# L. Aromatica - Light or ferts???



## jdigiorgio (Jan 29, 2004)

What exactly turns L. aromatica purple/ red? Is this the lights or the ferts? My Aromatica is comming in greenish yellow and not the normal purple. I know I am dosing enough of everything but did change to T5s 2 months ago.


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

I'd say lights first, ferts second - so both.
You need good lights that have strong emissions in the blue spectrum. I run a couple of T8 Philips Aquarelles (these have tremendous power output in the blue) with T5H0 and mine are purple/maroon.
Ferts is PPS


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Mar 7, 2008)

Hi jdigiorgio,

+1 for Newts comments; first light then ferts.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

+2 for Newt's comments, I would gather to think it's almost all light as long as the ferts are there in some degree.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Ah the red issue again.

Here are a couple of interesting threads:

http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/6752-quot-Need-quot-high-light-for-red-plants-1.8W-gal-see-what-you-think
http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/5818-So-What-Makes-Red

Full EI is N loaded, so it's not solely N reliant. Precise light level should never be the issue, but rather the ratio of all other things to it.

I'd say enough carbon to build structure faster than chlorophyll can be produced is what's in questions here. This would be all about ratio of light to nitrogen and carbon.

lets take a look at the actual pigments we're working with here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthocyanin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carotene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanthophyll
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorophyll

One thing that's popularized in aquarium hearsay is iron. I don't see any iron in those, so we can discard that idea as having any direct impact.

What I see missing from all but the chlorophylls is nitrogen. The rest are carbon, oxygen and hydrogen. Plants are surrounded by the later two, but the former is a big focus. So then, forming pigments requires emphasis on carbon more than anything.

But these pigments are masked by chlorophyll later. Supplying high levels of N makes this happen faster. It may not be necessary to limit N in order to create red in every case, but limiting it can slow chlorophyll production without a doubt.

There's also some mention about anthocyanin changing color in relation to pH between red, purple and blue. This is the only pigment that offers pure red rather than orange, so I'm guessing it would be the place to focus. An important question might be how to adjust the internal pH of SAM's with significant levels of anthocyanins in order to produce red and purple rather than blue, which will look green with any significant level of chlorophyll. This site expands on specific pH ranges:
http://www.chemie.uni-regensburg.de/Organische_Chemie/Didaktik/Keusch/p26_anth-e.htm

So then, does altering the pH of the water column change the anthocyanin formed within the plant? What other factors might alter the internal pH of plants?

Another question might be light and CRI. If we choose bulbs that are red/purple, it may show a much more red aquarium. At the same time, what happens if we give the plants the color of light most readily absorbed by anthocyanins? Can a plant alter its internal pH to alter color and match the most prevalent band of light?

As for my own experience, I get orange fading to yellow for new growth on my L. aromatica when the tank is taken care of properly. I dose about 20-14-2. I wonder about luxury PO4 uptake vs. K+, and whether I'd be able to push over to red with a higher dosage by making it more acidic.

Without a doubt, this is mostly conjecture. The hobby is under-funded, hearsay is fast, scientific conclusions of this sort are slow. Unfortunately this is counter-intuitive to our social behavior that wants us to accept or accommodate what others are saying for the sake of social benefit. Because of this problem, I think a lot of us want to believe what's easy and appealing rather than what's proven, especially when nothing has been confirmed properly. Red plants fit into this category as far as I can see.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Well you throw out as much scientific conjecture as you want in terms of ferts, but the most practical approach to acheiving deeper reds is still light and that is behind conjecture it is fact. 

The same plant under the same conditions will have more red color if the one variable of light is made stronger. I have tried this numerous times in fact with L. Aromatica. Same substrate, same water, same co2 levels, same dosing and the shorter tank (12") was much redder throughout the stem while in the taller tank (18") only the top was red. Why would that be the case? Isn't the whole plant exposed to the same fert mix? Again there are possiblies with the fert concentrations, but the most practical and straightforward approach is more intense light.


----------



## dobie832 (Aug 4, 2007)

Even casual observation will lead one to realize that the red pigmented plants are affected most by lighting. All you need to do is look and see where the leafs are the reddest - at the top closest to the light. I doubt that the ferts are any stronger at the top of the water column. 

That being said, with ferts being the same, different lights will have either an impact of more or less red. The fact that red pigmented plants are not able to assimilate/photosynthesize red light they are dependent on other wavelengths and it has been shown that they most efficiently convert blue light. The Aquarelles are very popular in europe and is probably the most effecient T8 light available. Obviously lights with more intensity and strong energy output in the blue spectrum will produce better/deeper reds. This has been proved over and over in laboratory experiments.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

houseofcards said:


> Well you throw out as much scientific conjecture as you want in terms of ferts, but the most practical approach to acheiving deeper reds is still light and that is behind conjecture it is fact.


No, it's still conjecture. Having many people claim to make the observation does not indicate a causal relationship. Nobody bothers to falsify these theories, they tend to ignore pictures of mid to low light aquariums with brilliant reds. I've never seen good evidence for reds being related to high light exclusively or even primarily, because nobody has bothered to prove the case. Yes, you may be able to widen the gap in ratios but it is not a necessity for intense reds; I will give evidence of this later. It's to the point where you can get deep reds for 2wpg and under, which is out of compressed CO2 requirement ranges. If anything the fact that even the most devoted, "high light = red" types are now talking about 3-4wpg for brilliant reds where once 4-6wpg was, "required%


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Someone either edited my above post, or my own editing wiped out half of it. I believe that was about 1/10th or less of what I typed with just about none of the concrete evidence. Is there a mod about that can revert to an earlier version or is it lost? I'd really rather not have to re-type it all.


----------



## jdigiorgio (Jan 29, 2004)

OK so the concensus is light. So is there a spectrum/bulb that is better than another? I currently have 6 -6500 (forgot the brand but have a very pink hue) and 2 6700k bulbs (bright white with a blueish tint) and my L. aromatica is yellow as can be. 

After reading this thread, I have since changed 4 of the 6500k to 3 10,000k (mid-day sun VERY white with a blueish tint) and 1 Actinic.

I guess I will see if the Blue wavelength really makes a difference. I will give it 3-4 weeks and post outcome. If it is in fact the blue wavelength, then why don't more people use Actinics?


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Jdigiorgio,
I wouldn't worry too much about color temp. Any bulb between 6500k and 10k is fine. It's really the intensity that matters.

Philosophos,
We can argue about what is fact and what is conjecture, but when thousands of aquarists have success with getting better reds with stronger light many would argue that it is fact and very relevant to what the OP is trying to do here. Increasing light intensity is the most direct path to bringing out reds in aquatic plants. I appreciate your chemistry knowledge, but writing a book about it here just doesn't really help the OP in this case.


----------



## Bert H (Mar 2, 2004)

Let me add an observation to this interesting discussion. Light most definitely appears to be an important variable. Experience shows that as the plant approaches the top of the tank, it definitely becomes redder. On a 10 gal tank with 26W CF lighting 6500K, this was obvious to me. Sometime in the future, I changed the lighting to a 36W CF, also 6500K. Nothing else changed. Plants still became red only as they approached the top of the tank. It's more lighting, but the 'red' didn't show up any earlier along the stem's path to the surface. You would think with the higher lighting, the redness would have appeared further down. (At least, I had hoped it would). 

How many of us have picked up L. repens from the wild which was beet red, put it into your tank, and watch it become the usual green leaf with reddish undersides?

Some folks also claim that addition of Excel will cause plants to go redder. Again, more anecdotal observations.

I seem to recall a while ago, Tom Barr had made a comment somewhere to the effect that he hoped to market some additive which would make it easy for 'reds' to be red. Does anyone know if he ever did?


----------



## orlando (Feb 14, 2007)

I took this pick while canoeing

Notice the red tops and green bottoms....


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Notice that CO2 from partial pressure will have less competition near the surface, and that the par values over a couple of feet alter more than anything we get in the tank.

Seriously, I'm not sure anyone is denying red at the top and green at the bottom happens. The question is whether you really need to tolerate increased light to get brilliant reds; whether high light is a necessity.

I really hope the mods can recover my lost post. I spent quite a while on it, and it addresses the whole thing quite well.


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

Bert H said:



> Let me add an observation to this interesting discussion. Light most definitely appears to be an important variable. Experience shows that as the plant approaches the top of the tank, it definitely becomes redder. On a 10 gal tank with 26W CF lighting 6500K, this was obvious to me. Sometime in the future, I changed the lighting to a 36W CF, also 6500K. Nothing else changed. Plants still became red only as they approached the top of the tank. It's more lighting, but the 'red' didn't show up any earlier along the stem's path to the surface. You would think with the higher lighting, the redness would have appeared further down. (At least, I had hoped it would).


I think Bert is onto something here, and that that what when we're talking about green plants turning red, we're actually looking at is red in _new_ growth.

1) If red is dependent on height (whether that be closer to light or maximum CO2 concentration), why isn't the red consistent in depth in this terrace of Rotala indica? While this tank is high light, I can get red tips from Rotala indica with my dosing whenever I want to. Getting an entire stem red is harder.

















2) Trimming. Maybe this is another word for "stress", but as we know, stress a plant and it tends to do cool things. Like this reddish Blyxa japonica flowering and changing color immediately after the trimming, for example.









Might be easier to appreciate how red that is from the top.









To further this trimming idea, many folks will use Dutch-style tanks with low wpg (or w/L) as proof light is not needed for reds. I think they are right, but some of these folks forget the Dutch and Amano and Ghori and most of these folks with nice reds also trim a lot and mercilessly. _A lot_. Check out this video for an example (the magic starts a couple minutes in, and at that point language does not matter):





Anyway, there's obviously a more scientific answer and we may be missing it, but I call BS on the CO2 at different heights and light penetration when we're talking ~12" tanks.

Can you get reds with light? Definitely. The purposes of this post is that there's ways to get it for cheaper and less trouble/algae. Amount of maintenance -- using houseofcard's very good standard for "maintenance" -- is questionable but likely easier with less light unless you are already comfortable with fertilization (which, also, should not be hard). FWIW, of course.


----------



## jdigiorgio (Jan 29, 2004)

As originally stated, I have 442 watts of T5VHO on a 120gal. I think that should be more than enough light to turn any plant red, but alas, my aromatica is yellow. i do believe the color rendition of the bulb has alot to do with it. i previously had PCs with the 9325s and the aromatica was red as can be.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Well some of my favorite things are bikini lines and red plants and I do believe they have a lot in common, LOL.

Following with Wets stress comments, stress does beautiful things, but only to the eye of the beholder. Isn’t there much ‘conjecture’ that some plants that are usually a shade of green, turn red when they are stressed by too much light. The plant produces a chemical (I forget the name) that protects it’s chloroplasts from this high light, thus the red color.

Getting back to bikini lines. When one sees a nice sun tan that is also an organism under stress as the body produces melanin to product the more important and deeper layers of the skin, thus the ‘tan’. 

I know very scientific, but it does make sense if you think about it. We are all contacted and react in similar ways……….


----------



## asukawashere (Mar 11, 2009)

For what it's worth (I'm too low tech to offer exacting numbers for you all in terms of ferts, but suffice it to say the plants get them), I'm not convinced the bluer light does much in terms of promoting red growth. It makes sense in my head, so I've got a 96W 50/50 power compact over my 30g standard (the 36"x12" base version), supplemented with a little PM sunlight hitting half the tank, but my L. aromatica is always gold-green on the tops and purple-red on the undersides of the leaves. (pH is about 7.5...). I kinda like the look, so I'm not looking to change anything like the OP, but I figured I'd toss a wrench into the more blue light=red plants theory. :mrgreen: 'Course, given that my water is glorified liquid rock, the hardness/pH might have something to do with that.

As for those who'll ask "why a 50/50?" - a.) it came with the light (I'm cheap like that) and b.) I'm keeping Neolamprologus (Tanganyikan shell-dwellers) in there. They look good under it.


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

jdigiorgio said:


> As originally stated, I have 442 watts of T5VHO on a 120gal. I think that should be more than enough light to turn any plant red, but alas, my aromatica is yellow. i do believe the color rendition of the bulb has alot to do with it. i previously had PCs with the 9325s and the aromatica was red as can be.


This maybe your problem>>>>TOO MUCH LIGHT.
You are bleaching the plants.
Try cutting back on the number of bulbs you are running.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Mar 7, 2008)

Hi jdigiorgio,

Newt may be correct, too much light, or it could be the spectrum. What temperature (K) are the bulbs you are using?


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

Better yet>>>>exactly what bulbs are you using? I'll see if I have a spectral graph of the bulbs emissions. I used to work for Sylvania and had access to lots of info and equipment.


----------



## jdigiorgio (Jan 29, 2004)

I am now using 4 x 10,000k Current 1o,000k daylight for 5 hours a day and then 4 x AquaMedic Plant grow for 12 hours a day.

After reading many posts I purchased 4 x 54W Geissemans midday and 4 x Aqua Medic Planta 6,500K 54W.

I am a bit confused. If many people are saying light, light, light, how can there be too much light and why would the plants "bleach" if there was adequate ferts and CO2?


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

just a point: 9325K has a unique and vibrant coloration that still has some folks committed to 55w CF and others call cheating. Maybe your L. Aromatica was always the color it is now. 

if you are not light limited and have a good range and peaks in spectrum, why not go with the consensus second thing (nutrients - this includes co2) or another idea (stress)? 

adding to the stress thing, I'll also consistently observe much more brilliant reds than the pics I've posted when a plant goes emergent (both below and above the water line), but the plant reverts to green as it establishes, though it is closer to the light. p and others may find this as support for co2 at that boundary. I think it more an example of plants being forced to adapt - aka "stress"


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

Your bulbs sound like T5HO not VHO.
Yes, you can have too much light especially if its too close to the plants.

Is the AquaMedic the Planta or the Aqualine? The Planta is 5000K and a much better bulb than the Aqualine.

Try 2 x Midday with 2 x Planta for 10hrs/day with a 3 hour burst of 2 x 10000K. Give it a week or 2 and let us know what difference you see.


----------



## jdigiorgio (Jan 29, 2004)

Will try it out. Will take before and after pics of the aromatica


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

wet said:


> Anyway, there's obviously a more scientific answer and we may be missing it, but I call BS on the CO2 at different heights and light penetration when we're talking ~12" tanks.


Once again, probably part of the post that I lost. I spent 2-3 hours typing it, as much to have a consistent response to the issue as anything. I should've saved a copy.

In tanks with compressed CO2, I'm more talking about distribution as a matter of something exceeding partial pressure and aeration from agitation. In 12 inches of water you can have a yellow drop checker in one place, blue in another. Unsurprisingly, CO2 distribution is usually pretty bad near the bottom unless you're purposely trying to increase the level of saturation near the bottom. As such, I'd say it'd be easier to get a redder plant if one focused on getting better distribution in the column. This is not a concept that is the exclusive answer to red, but rather part of the necessary equation.

As for light loss... I guess I still need to get you that PAR data. Here's a depth vs. PAR chart from VaughH/Hoppy: http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/5149-PAR-Meter-Data?p=32453#post32453

Obviously it proves that there's some considerable light loss, and it furthers the point Tom made that you've pointed out here. Plants are indeed red at the tip regardless of depth in the tank, and even a few inches can cut the PAR value in half. 150-200 mmol surface with 50 bottom is common stuff.

Also, since it hasn't been mentioned, I think spread is an obvious player. Much like increasing CO2 to keep plants with bad CO2 uptake/fixation alive leads to the high light myth through correlation, increasing light while ignoring spread is something to watch for. This wasn't an issue when high light meant retrofit, but now these tightly packed T5HO fixtures with stubby little legs can really be a hindrance.


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

P,

Yes, but you don't agree that the tanks discussed in this thread -- be it Bert's 10 or jd's 120 gal -- surely exceed the threshold for "high light" at, say, half the tank height?

My comments on CO2 assume good distribution and levels in the mentioned small volume. For example, note that jd is not complaining of algae with his/her very high light but color and effect on a specific plant. But I see and agree with your points on Carbon in general, of course. (I think we [APC, good gardeners] all acknowledge that C is important for healthy plants. With the previous assumptions, I personally don't think CO2's partial pressure or any other dependence on height matters at, say, 6" deep in a 12" tall tank.)

For clarity <3


----------



## Bunnie1978 (Sep 29, 2009)

It's supposed to be yellow/green for new growth and purple on the bottom.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

wet said:


> P,
> 
> Yes, but you don't agree that the tanks discussed in this thread -- be it Bert's 10 or jd's 120 gal -- surely exceed the threshold for "high light" at, say, half the tank height?
> 
> ...


I think high light can be used to open up the ratio, I'm just skeptical as to how much good it does. If you're getting the same shade of red at the 150mmol surface as you are 6-8 inches lower, then that says something. When people can have brilliant reds near the bottom on a T8 3wpg-ish tank, that tells me that bright red can happen at what's going to be less than 100mmol PAR. We've seen that happen, meaning even 2wpg lighting should be enough to get bright red in the top half of the tank.

Partial pressure isn't so much what I was talking about for tanks. I was replying to that photograph in nature, where available carbon is obviously going to be higher near the surface of a lake given that any aeration is going to happen at the surface, and the competition for it is going to be lower than say a foot down when there's another foot or two of plant competing below that as well.

No, in tanks I think compressed CO2 is an obvious shoe-in for bright reds. People tend to have a natural skill for sticking more watts above their tank. Most of the time though, they sure do screw up good spread and even CO2.

This post really says it all:
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/192302-post8.html
High light tank, same tank, high vs. low NO3. Reproduce those results a few times over, and I'd say you have serious evidence that NO3 restriction is more important than high PAR.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Philosophos said:


> This post really says it all:
> http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/192302-post8.html
> High light tank, same tank, high vs. low NO3. Reproduce those results a few times over, and I'd say you have serious evidence that NO3 restriction is more important than high PAR.


Why don't you show more of the thread than just that one post you are taking out of context. Further up the same poster says:



AaronT said:


> The answer is both A and B. Having lots of red in the spectrum will obviously be beneficial to a red plant, *however, there are many red plants that will never be red unless the light is intense enough.* I know you didn't ask about water parameters, but a lower nitrate level of about 5-7ppm and a phosphate level of around 1-2ppm will result in some very nice reds and purples.


Many tanks already have those parameters, it doesn't mean you plants will be red unless the light is intense enough. The light is still requirement one. You don't even know anything about that one tank's parameters. Seems to me you are much more out to prove your minority view point then help the OP in this case.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

I tend to link to direct posts when the thread is multiple pages long. You had no trouble seeing the rest of the thread. Trying to argue my intent is pretty much just an ad hominem.

I have no issue with disagreeing with his post either that high light is necessary. His opinion of what's happening in his tank or how he's getting red does not alter the fact that red or green seems to be linked more to nitrogen than light. This is an argumentum ad verecundium to say so.

To say that my views are in the minority is another ad hominem if you are implying that it somehow decreases the validity of what I have to say. Whether 1,000,000 or 10 people share an opinion is not relevant to a debate. Giving in to this fallacy causes confirmation bias. Even if it were valid, the opinions of those on this thread, on plant forums, or even on the whole of the internet is still a fallacy by way of unrepresentative sampling so you have not verified that my opinion is truly in the minority.

Accusing me of pushing an agenda is yet another ad hominem. I could be doing this for the purpose of some evil agenda to wipe out all life on the planet. Does it change whether I'm right or wrong? No. Please insult me directly if you're going to do it; I've got relatively thick skin and I don't mind some name calling for relief (even if the mods do). Please though, don't wrap it up with the intellectual side of the debate. Making it the core of your arguments is really going to hurt you more than anything.

In the future you may find this chart helpful while checking over what you're typing before you hit the post button:
http://people.virginia.edu/~abb3w/Images/Fark/Fallacies/


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Philosophos said:


> I tend to link to direct posts when the thread is multiple pages long. You had no trouble seeing the rest of the thread. Trying to argue my intent is pretty much just an ad hominem.
> 
> I have no issue with disagreeing with his post either that high light is necessary. His opinion of what's happening in his tank or how he's getting red does not alter the fact that red or green seems to be linked more to nitrogen than light. This is an argumentum ad verecundium to say so.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but you have some serious issues. Good bye!


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Well yes, I'm deeply disturbed; It's common knowledge. That's another ad hom though, so it's completely besides the point 

For everyone else, I'm up for discussing the issue. I may me doubtful that red requires high light, but I won't say it's impossible either. This hobby gets flipped on its head often enough.

I think there are enough known unknowns stacked up that unless someone's going to pull out some rather impressive research, we all have to take this whole thing with a relatively agnostic pretext.


----------



## jdigiorgio (Jan 29, 2004)

Since In started this debate, I would like to say thanks for all the heated debate. debate is good, it is how OPEN minded people learn. One does not have to be right all the time.

Anyway, I have to say that I feel it is NOT necessarily the amount of light as I have had 442 watts of T5 on there for 4 months. GREEN L. aromatica. I have changed the K and color of the Bulbs and still green aromatica. I am now trying to limit NO2 and up the PO4. Will give that a few weeks and see how it goes.

Again, thanks for all of the information. It has given me many things to try out to see what works in MY tank.


----------



## Bert H (Mar 2, 2004)

Agree to disagree, but please keep it civil and respectful folks.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

jdigiorgio said:


> Since In started this debate, I would like to say thanks for all the heated debate. debate is good, it is how OPEN minded people learn. One does not have to be right all the time.
> 
> Anyway, I have to say that I feel it is NOT necessarily the amount of light as I have had 442 watts of T5 on there for 4 months. GREEN L. aromatica. I have changed the K and color of the Bulbs and still green aromatica. I am now trying to limit NO2 and up the PO4. Will give that a few weeks and see how it goes.
> 
> Again, thanks for all of the information. It has given me many things to try out to see what works in MY tank.


Just out of curiosity is this a standard 120g that I believe is 24" high. How far from substrate are the lights?


----------



## Brilliant (Jun 25, 2006)

Coming from two years under 14000k oem bulbs to 6500k replacements I am here to tell you k rating has little to no effect on color. My india is still purple, rotundifolia is pink top to bottom. Those are only two examples. Photographs and general appearance of the tank look different because of the k rating but more or less color...nope. 

I think this fairytale came from someone who had old bulbs replaced them and thought it was the k. Not the old useless bulbs.


----------



## jdigiorgio (Jan 29, 2004)

Standard 120... 24 inches deep. I have the NOVA extreme light on top of the tank with legs. I would say the lights are 22 inches from the top of the gravel.


----------



## jdigiorgio (Jan 29, 2004)

Changed my bulbs and started with PPS Pro today. Will see if there is any difference in two weeks. Will upload some pics to demonstrate progress...if any.


2 weeks enough time to see a color change in the aromatica?


----------



## ibanezfrelon (Mar 1, 2010)

Hallo!
I'd just like to say from my experience that the main contributor to make the aromatica red is not high light but low NO3.
I recived purple aromatica from the guy that don't use fertilizers and have 2w per gal, as soon as i planted it , it started to grow green in my 4w per gal tank , and i dose 45ppm no3.

I've found that little redness on the top of the plant as it reaches the top of aquarium is totaly diferent thing than plant that is purple all over as a response to stress of having too low no3.


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

Well, I got my L. Aromatica (all purple BTW) from a guy who has 4w per gal and does EI dosing. Its certainly not the kelvin of the bulb but rather the spectrum and intensity of particular spectum(s) that makes it red IMO.


----------



## HeyPK (Jan 23, 2004)

orlando said:


> I took this pick while canoeing
> 
> Notice the red tops and green bottoms....


That picture looks familiar. Is the plant Hygrophila polysperma, and was the picture taken on the Santa Fe River?


----------



## ibanezfrelon (Mar 1, 2010)

Newt said:


> Well, I got my L. Aromatica (all purple BTW) from a guy who has 4w per gal and does EI dosing. Its certainly not the kelvin of the bulb but rather the spectrum and intensity of particular spectum(s) that makes it red IMO.


Just how much no3 was he dosing?
It's probably a little less than his plants could consume..
Plants can consume a lot with such high light.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

ibanezfrelon said:


> Hallo!
> I'd just like to say from my experience that the main contributor to make the aromatica red is not high light but low NO3.
> I recived purple aromatica from the guy that don't use fertilizers and have 2w per gal, as soon as i planted it , it started to grow green in my 4w per gal tank , and i dose 45ppm no3.
> 
> I've found that little redness on the top of the plant as it reaches the top of aquarium is totaly diferent thing than plant that is purple all over as a response to stress of having too low no3.


I believe plants can have various forms of stress, of which light is also a big one. What is your opinion of why the plant in the picture above has red tops?


----------



## ibanezfrelon (Mar 1, 2010)

houseofcards said:


> I believe plants can have various forms of stress, of which light is also a big one. What is your opinion of why the plant in the picture above has red tops?


Red tops is something else , i belive the tops are red from strong light or maybe ritch co2...
...but whole plant red?? ...that's not the light , it's low no3.
my opinion..


----------



## ibanezfrelon (Mar 1, 2010)

This aquarium is from Akter 2010 held in Varaždin in Croatia.
It's a Rio180 , 2x45w t5
The setup is aprox 1 month old , it has no substrate, just gravel , and no fertilizers added of any kind.
This rotala is red allover and it's not because of the light, cause i have Rio180 with same lighting and my rotala is green as grass.
Perfect example of low no3 making plants red.


----------

