelopathy leads to single species dominance(like what is seen in sunflower fields, oak stands, eucalyptus stands, walnut stands....) This isn't the case in the majority of tanks, so allelopathic action is generally not the case. 

Occam's razor is your friend.


----------



## rhodophyta

DeChaoOrdo said:


> It seems to me the answer is far simpler than most of the postulates in this thread. photosynthetic organisms need four things, basically:
> water
> nutrients(NPK-SFeMgCa-various micros)
> a carbon source
> light
> 
> In an aquarium we control all of these to some degree. Both EI and PPS are about creating a situation in which the light is the limiting factor. Any limiting factor other than light leads to the much faster adjusting algaes capitalizing on the excess light, and what is deficient determines what algaes will persist. Higher plants will monopolize the light so long as their other needs are met, leaving any algaes to starve.
> 
> The reason I rule out allelopathy is fairly simple. If the reason were allelopathy, then not only would the algae disappear but we would also see a single plant species completely overtaking the system. Occasionally this may happen, but for the most part planted aquariums grow multiple species in a single tank with only minor competition starvation issues. True allelopathy leads to single species dominance(like what is seen in sunflower fields, oak stands, eucalyptus stands, walnut stands....) This isn't the case in the majority of tanks, so allelopathic action is generally not the case.
> 
> Occam's razor is your friend.


It's usually our intervention (pruning, harvesting) that prevents a succession of dominant plants. I was just looking about week ago at a 120 gallon tank that had turned into a solid green block of Italian val.

Floaters and bryophytes (mosses, hornworts, crystalworts, etc.) are prone to taking over too. We tend to keep those out, or severely control and harvest those in a planted tank. I set up a planted tank at my daughters house. Basically it is now nothing but small duckweed on top and the rest solid with Chara cf. contraria. I suspect many of us skipped or forgot that early phase in aquatic plant keeping when we assumed that plants would all get along. She just now caught on and is starting to regularly pull out the excess Chara and duckweed.

I used to keep large tanks of marine plants, some true vascular plants, most macroalgae. I would start out with over forty different species of sea plants in a tank. No matter how much manipulation I tried, a handful of species or less would dominate and many would vanish or seem to for a while.


----------



## DeChaoOrdo

rhodophyta said:


> It's usually our intervention (pruning, harvesting) that prevents a succession of dominant plants. I was just looking about week ago at a 120 gallon tank that had turned into a solid green block of Italian val.
> 
> Floaters and bryophytes (mosses, hornworts, crystalworts, etc.) are prone to taking over too. We tend to keep those out, or severely control and harvest those in a planted tank. I set up a planted tank at my daughters house. Basically it is now nothing but small duckweed on top and the rest solid with Chara cf. contraria. I suspect many of us skipped or forgot that early phase in aquatic plant keeping when we assumed that plants would all get along. She just now caught on and is starting to regularly pull out the excess Chara and duckweed.
> 
> I used to keep large tanks of marine plants, some true vascular plants, most macroalgae. I would start out with over forty different species of sea plants in a tank. No matter how much manipulation I tried, a handful of species or less would dominate and many would vanish or seem to for a while.


Some species definitely are stronger competitors than others, but if allelopathy was playing a significant role results in freshwater tanks would be more like what you described for your marine aquaria. Certainly there is some degree of allelopathic interaction, I simply am saying it seems doubtful that it would be the primary reason for algae disappearing in well planted tanks with sufficient CO2 and nutrient dosing. Floaters in particular have strong competitive advantages since they are closest to the light source and exposed to much higher levels of CO2 than is plausible in the water column. Bryophytes and vals are better adjusted to the low light levels we keep in aquariums(even most "high light" tanks have significantly lower light levels than what would be considered moderate or low light.)


----------



## Marcel G

Hi all,

I tried to put together all the arguments in this thread (and not only here) into more or less comprehensive list. You can look here (if you're interested):

www.prirodni-akvarium.cz/en/index.php?id=en_algaeSuppress

I hope it will be of any help.

PS: If anyone wants to add some point, just write it here as regular post in this thread.


----------



## niko

I liked the last two quotes in that article. Real scientists as it looks, not some internet stars. 

Regular maintenance, balance - ok. But here's another thing: I've had tanks which where so stable that even letting them evaporate 30% (months without any maintenance) did not lead to any algae growth. Plants do not die. Actually some plants really explode in growth at times - maybe a seasonal thing, maybe accumulation of certain elements. You can refill the tank whenever you feel like it and nothing changes. No algae, no disbalances. If I remember correctly there where also periods when the lights were on/off on a funky schedule because the timers got messed up after power outages. My point is - here's an indestructible tank that does not develop algae despite many basic things being way off.

I have no idea how such extremely stable tank can be intentionally made to happen. The only thing I can think of is that all of these tanks (I've had 3 or 4 like that due to my natural laziness I guess) had a long time to develop. One of these tanks started as just water and gravel (no CO2, very low flow, and not even light!). There where a few fish and there were a few Amano shimp from the beginning. I never planted plants in it - they grew up from seeds in the substrate (was taken from an old tank) I guess and about a year later the tank was full of plants to where there was little room for the fish to swim. There where mosses and some kind of Hygrophila. Also the new plants sprouted for the first time only when the seasons changed - one morning I realized that the tank actually got light - a 1 or 2 hours of sunlight when the sun was raising only. 

In these extra stable tanks algae could not live even for a few hours. I've seen BBA completely disappear within 6-8 hours if introduced into such a tank. It just evaporates - maybe it gets really weak and the shrimp eat it. Except 15-20 Amanos cannot take care of every single BBA dot there is in 6-8 hours. It's almost like BBA melts away into the nothing. What caused that? Certainly not low N and P, certainly not low organics. The extra Oxygen that the filter pipe introduces when it discharges 20 cm. above the evaporated tank? 

There is something to be said about letting the tank develop naturally. By constantly doing something in the tank we disrupt certain natural processes, some kind of trends. That is especially true if the tank is high speed - lots of light, CO2, nutrients - and if you don't really know what you are doing. A few years ago here on APC I described a way to start a planted tank that employed the idea of very gradual addition of fertilizers - daily amounts which where dictated by the plants themselves. I called it "SubZero" because you could never test the fertilizers with common test kits but if you added them every day you knew they were there. The main point of that approach was to interfere with the natural processes in the tank as little as reasonably possible. By using SubZero you actually end up ramping up the plant's metabolism to a level where you can add considerable amounts of ferts but a few hours after that nothing is left in the water. I have had two algae appearances with that approach (Staghorn and Cladophora) and in both cases stopping the fert additions and two 30% water changes later (over 3 days) got rid of the algae immediately. The Staghorn may disappear easily but the Clado is a different thing. Yet it did disappear completely in 3 days. I used to believe that what was happening was that the tank was forcefully made completely void of macros and micros but now I know I do not know anything.


----------



## Marcel G

niko said:


> Regular maintenance, balance - ok. But here's another thing: ... here's an indestructible tank that does not develop algae despite many basic things being way off ... In these extra stable tanks algae could not live even for a few hours. There is something to be said about letting the tank develop naturally.


Very good point Nikolay! I'll try to include this observation into my article.


----------



## niko

Ardjuna,

I reread your algae article a few times because it brings up a lot of good points from different directions which is not common for the planted tank forums around here. Below are two things that you may find interesting:

1. One view is that algae is like a disease and show up as result of stress (bad light, temperature...). You don't know but I am the inventor of the algae-erasing pen using fiberoptic cable to direct UV light at algae and spot burn them from a close distance. After hating algae for may years I realized a simple thing - seeing algae as enemies doesn't have to be so. Look at algae as ancient organisms that have learned to adapt in all kinds of crazy situations. They are way more amazing than any fake digital creature that a billion dollar entertainment outfit can put in front of your eyes. In a way - look at them with respect. That funny mind exercise may help you to look at the tank in a different, broader way. It is not about exterminating, overpowering, and not even about outcompeting. It is about understanding. No wonder we usually fear things we do not understand and fear is often associated with aggression.

2. So I had these few strangely stable tanks which I really cannot describe. I was thinking about them after I wrote my post above. It is indeed strange to have a system that is so stable. Certainly in Nature there is no such extreme resilience and stability. In Nature everyting always changes - high water or drought bring a very different dynamic to the body of water. How is it that I had such unnaturaly stable tanks? I have no answer to that but I think we can look at that like this: An aquarium is an isolated system. At least much more isolated than Nature. So in that system it it possible to have extremes in either direction. There are not very many safety nets, buffers, insurances either way. Extreme instability and extreme stability can happen indeed. Sort of like an antisocial, isolated person. If that is so then we can say that the the average planted tank is one that is more toward the unstable state. There are plenty of posts about people going on vacation and "shutting down" or "slowing down" the tank because without constant care it deteriorates. Deterioration is expected in "New School of Planted Tank"! Tanks that "run slower" (lower light, no CO2, etc) seem to be more toward the stable state.

The title of this thread is misleading. Reduced algae are not a result of some "New School" of higher aquarium education in which just 4 things matter (CO2, ferts, light, and water changes). "New School" is about the effort that you put to force the system in a state we call "clean". Read item 1 above again.

And here's some more about item 2 above: There are enough people that will show pictures of tanks run using EI or PPS that are both "clean" *AND* stable. Just a few EI fans can show such pictures and there is always the same common thing - these tanks are always old and well established. An old tank is a completely different animal than a new tank (6-12 months old). So you can start your way to stability by forcing things to be your way, then at some point the tank gets established and you certainly attribute that to everything you did. But the truth is you can arrive to that established stable stable state by not doing anything at all - just leave the tank develop with very low light, no or very few fish, and no or very little CO2. So it turns out that both "Old School" and "New School" achieve the same thing. Except we will all agree which approach leads to much more risk of all kinds of issues along the way. Drop the ball once and both EI and PPS will bring algae quickly. EI can do that literally overnight because of the ultra high concentrations of chemicals floating free in the water, excess light, and excess CO2 which suffocates the biofilter among other bad things. The cure for any problems with EI or PPS is more of the same - more water changes, more ferts, more CO2. More one of 4 things, more effort, more aggression.

I may start a new thread - "Why fast food is so tasty, cheap, and satisfies both my hunger and my mind?" I see quite a few parallels with the mentality of many planted tank folk. As an old rock-n-roll song goes "You want it - we got it!":


----------



## NinjaPilot

If you believe ammonia is the main cause of algae, then the fact that you are making more water changes weekly with the EI and PPS methods would keep ammonias from building up.


----------



## JustLikeAPill

Left for three days. Dosing pump malfunctioned and delivered 1.5 liters of macro solution at once instead of ten ml/day. I came home to a cesspool of brown filamentous algae that waves in the current like the hair of a mermaid. If I were competing for the best algae crop, I would win. Green algea covered the glass. 

I already have excessive flow, so it's not that. Lighting is high (80-90 PAR at substrate in center of 90-P) but CO2 is on a controller set to 6.2 (highest after lights out 7.0-7.2, as it varies) that starts an hour before lights on. 8 hour photoperiod This is not a new tank; these are not simply diatoms, and I did a large water change (at least 90% of display tank)) before I left, anyway. My filter is oversized for my tank, loaded with biomedia, and cleaned a week ago, anyway. I don't even have any fish so there is next to no visible detritus. I quickly planted some legandara before I left. I find it extremely hard to believe that the minute amount of disturbance to the substrate bed had any effect. The macronutrient overdose obviously caused this. It is a "should I just start over?" situation. 

If five months worth of macros, all dosed all at once, with 5 ml/day of double-strength E.I. micro solution, a full point pH drop with co2 kicking on an hour before the photoperiod (which I would bet my life would kill any shrimp I tried to keep), is not non-limiting, then I don't know what is.

I have read time and time again a particular Dr. say things along the lines of "if excess x, y, or z nutrient could trigger an algae bloom, then any hobbyist could experiment and add excessive amounts to induce algae. But this does not happen." or "Eutrophication in natural bodies of water is not induced by phosphate/nitrate" "Phosphate does not induce algae" etc. etc. 

Well, it happened. It was induced. I have never had anything but unfortunate luck anytime I do anything that has anything to do with a particular Dr.'s method in any way. When I'm not suffocating/poisoning my fish/shrimp, I'm dealing with algae at the best of times (which couldn't possibly be caused by excessive nutrients, or so some would have you think....) or coming home to an expensive cesspool. And this is when following it to the LETTER and going above and beyond measures of cleanliness and maintenance. Do not tell me I need more CO2, which is some people's answer to anything and everything. Don't tell me I need more plants. I had like 70% vegetation coverage and the tank was immaculate before I left. 


Whatever. I'm so over it and over everything that has anything to do with E.I. in any way. I am consistently met with death and decay. And it's not like I am completely incompetent: I have a scientific background, have taken botany classes, four years of chemistry, etc. My tank could be cooler. It gets up to 85F during the day. But I find it funny that, despite the heat, I do not have algae running rampant whenever the autodoser was dosing as programmed, yet when nutrients are overdosed (which, according to some, doesn't even matter as long as they are all non-limiting and micros aren't dosed so high to cause toxicity) I magically come home to a sewer. 

I can't help but wonder if it would have been AS bad had I been using a good UV sterilizer. I should also calibrate my pH probe and raise the lights. Regardless, I'm going back to the Brighty series. E.I., when followed religiously, has failed ne time and time againb. Even if the Brighty series is overpriced and diluted, at least I can say the ADA system has always worked for me flawlessly in the past. E.I... not so much. I have often wondered if people who claim to dump so many nutrients in their tank and crank the co2 up so high (I can't keep shrimp alive to save my life! Hundreds of dollars wasted trying over the years! To keep them alive longer than 24 ours would be a miracle despite 3+ hour drip acclimations!!!) and have great results and plants with sparkling cuticles and minimal to no algae with happy livestock are LYING about something. 

And as a side-note, those Twinstar devices really do inhibit the growth of algae. But on the disc ONLY. The disc it's self is literally the only surface in the display tank that was spotless and pristine. It was so perfectly clean, I was astounded. Since it only prevents algae from growing on it's own mesh surface, It's astoundingly useless and a complete waste of $150. What a JOKE. I should have known better, anyway. I fell for a gimmick hydrolysis device. Snake oil. 


I am a paid subscriber to the Barr Report. Which offers no real benefit by the way. I should really vent my frustrations there.... Sorry for the rant.


----------

