# Plants out competing algae-does this really make sense to you?



## chiahead (Dec 18, 2004)

This method of thinking has always baffled me when I hear it. How can an algae which is usually only requires very very iny amounts of nutrients to grow be out competed in an aquarium that has excessive nutrients in it at all times? If the plants are outcompeting them then they would have to suck the entire tank dry of all fertilizers for this to work. I mean every bit down to the micro milliliter. If the ferts are dosed in a manner that their is always some available for the plants to use then what would stop the algae from getting them also? 

I just do not agree that the plants out compete anything. I do agree to have everything a plant needs at all times for them to grow properly. What is everyones thoughts on this idea?


----------



## Chris S (Feb 27, 2006)

All I know is in my tank. I tried the EI method but was overdosing Big Time. I wrestled algae until I was blue in the face. I decreased dosage to mathc my lower light tank uptake and I don't have to do maintenace but once a week (except for ferts) alellochemicals or whatever they call them seems to make some sense perhaps. Also many of the plants grow fast enough that they almost totally replace themselves in about 2 or 3 weeks and I'm throwing out or removing most foliage older than that with maintenance. 
Interesting topic.


----------



## Jimbo205 (Feb 2, 2006)

> I'm throwing out or removing most foliage older than that with maintenance.


 Will your local fish store give you any store credit for your 'extra' plants?


----------



## Jimbo205 (Feb 2, 2006)

> If the plants are outcompeting them then they would have to suck the entire tank dry of all fertilizers for this to work.


 I am not an expert nor do I pretend to be one, but I do know that some suggest dosing small amounts of supplements every day and say that it is better to dose small amounts daily than to add large amounts once in a while.

I know for myself that when I actually tested for supplements that I was putting into my aquarium, that I would get frustrated by the levels I detected because it always seemed too low compared to how much I was putting into the aquarium. I finally came to the conclussion that YES, everything I was dosing WAS CONSUMED by the next day.

This may not actually be a fact, but that is the conclussion that I came to.

I believe that Tom Barr (PlantBrain) has threads posted on this topic, as well as some other members. Maybe someone may know which thread to direct you to. You may want to look under the fertilizer threads.

Best of Luck.


----------



## Chris S (Feb 27, 2006)

Jimbo205 said:


> Will your local fish store give you any store credit for your 'extra' plants?


 Oh yeah! About that. A friend of mine that I have known since 1st grade came over with the news that he is opening a LFS and that he would like to see my stuff in his store rather than in the compeditor's store. So he said tell him whatever the other guy will give me and he WILL beat that offer.


----------



## Chris S (Feb 27, 2006)

Jimbo205 said:


> I believe that Tom Barr (PlantBrain) has threads posted on this topic, as well as some other members. Maybe someone may know which thread to direct you to. You may want to look under the fertilizer threads.
> 
> Best of Luck.


 Here is one algae thread don't know if this is on topic or not.
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...ms/3806-flourish-excell-got-rid-all-my-2.html


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

_How can an algae which is usually only requires very very iny amounts of nutrients to grow be out competed in an aquarium that has excessive nutrients in it at all times?_
This is the way I've always looked at this. And again this is my opinon and I could be wrong:

The plants do outcompete the algae for survival, but not for the nutrients (no3,po4,etc.) that your putting in, but instead for the organic waste (nh3, etc) that is in the water column from fish waste, food, decaying plants. The nutrients your putting in give the plants better growth rates that allow them to do this more effectively. The higher light one has, the more plant mass is needed because the light is the driver for the algae to process the nh3 and proliferate in ones tank. That's why the easiest tanks to maintain are low light and light fish loads, while the hardest ones are high light and high fish loads. Hope this makes sense.


----------



## chiahead (Dec 18, 2004)

houseofcards said:


> The plants do outcompete the algae for survival, but not for the nutrients (no3,po4,etc.) that your putting in, but instead for the organic waste (nh3, etc) that is in the water column from fish waste, food, decaying plants. The nutrients your putting in give the plants better growth rates that allow them to do this more effectively. The higher light one has, the more plant mass is needed because the light is the driver for the algae to process the nh3 and proliferate in ones tank. That's why the easiest tanks to maintain are low light and light fish loads, while the hardest ones are high light and high fish loads. Hope this makes sense.


ya one might think this but I recently(3 weeks ago) switched my nano cube from 2x36w PC to a 150w metal halide. Algae grow has all but dissapeared. My occasional cloudy/greenish water also dissapeared. I did not change my dosing or fish load at all. I also do not agree with a high light needs more plant mass. The nano tank I have has nothing but slow growers in it like Ammania Bonsai, hair grass, HC, and anubias nana petite.

As far as what Tom Barr has said in the past I really dont agree with what he has said. He states to keep all the nutrients in excess, that NH4 causes algae, Co2 is always not good enough, blah blah. In the past I have done things like dose daily, test my levels daily, blast the co2 to the point of killing fish even with extremely high water movements, etc. Maybe someone should do an experiment by adding NH4 to an established planted tank to see if it really causes and algae breakout? On the same note what would happen to a tank if I suddenly added alot of extra iron? Nitrate? Phosphate? Maybe I am just rambling here. Sorry.


----------



## Laith (Sep 4, 2004)

Here's a relevant thread where this has been discussed:

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...-problems/5514-so-why-does-new-school-no.html


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Laith,
Thanks for the thread link. I do remember that thread. It was very interesting, but of course never arrived at any solid conclusions.

If you want to redirect this to that thread just say the word. 

Chiahead,
I'm certainly not going to doubt your first-hand experience with higher light solving your algae problems. If the plants weren't growing well with the first set of lights and then the additional wattage had them take off then that could have made them a better biofilter in processing the waste in the tank. So in essence you increased the efficiency of your biofilter to process waste thus making it less available to algae. 

I've always said it was a light, mass, waste ratio that has to be in balance to keep algae at bay. If the light is increased and the waste is increased the algae is increased. Take two extreme examples:

1. Outdoor fish pond
Massive light, high waste producing fish, closed system, inadequate biofilter The result is most ponds have lots of algae.

2. Coral Reef 
Large circulating water, refreshed, teeming with life, hugh biofilter (live rock, etc.) and the water is crystal clear. 

Both of these ecosystems have high light, but one has a major biofilter to deal with it. 

Suppose you have a tank that you adding macros to on a daily basis, but your changing the water 3 times a day as well. Assuming you add back in the macros with the water changes so the tank always has a good supply of them, will the tank get algae. My bet would be that it would be much less than a tank that your changing the water once a week with the same level of macros, because on the tank that your changing 3 times a week you eliminating the majority of waste.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

I think that with what we know for now trying to explain how plants outcompete with algae is completely pointless. We never look at the aquarium in all its complexity. We only know about a few things - nutrients, light, duration of light, water movement, biofilter, organics.

There is much more to an ecosystem than that. I have no clue what these other things are. And I don't believe anyone has a clue. For every example of a tank that has a lean water column and no algae we will find an example of a tank that has rich water column and no algae. Or the opposite. The same goes for TDS, organics, light and so on. We cannot find a good, practically proven explanation "why?" anywhere.

Basically noone can tell you how to start and run a completely clean tank every single time. There are some guidelines but they are very, very general. For example - stuff the tank with as many healthy plants as you can from the very beginning, don't dose from day 1, use the light carefully in the beginning and so on.

For now all this lack of knowledge is compensated with experience. The best advice we have is "watch the plants and make careful adjustments". An ex-pro golfer told me that the best golfers are capable of adjusting to whatever comes their way. I loath the game of golf but I thought that this "capable of adjusting" part really applies to a planted tank. Trying to explain how plants outcompete algae is like explaining how the physical forces make the golf ball fly in a certain way - fascinating and pretty much useless for the actual game. And for planted tanks in particular - even if one day we have all the variables figured out we will not have tanks looking better than what Luis Navarro and Jeff Senske create today.

--Nikolay


----------



## chiahead (Dec 18, 2004)

I think alot of what Niko said is correct. This is a very complex issue to understand and even more complex to explain in a way that it makes sense. To me I like to think about it and try to figure out the why. Again I think it goes back to a balance condition which in my mind promotes a healthy water column. Maybe the bacteria in the tank contribute to the lack of algae in some way too.


----------



## dnrdarryl (Jul 23, 2006)

I see algae blooms in lakes and marshes all the time in my work as a wildlife biologist. I am in an area of the country where nutrients are always in excess(corn and hog heaven we call it). We get green water whenever the water is warm and whenever we lose our emergent and submergent vegetation and their associated plankton communities. This usually happens due to prolonged high water covering up emersed plants, increased turbidity due to wave action, boating, rough fish, etc. I don't know how any of this applies to aquariums but I do know I can push the reset button by drying out the marsh periodically. This kills fish, allows plants to reseed, consolidates the substrate, etc. We call it the marsh 'cycle' and it is hated by boaters and shoreline homeowners (who I suspect have designed their decor around the 'green water' theme) but loved by wildlife enthusiasts. It makes for an interesting job.


----------



## Jimbo205 (Feb 2, 2006)

> I think that with what we know for now trying to explain how plants outcompete with algae is completely pointless. We never look at the aquarium in all its complexity.





> There is much more to an ecosystem than that. I have no clue what these other things are. And I don't believe anyone has a clue.





> We cannot find a good, practically proven explanation "why?" anywhere.


Niko, I appreciate your post and the point of view - sometimes the details don't matter, what works; works. But as to the LOGIC......

Give me a break. It is a fish tank. It is 2006, if scientists don't know the answer to this - then we are screwed. I am not saying that we hobbyists 'have to know' but to say that no one in the scientific community knows the answer to this - is pretty sad. 
I even expect there to be more than one theory in the scientific community - but don't tell me Uncle Sam has not spent $$$$ in the past to figure out something as simple as this one.

It's algae people - not AIDS, not diabetes, not cancer, not embryonic stem cells, if is ALGAE.

If scientists truly do not know the answer to this one - I expect their funding to dry up pretty quick!


----------



## joephys (May 9, 2006)

Jimbo205 said:


> Niko, I appreciate your post and the point of view - sometimes the details don't matter, what works; works. But as to the LOGIC......
> 
> Give me a break. It is a fish tank. It is 2006, if scientists don't know the answer to this - then we are screwed. I am not saying that we hobbyists 'have to know' but to say that no one in the scientific community knows the answer to this - is pretty sad.
> I even expect there to be more than one theory in the scientific community - but don't tell me Uncle Sam has not spent $$$$ in the past to figure out something as simple as this one.
> ...


If its so easy why don't you become a scientist? How do you know that algae isn't more complicated to study than any of the other things you mentioned? Obviously you don't have a scientific background or you wouldn't have said something like that.

Most discoveries usually result in more questions than answers, that is how we continue to discover new things. If that wasn't the case, we would have known everything in the early 1900's.

Sorry if that sounded like an attack, it wasn't meant to be. I do find it annoying though when people say things like that.


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

"Algae" covers a lot of territory, and what is true for one isn't necessarily true for others. Similarly, "plants" covers another large territory. Any one species has its own niche in the world, where it has evolved to live successfully. I doubt that a single algae or plant has evolved to live successfully in a glass tank under a 2 watts per gallon light, with EI fertilization and pressurized CO2 being injected at 20 ppm. Snarky, but true. So, when we discuss subjects like this I think it is necessary to be aware that algae, green water for example, is what it is as a result of a huge number of mutations where characteristics favorable for its survival as a species were optimized, but optimized for the ecological niche where it was struggling to grow successfully. And, as I understand it, the algae spores bloom into the full adult stage in response to natural stimulants that are optimum for success. Those stimulants appear to include a sudden increase in ammonia in the water and big drops in the amount of dissolved CO2 in the water. So, they aren't even competing with plants, they are really competing with nature.


----------



## Jimbo205 (Feb 2, 2006)

> And, as I understand it, the algae spores bloom into the full adult stage in response to natural stimulants that are optimum for success. Those stimulants appear to include a sudden increase in ammonia in the water and big drops in the amount of dissolved CO2 in the water. So, they aren't even competing with plants, they are really competing with nature.


 I understood that.

You don't need to be a scientist to know whether someone knows the answer.
You just need to listen (and if you are lucky and patient - learn their language). 
Many in the local hospitals think I have a medical background. I don't, I just listen to what they say....

And I just want a nice planted aquarium. I should not have to become a scientist to do that.

By the way, exactly what is the name of a scientist that studies this field of aquatic plants? 
Wildlife Biologist? Marine Biologist? Environmental Scientist?

I know for a fact that Rusty from Seachem, Tom Barr (plantbrain) or Diana Walstad would be very helpful with this question on algae. Matter of fact, I am postive they have already posted some very good information on this topic.

Anyone have the links to those threads?


----------

