Re: algae affected by temp?

[Dunter Powries]

Brian > wrote in message
...
> All else being equal, will warmer water produce more algae? Blue-green
> algae in particular? Just curious, as I have more algae than usual, with
> no other parameter changes I know of besides temp.

Yes.

However, warm water probably isn't the proximate cause. Principal causes of
BGA are 1) dumb luck and 2) excess nitrates.

[Bill Kirkpatrick]

> Principal causes of
> BGA are 1) dumb luck and 2) excess nitrates.

Phosphate is a more likely root cause. Temp makes
everything cold blooded, and one-celled, "go faster".

Search the web for PMDD, or "Poor Mans Dupla Drops". Not so
much for the formula, but it's development came from quite a
bit of interesting research regarding algae.

Bottom line, higher plants apparently store Phosphate, algae
(being a 1 celled plant) has no place to store anything. If
you maintain 0 Phosphate - algae can't get any. When tiny
peaks happen (like feeding time), the "hungry" higher plants
suck it out in far before algae "grow into it".

Floating Hornwort, is my answer (bill has Phosphate in his
tap - that makes bill sad) and good light. And, yea, use
PMDD if you use fert at all. When you toss a handful of
Hornwort, the key is you're tossing a chunk of Phosphate.
Neat thing about it, when your water is in trouble it grows
"real fast" and both sucks nutrient and shades the lower
tank. Keep a tastefully blob bobbing around, if it starts
to "explode", let it. When the top of your tank is well
covered, to some depth, yank half. The deeper you let it
grow, the faster the process works.

If you yank once a week, you will eventually notice a week
were the top didn't end up covered. Let that go another
week, the yank half. Soon you'll notice it takes quite a
few weeks to cover the tank. Now you can prune back and
maintain a more tastefully sized clump.

Arg, a tank 1/3 full of Hornwort, yuck. Well, choose,
Hornwort once and again, or algae full time.

******************************
Dunter Powries wrote:
> Brian > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>All else being equal, will warmer water produce more algae? Blue-green
>>algae in particular? Just curious, as I have more algae than usual, with
>>no other parameter changes I know of besides temp.
>
>
> Yes.
>
> However, warm water probably isn't the proximate cause. Principal causes of
> BGA are 1) dumb luck and 2) excess nitrates.
>
>

[Happy'Cam'per]

Hi Brian

I have also wondered if temps affect bga. Maybe it contributes a tad but I
think BGA is also affected by water quality and the build up of DOC. Do a
hefty water change, twice a week if the BGA is bad. I once had a tank that
was taken over by this stuff. If your tank is very new this might also
contribute to it. As always, YMMV.
--
**So long, and thanks for all the fish!**


"Brian" > wrote in message
...
> All else being equal, will warmer water produce more algae? Blue-green
> algae in particular? Just curious, as I have more algae than usual, with
> no other parameter changes I know of besides temp.
>
> B
>
> --
> Brian Heller
>
> It is easier to tame wild beasts
> than to conquer the human mind.

[[email protected]]

Bill Kirkpatrick > wrote in message >...
> > Principal causes of
> > BGA are 1) dumb luck and 2) excess nitrates.

God does not play dice and I don't get BGA so I don't accept no#1.

Excess NO3?In terms of what? For the BGA? They live abd bloom in water
with 0.1ppm of NO3 no problem at all. So unless it's 50-75ppm etc,
enough to seriously destablize a tank, I don't buy no2# either.

BGA and most other algae appear when something runs out, rather than
somethuing becoming excessive.

> Phosphate is a more likely root cause. Temp makes
> everything cold blooded, and one-celled, "go faster".

PO4 causes BGA?
That's simply wrong.

> Search the web for PMDD, or "Poor Mans Dupla Drops". Not so
> much for the formula, but it's development came from quite a
> bit of interesting research regarding algae.

But the assumption made about excesses causing algae is wrong.

> Bottom line, higher plants apparently store Phosphate, algae
> (being a 1 celled plant) has no place to store anything.

You are wrong.
Many/most species of algae can store PO4 for up to 100 generations and
survive at far below limiting conditions for plants.

If
> you maintain 0 Phosphate - algae can't get any.

Oh yes they can. Fish food, and plant leeching is plenty for algae.
They might slow down some, but they will still grow fine, BGA is no
exception.

When tiny
> peaks happen (like feeding time), the "hungry" higher plants
> suck it out in far before algae "grow into it".

A "sick" plant gthat does not have it's growth and mainteance nutrient
requirements not being met is not going to "eat".
If the plant has what it needs to grow well, then it will do well and
the algae will not.
Plants need far more nutrients relative to biomass than algae.

It's like having a mouse and an Elephant and feeding both the same
amount and then deciding to feed less. Which will starve?

> Floating Hornwort, is my answer (bill has Phosphate in his
> tap - that makes bill sad)

I had it(PO4) for decade, I loved it and so did my plants.

and good light. And, yea, use
> PMDD if you use fert at all. When you toss a handful of
> Hornwort, the key is you're tossing a chunk of Phosphate.
> Neat thing about it, when your water is in trouble it grows
> "real fast" and both sucks nutrient and shades the lower
> tank. Keep a tastefully blob bobbing around, if it starts
> to "explode", let it. When the top of your tank is well
> covered, to some depth, yank half. The deeper you let it
> grow, the faster the process works.

Getting the plants to grow better will help,but the cause is wrong.

Adding KNO3 regularly will generally cure BGA after you kill it off
first by doing a 3 day blackout, combined with 2 dosings after 50%
water changes right before and right after a blackout. Then regular
routine dosing of KNO3.

Plants don't grow well when they don't have enough GH, CO2, NO3, PO4,
K+, and traces, you add these regularly, along with weekly water
changes, this prevents anything from building up too high, and the the
frequent 2-3x a week dosings will prevent anything from running out.

Good plant growth = no algae.

Regards,
Tom Barr

>
> If you yank once a week, you will eventually notice a week
> were the top didn't end up covered. Let that go another
> week, the yank half. Soon you'll notice it takes quite a
> few weeks to cover the tank. Now you can prune back and
> maintain a more tastefully sized clump.
>
> Arg, a tank 1/3 full of Hornwort, yuck. Well, choose,
> Hornwort once and again, or algae full time.
>
> ******************************
> Dunter Powries wrote:
> > Brian > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>All else being equal, will warmer water produce more algae? Blue-green
> >>algae in particular? Just curious, as I have more algae than usual, with
> >>no other parameter changes I know of besides temp.
> >
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > However, warm water probably isn't the proximate cause. Principal causes of
> > BGA are 1) dumb luck and 2) excess nitrates.
> >
> >

[Troy Bruder]

Funny you asked that. I recently lowered my tank temp from 74ish to 72ish
and my algae has significantly been reduce/slowed.. Maybe just
coincidence...but I like the way it's working out!

Troy
"Brian" > wrote in message
...
> All else being equal, will warmer water produce more algae? Blue-green
> algae in particular? Just curious, as I have more algae than usual, with
> no other parameter changes I know of besides temp.
>
> B
>
> --
> Brian Heller
>
> It is easier to tame wild beasts
> than to conquer the human mind.

[Sandy]

Troy Bruder wrote:
> Funny you asked that. I recently lowered my tank temp from 74ish to
> 72ish and my algae has significantly been reduce/slowed.. Maybe just
> coincidence...but I like the way it's working out!
>
> Troy
> "Brian" > wrote in message
> ...
>> All else being equal, will warmer water produce more algae?
>> Blue-green algae in particular? Just curious, as I have more algae
>> than usual, with no other parameter changes I know of besides temp.
>>
>> B
>>
>> --
>> Brian Heller
>>
>> It is easier to tame wild beasts
>> than to conquer the human mind.

Blue green algae isn't, it is a bacteria. It can live anywhere, at any
temperature and is even found at high altitudes in the atmosphere.

If you want to read more about it have a look here.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanointro.html

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanolh.html

I found out a lot about it when our local trout fishery was closed down
because of it, my daughter, who is a microbiologist, looked up some of it
for me and I found the rest.

Google search on Cyanobacteria for plenty more info.



--
Don`t Worry, Be Happy

Sandy
--

E-Mail:-
Website:- http://www.ftscotland.co.uk
IRC:- Sandyb in #rabble uk3.arcnet.vapor.com Port:6667
#Rabble Channel Website:- http://www.ftscotland.co.uk/rabbled
ICQ : 41266150

[Bill Kirkpatrick]

wrote:
> Bill Kirkpatrick > wrote in message >...
>
>>>Principal causes of
>>
>> > BGA are 1) dumb luck and 2) excess nitrates.
>
> Excess NO3?In terms of what?

You're preaching to the choir, perhaps reply to the post
that made the claim. Everyone ends up inoculated with BGA,
and BGA doesn't care about NO3 - it will fix it's own nitrogen.

>
> BGA and most other algae appear when something runs out, rather than
> somethuing becoming excessive.

Eh? Life is a constructive process. It frankly doesn't care
if, or when, "something runs out" if it has no biological
use for that particular "something". Thus, BGA, or anything
else, simply cannot grow for LACK of a required component.

> PO4 causes BGA?

Ok, "Cause" was too strong. Technically, BGA "causes" BGA.
P only helps it along, and research suggests P is one of
the inputs through which it can be limited.

NO3 is surely not limiting for BGA. But anything that the
higher plants can store can likely be used as a limiter.
Some of the traces, perhaps. Run an iron poor tank, spike
once in a while, just near the point your higher plants show
chlorosis.

P is a good choice because it is a macro. Plants and algae
need "lots" of it, relatively speaking. Thus it might be
considered easier to limit.

> That's simply wrong.

Really? You have science to share?

>>Search the web for PMDD, or "Poor Mans Dupla Drops". Not so
>>much for the formula, but it's development came from quite a
>>bit of interesting research regarding algae.
>
>
> But the assumption made about excesses causing algae is wrong.

Well, let's define excess. Greater than 0. Phosphate is a
required component for life. If you have 0, you have NO
life, none, not at all. BGA, or otherwise.

Sears-Conlin seems to have gone to quite some length to be
so flatly declared "wrong", without, at least, a couple of
dozen pages refuting them in a bit more scientific way.

> You are wrong.
> Many/most species of algae can store PO4 for up to 100 generations and
> survive at far below limiting conditions for plants.

Again, you have any science to share? Look, Algae is a one
cell plant. It grows by fission and spore. How can a spore
possibly collect P from it's parents? Being one celled, and
without a nutrient transfer system, how does P magically
migrate to subsequent fission generations? The cell splits,
roughly 50% of the material is split between two new cells.
Both must now acquire materials to double their size. How
can the ultimate parent possibly, even remotely, "store"
enough PO4 for "100 generations"?

>>If you maintain 0 Phosphate - algae can't get any.
> Oh yes they can.

Really, when is 0 not 0. BGA can fix Nitrogen, when NO3 is
0. But, P? Unless the BGA can crawl out of the tank and
acquire some dirt for themselves, 0 defines "can't get any".

> Fish food, and plant leeching is plenty for algae.
> They might slow down some, but they will still grow fine, BGA is no
> exception.

Then were are not talking 0. You have inputs. If those
inputs are kept below total consumption demand, the inputs
are peaks and will return to zero.

During that non-0 time, algae, BGA and other, will surely
take advantage. So will the higher plants.

BGA has some effective doubling rate. If the P is available
for a short enough period of time, the BGA doesn't have much
time to double. Yes, it will expand, but 1 cell growing to
2, for adequately small random values of 1 and 2, does not
an outbreak make.

Meanwhile, in a P deprived tank, there is little leeching
from the higher plants. They are in acquisition and storage
mode, hungry. They are slower than BGA, to be sure, be
we're back to the small random values of BGA doubling in a
competitive environment, returning P to 0.

> If the plant has what it needs to grow well, then it will do well and
> the algae will not.

Algae is not a "plant"? Please share the biological
differences are you aware of between "plant" and "algae"
that would account for one "doing well", and the other not,
when adequately offering everything "plants" need?

> Plants need far more nutrients relative to biomass than algae.

The point, exactly.

>
> It's like having a mouse and an Elephant and feeding both the same
> amount and then deciding to feed less. Which will starve?

Yes, exactly. If you have a mice and an elephant in a
sealed room (tank), and you throw 100 peanuts a day (P) into
the room... The clearly hungry elephant snorts once and the
mice get none. Maybe the elephant's clumsiness leaves the
mouse population 1, or 2, or 10 peanuts. Not enough for
mice to breed as rapidly, or support a large mice population.

Now, feed the room enough peanuts to meet everyone's demand.
They elephant is happy, and the mice breed. Many mice, so
many mice.

> I had it(PO4) for decade, I loved it and so did my plants.

P has never done it for me, personally, in any form. Now,
my plants, I'm told, enjoy it immensely.

> and good light. And, yea, use
>
> Adding KNO3 regularly will generally cure BGA after you kill it off
> first by doing a 3 day blackout, combined with 2 dosings after 50%
> water changes right before and right after a blackout. Then regular
> routine dosing of KNO3.

Why do you imagine KNO3 helps? KNO3 is 50-0-50 fertilizer.
May I call your attention to the complete lack of P.

> Plants don't grow well when they don't have enough GH, CO2, NO3, PO4,
> K+, and traces.

BGA fixes its own NO3, so there is no point in limiting
that. All you'll do is deprive your higher plants. Deprive
the higher plants of NO3, and you lower their competition
for P, and everything else.

So, what is PMDD? Well, a N-0-K fert with micro (Ca, Mg,
which is not just GH, btw, you can have high GH as all Mg or
Ca, and none of the other - and dead plants will ensue) and
the trace elements. All needed in proportion. Your routine
use of KN03 is incomplete - unless you are bringing in the
rest in with water changes. But, not everyone's input
waters are complete in this respect. Some use RO, some have
home softeners, some use strong micro-pore carbons to crack
chloramines (and lose metals in the process), some are just
lacking this, or that, in their tap.

[Bill Kirkpatrick]

Quick "corrections"...

1) I tried to keep Algae as plant, and BGA as "plant"
separate. They are different, BGA is a bacteria and not a
true plant. Unfortunately, in the mix-ed metaphor, where
you can treat BGA as if it were a plant, it isn't always
clear I was aware of the difference. I am. Thanks Sandy.

2) On the issue of "something runs out". Well, predation
and dis-infection would qualify as growth enabling defined
as a "lack" thereof. I'm sure BGA is happiest and most
prolific when any of its biologic predators, go lacking.
Biocidal chemicals, such as Chlorine, would also serve the
role of biologic predation.

2a) To the point of BGA, and "lacking" of a item enabling
growth... BGA is a bane to salt/reef tanks, too. There,
high-redox is associated with BGA limitation. Thus, in some
circles, a "lacking" of redox potential may be considered
enabling. Or, redox may just be an early symptom of the
onset of useful concentrations of some nutrient, perhaps DOC.

Even so, even on the reef side, severe limitation of P is
considered the definitive means of control for, um, cellular
plagues.

***************************************
Bill Kirkpatrick wrote:
> wrote:
>
> Eh? Life is a constructive process. It frankly doesn't care if, or
> when, "something runs out" if it has no biological use for that
> particular "something". Thus, BGA, or anything else, simply cannot grow
> for LACK of a required component.

[Graham Ramsay]

"Bill Kirkpatrick" wrote
> You're preaching to the choir, perhaps reply to the post
> that made the claim. Everyone ends up inoculated with BGA,
> and BGA doesn't care about NO3 - it will fix it's own nitrogen.

There are a great many types of BGA. As I understand
it they do not all fix nitrogen. Do the types found in freshwater
aquaria fix their own nitrogen? If so what types are they?

Thanks

--
Graham Ramsay
Learn about the work of the JREF
www.randi.org

[coelacanth]

> Bill Kirkpatrick wrote:
> wrote:
>
> Eh? Life is a constructive process. It frankly doesn't care if, or
> when, "something runs out" if it has no biological use for that
> particular "something". Thus, BGA, or anything else, simply cannot grow
> for LACK of a required component.

I think that this is "lack" not in terms of BGA but in terms of
things (like higher plants) which compete with it for PO4 or
whatever. The analogy would be your room full of mice and
single elephant where there were 100 peanuts but only 1 cup
of water/day. In that context, the mice would eventually
outlast the elephant and establish a breeding colony due to
a "lack" of water. Yes?

You also state repeatedly that BGA fix their own nitrogen.
Is that true for all cyanobacteria? Just curious.

-coelacanth

[Bill Kirkpatrick]

No, not all do.

*********************
coelacanth wrote:
>>Bill Kirkpatrick wrote:
wrote:
>
> You also state repeatedly that BGA fix their own nitrogen.
> Is that true for all cyanobacteria? Just curious.
>
> -coelacanth
>
>

[[email protected]]

>>>Principal causes of
>
> >> > BGA are 1) dumb luck and 2) excess nitrates.
> >
> > Excess NO3?In terms of what?
>
> You're preaching to the choir, perhaps reply to the post
> that made the claim. Everyone ends up inoculated with BGA,
> and BGA doesn't care about NO3 - it will fix it's own nitrogen.


Wrong, I've looked at many samples from all over the world, each one
except for one, had the same genus, Oscillitoria. The other was
Phormidium.

This genus(Oscillitoria) does not have any nitrogen fixing species
except for some with __hetrocyst__ which are clearly distingushable in
a microscope.
I've never seen any heterocyst yet. No heterocyst, no N2 fixing going
on.
It's that simple for this genus.

Some Azolla had some Anabena etc, but that's the only one I've ever
found in an aquarium.
I am a researcher at UF, I study Phycology, algal taxonomy is what I
do.
Several other Germans also report the same regarding aquarium BGA.

BGA has plenty of NO3, NH4 available in a tank if you have fish waste,
some plant decay etc, you have plenty iof Nitrogen for this species.

What you do NOT have is enough NO3 for the plants.

> >
> > BGA and most other algae appear when something runs out, rather than
> > somethuing becoming excessive.
>
> Eh? Life is a constructive process. It frankly doesn't care
> if, or when, "something runs out" if it has no biological
> use for that particular "something". Thus, BGA, or anything
> else, simply cannot grow for LACK of a required component.

When something runs out relative to plants. BGA need next to nothing
to do quite well wereas the plants need far more.

> > PO4 causes BGA?
>
> Ok, "Cause" was too strong. Technically, BGA "causes" BGA.
> P only helps it along, and research suggests P is one of
> the inputs through which it can be limited.

You'll limit your plants as well and I have a lot of PO4 in my tank
yet have no BGA or any other algae for that matter.
The range required to do any limitation of BGA by PO4 limitation is
less than 0.003ppm, that's beyond any test kit you own unless you have
a very good research water testing lab. If you have fish, plants in
there, there's enough PO4.

Adding more PO4 is not going to encourage algae if there's enough
plant biomass that's growing, it's going to encourage plant, not algae
growth.
So when something runs out, lack of something, this harms the plants,
not the algae.

>
> NO3 is surely not limiting for BGA. But anything that the
> higher plants can store can likely be used as a limiter.

Such as?
You pick the nutrient and the plants will always have a higher
requirement than the BGA for both growth and maintenance with FW
algae.

> Some of the traces, perhaps. Run an iron poor tank, spike
> once in a while, just near the point your higher plants show
> chlorosis.

You are not going to limit iron either, plants leech out more than
enough(especially and densely packed tank full of plants) for BGA,
Green water and most other very small algae.

> P is a good choice because it is a macro. Plants and algae
> need "lots" of it, relatively speaking. Thus it might be
> considered easier to limit.

How does limiting the nutrients prevent algae and still grow plants
well?
Plants need much more of everything than algae.

The biomass is mainly plants, harming their supply effects them and
slows their growth down.

> > That's simply wrong.
>
> Really? You have science to share?
>
> >>Search the web for PMDD, or "Poor Mans Dupla Drops". Not so
> >>much for the formula, but it's development came from quite a
> >>bit of interesting research regarding algae.
> >
> >
> > But the assumption made about excesses causing algae is wrong.
>
> Well, let's define excess. Greater than 0. Phosphate is a
> required component for life. If you have 0, you have NO
> life, none, not at all. BGA, or otherwise.
>
> Sears-Conlin seems to have gone to quite some length to be
> so flatly declared "wrong", without, at least, a couple of
> dozen pages refuting them in a bit more scientific way.

A couple?
How about everyone at IFAS(Center for Aquatic Weed Research at UF),
see Bachmann, Hoyer,
Canfield et al Hydrobiologia 470, 283-291 2002.
"Relations between trophic state indictors and plant biomass in
Florida lakes".

They looked at 319 lakes from very oligotrophic to hypereutropic
lakes.
Most were shallow(like our tanks), fairly warm water systems full of
plants.
They found no simple relationship between trophic state(Total PO4 for
example) and macrophytes.

You can add PO4 directly to a planted lake with 50% or more PAC/PVI
and still have gin clear water and only enhnace the plant growth.

This is not anything new.
SeaChem now sells PO4 supplements due in large part to me.

I did a number of my own experiments also, far more rigorus and longer
term than anything Paul or Kevin have done anmd talked about.
I've been dosing PO4 for about 12 years now, 8 years knowingly.
I've measured daily uptake rates in my tanks, even using non iron
substrates etc to prevent preciptation with FePO4. I've done this many
times over the years.

Additionally one of my study sites has water coming right out next to
an old Phosphate mine. It's got hard water, lots of PO4 and loads of
plants all the way down for over 6 miles. Ichtucknee springs. Not a
bad office:)

> > You are wrong.
> > Many/most species of algae can store PO4 for up to 100 generations and
> > survive at far below limiting conditions for plants.
>
> Again, you have any science to share?

Yes, I do. I'll dig this one out, I'll post it or send it to you if
you want.

>Look, Algae is a one
> cell plant.

No, algae are not all one celled, there are hundreds of seaweeds and
filamentous, colonial species that are macroscopic, hence the word use
of "macrophyte". Chara and Nitella for exmaple look very much like
plants.

It grows by fission and spore. How can a spore
> possibly collect P from it's parents? "

I suggest you look up Diatom reproduction, then consider the storage
of ployphosphates in diatoms, cyanobacteria, various green algae etc.
Zoospores can be close to the same size as the parent cell. The size
of the spore does not tell you how much PO4 it contains inside at all.
Generally the spore is very rich in nutrients, much like a seed.

Being one celled, and
> without a nutrient transfer system, how does P magically
> migrate to subsequent fission generations?

Algae does not need that much PO4 to begin with and see above.

The cell splits,
> roughly 50% of the material is split between two new cells.

> Both must now acquire materials to double their size. How
> can the ultimate parent possibly, even remotely, "store"
> enough PO4 for "100 generations"?

I'll defer you to the paper(I'll post it later)and suggest once again
to look at how diatoms reproduce and the size of spore does not tell
you if there's enough PO4 or not, the alga only needs a tiny amount.

> >>If you maintain 0 Phosphate - algae can't get any.
> > Oh yes they can.
>
> Really, when is 0 not 0. BGA can fix Nitrogen, when NO3 is
> 0. But, P? Unless the BGA can crawl out of the tank and
> acquire some dirt for themselves, 0 defines "can't get any".

Because the PO4 level is so low your test kits cannot measure it.
Ulrich (1989) suggested that 0.003ppm of less of PO4 might become
limiting for many species if eukaryotic algae.
There's plenty of PO4 from fish waste, plant leeching/decay of lower
leaves, bacterial leeching, it's a whole other world when they are
this small.

Even if you tested none in the water column, they very well maybe
getting plenty from the plant's leaves through leeching and assimilate
the PO4 before it accumulates in the water.

When you test the water, you are testing nor taking into account the
PO4 in the plants and also the other algae.

So you only hurt plants growth, not limit algae growth through PO4
limiting approaches.

> > Fish food, and plant leeching is plenty for algae.
> > They might slow down some, but they will still grow fine, BGA is no
> > exception.
>
> Then were are not talking 0. You have inputs.

That's the point, to have fish, grow plants etc. How does one have
plant tank problems without plants?:-)A few have no fish, but they
often have snails, etc.

If those
> inputs are kept below total consumption demand, the inputs
> are peaks and will return to zero.
>
> During that non-0 time, algae, BGA and other, will surely
> take advantage. So will the higher plants.
>
> BGA has some effective doubling rate. If the P is available
> for a short enough period of time, the BGA doesn't have much
> time to double. Yes, it will expand, but 1 cell growing to
> 2, for adequately small random values of 1 and 2, does not
> an outbreak make.

Well plants, and algae, can store a great deal of PO4 as luxury
consumption, they really don't need much, so size it not an issue.
An algae is only .05% PO4 by dryb weight. Not much.

> Meanwhile, in a P deprived tank, there is little leeching
> from the higher plants.

Are you sure about that?

They are in acquisition and storage
> mode, hungry.

They are stressed, when things are stressed, they leak _more_ as a
rule.

> They are slower than BGA, to be sure, be
> we're back to the small random values of BGA doubling in a
> competitive environment, returning P to 0.

Well then how ever do planted tanks grow without algae?
Plants need far more PO4 than algae.

You need to prove this to yourself, not me. I already know these
things.
Dose PO4, measure the uptake, see if the decline is due to the algae
or the plants.

It's that not hard to do this, adding more should cause algae correct?
That is what you are saying and it's simply not true.

I added KH2PO4 to a planted tank that had stable NO3, trace,light, CO2
levels and routine mainteance.

I added 1.8ppm of PO4 as tested by a Lamott and a Hach test kit. These
were checked againts known standards I made up.

This amount declined at the rate of 0.3ppm a day in an already richly
saturated PO4 tank(so that influences of luxury uptake are minimized
and binding with iron etc also played small roles).

If you remove the plants, you'd be lucky to see any decline over a
week

Don't take my owrd for it, try it yourself.
Ask folks with nice tanks say on DFW or SFBAAPS plant club list.

> > If the plant has what it needs to grow well, then it will do well and
> > the algae will not.

> Algae is not a "plant"? Please share the biological
> differences are you aware of between "plant" and "algae"
> that would account for one "doing well", and the other not,
> when adequately offering everything "plants" need?

Okay you want semantics and precise names, heck I teach Botany:-)
"Algae"= the embryo is not retained on the parent plant, the
reproductive structure is only singled celled.

"Plants" the embryo is retained on the parent plant, the reproductive
structure is multicellular.

That's the basic difference.
The term "embyrophyte" is sometimes used in cladistics.

There are a couple of exceptions, particularly with green spot algae,
Colechaete which does reatin the egg but it stilll has only single
celled reproductive structure. This genus and Chara are thought ot be
the ancestors of all land plants for some of these reasons.

> > It's like having a mouse and an Elephant and feeding both the same
> > amount and then deciding to feed less. Which will starve?
>
> Yes, exactly. If you have a mice and an elephant in a
> sealed room (tank), and you throw 100 peanuts a day (P) into
> the room... The clearly hungry elephant snorts once and the
> mice get none. Maybe the elephant's clumsiness leaves the
> mouse population 1, or 2, or 10 peanuts. Not enough for
> mice to breed as rapidly, or support a large mice population.

So what happens when the supply is too low for the elephant to survive
in good health? The mice are still fine.

> Now, feed the room enough peanuts to meet everyone's demand.
> They elephant is happy, and the mice breed. Many mice, so
> many mice.


Well where are my mice then?
If what you claim to be true, where is my algae?
How come many folks, Paul Sears as well, add PO4 anmd note plant
growth/health increases and no algae blooms?

> > I had it(PO4) for decade, I loved it and so did my plants.

> P has never done it for me, personally, in any form. Now,
> my plants, I'm told, enjoy it immensely.

Well, don't knock it till you try it.

> > and good light. And, yea, use
> > Adding KNO3 regularly will generally cure BGA after you kill it off
> > first by doing a 3 day blackout, combined with 2 dosings after 50%
> > water changes right before and right after a blackout. Then regular
> > routine dosing of KNO3.
>
> Why do you imagine KNO3 helps? KNO3 is 50-0-50 fertilizer.
> May I call your attention to the complete lack of P.

May I call attention to Nitrogen limited plants? The BGA need far less
Nitrogen, healthy plants = poor algae growth.

> > Plants don't grow well when they don't have enough GH, CO2, NO3, PO4,
> > K+, and traces.

> BGA fixes its own NO3,

Some spcies, not the blue green mat that engulfs folk's tanks, njor
the stuff that grows along the bottom along the gravel line, nor the
stuff that grows in the vegetative cones of plants.
They must have the heterocyst in order to grow.

so there is no point in limiting
> that. All you'll do is deprive your higher plants. Deprive
> the higher plants of NO3, and you lower their competition
> for P, and everything else.

But PO4 is not limiting. If what you claim is true, then I should have
algae and so should 1000-s of other folks.

> So, what is PMDD? Well, a N-0-K fert with micro (Ca, Mg,
> which is not just GH, btw, you can have high GH as all Mg or
> Ca, and none of the other - and dead plants will ensue) and
> the trace elements. All needed in proportion.

Except enough traces(attempts at 0.1ppm residuals) in many CO2 tanks
with light over 2w/gal.
Do look at the lower CO2 levels(~15 vs what I suggest 20-30ppm), the
lower light by NO FL's bulbs(vs PC bulbs used these days) when you go
back and re read what Paul and Kevin said.

Your routine
> use of KN03 is incomplete

Out of context, yes, but often it's mainly NO3 and perhaps K+ that are
slowing plant growth down, the orignal poster stated the conditions so
I did not focus on that aspect, they were already known and assumed to
be true.

I did say previously:

"I added KH2PO4 to a planted tank that had stable NO3, trace,light,
CO2 levels and routine mainteance."

- unless you are bringing in the
> rest in with water changes. But, not everyone's input
> waters are complete in this respect. Some use RO, some have
> home softeners, some use strong micro-pore carbons to crack
> chloramines (and lose metals in the process), some are just
> lacking this, or that, in their tap.

You might want to read the plant club sites, read post on the APD
regarding this topic and simply ask around especially folks that win
contest with their tanks, many add PO4.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[[email protected]]

"Graham Ramsay" > wrote in message >...
> "Bill Kirkpatrick" wrote
> > You're preaching to the choir, perhaps reply to the post
> > that made the claim. Everyone ends up inoculated with BGA,
> > and BGA doesn't care about NO3 - it will fix it's own nitrogen.
>
> There are a great many types of BGA. As I understand
> it they do not all fix nitrogen. Do the types found in freshwater
> aquaria fix their own nitrogen? If so what types are they?
>
> Thanks

I've only seen two genera, Oscillitoria is the 99.99% genus we find in
our tanks, one very nasty tank had Phormidium.

These genera need to possess heterocyst in order to fix N2 gas, no
heterocyst, no N2 fixation. Heterocyst are clearly and easily spotted
under a microscope.
A number of german aquarist also reported the same thing.
See some old post off the APD.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[Bill Kirkpatrick]

Hey, great, I'll take you at your word. But, in the future,
you should be more careful about science like ...

"Many/most species of algae can store PO4 for up to 100
generations..."

100 generations, you got "mom", then 2, 4, 8, 16 ... 1.6E30
cells, that's tons of material, literally. That's one good
lot of PO4 storage for dear 'ol mom.

************************************
wrote:
>>>>Principal causes of
>>

> I am a researcher at UF, I study Phycology, algal taxonomy is what I
> do.
> Several other Germans also report the same regarding aquarium BGA.

[[email protected]]

> Blue green algae isn't, it is a bacteria. It can live anywhere, at any
> temperature and is even found at high altitudes in the atmosphere.
>
> If you want to read more about it have a look here.
>
> http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanointro.html
>
> http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanolh.html
>
> I found out a lot about it when our local trout fishery was closed down
> because of it, my daughter, who is a microbiologist, looked up some of it
> for me and I found the rest.
>
> Google search on Cyanobacteria for plenty more info.

It's easier to say BGA and since Phycologist do most of the work both
now and in the past on this group, we still call it BGA. We all know
what we are talking about in general terms. Semantist are correct, but
BGA is very far removed from all other bacteria also.............

If we need to get more specific, we go to the latin name genus and
then to species as rule.

I see nothing wrong with using BGA personally or causally. For a
Scientific paper, I would not use BGA as a term but many Phycologist
still do and that's fine also.They will not put them in a table that
way but might discuss them in the text. If a more specific answer is
required, I'll move from the common name down to the latin.

Would you know the genus Compsopogon?
Probaly not, but if I said staghorn algae, you would likely know or
have heard of it, nothing wrong with common names is my point. But
what Kingdom is this one in? Division? Order?

Latin scares some folks:)I'm not anal about names and would not
correct someone about the names as long as it's clear what we are
talking about.
If you are one on my students needing to learn the names for all the
critters and plants, you better know the latin names for the test:-)

Regards,
Tom Barr

[Bill Kirkpatrick]

I'm going to leave this with...

For all you said, what you haven't answered is the riddle,
other than to say "wrong". Ok, well, maybe we collectively
are, that's fine...

But, if, as you say, higher plants need so very much more of
"everything" v. algae, just to survive, and all of that must
be in the water at all times, else our higher plants are
just dead beyond redemption... then...

How is it anyone, ever, controls algae? Shouldn't it simply
explode, killing everyone, and everything?

Something must be limiting them. You seem to propose
nothing, other than the mear physical presence of healthy
plants. Surely algae do not inspect their environment,
approve the health, state, and quantity, of the higher
plants, and give up.

(Aside - some higher plants to emit various biocides. Let's
assume our swords do not. Further, reefs and silk plant
tanks are known to exist w/o higher plants at all, yet are
also subject to acute, resolvable, algae infections.)

People have gone from no apparent infection, to acute
infection, and back. I have, even somewhat routinely on my
reef tanks. If, as you seem to claim, all higher plants
must fail before nutrients can limit the algae, then what IS
doing the limiting? Something is allowing routine
reclamation of all these obviously inoculated tanks? (and
not everyone is pumping their tank full of anti-biotics,
particularly on the reef side.)

***************************************
wrote:
>>>>Principal causes of

> BGA has plenty of NO3, NH4 available in a tank if you have fish waste,
> some plant decay etc, you have plenty iof Nitrogen for this species.
>
> What you do NOT have is enough NO3 for the plants.
>
>>>BGA and most other algae appear when something runs out, rather than
>>>somethuing becoming excessive.
>
> When something runs out relative to plants. BGA need next to nothing
> to do quite well wereas the plants need far more.
>
> Adding more PO4 is not going to encourage algae if there's enough
> plant biomass that's growing, it's going to encourage plant, not algae
> growth.
> So when something runs out, lack of something, this harms the plants,
> not the algae.
>
> You pick the nutrient and the plants will always have a higher
> requirement than the BGA for both growth and maintenance with FW
> algae.
> You are not going to limit iron either, plants leech out more than

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 00:08:26 GMT, Brian > wrote:

>All else being equal, will warmer water produce more algae? Blue-green
>algae in particular? Just curious, as I have more algae than usual, with
>no other parameter changes I know of besides temp.
>
>B


maybe too much light?

[[email protected]]

Bill Kirkpatrick > wrote in message >...
> Hey, great, I'll take you at your word. But, in the future,
> you should be more careful about science like ...
>
> "Many/most species of algae can store PO4 for up to 100
> generations..."
>
> 100 generations, you got "mom", then 2, 4, 8, 16 ... 1.6E30
> cells, that's tons of material, literally. That's one good
> lot of PO4 storage for dear 'ol mom.
>

As promised: here's the reference that posted sometime ago.

http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plants/month.200311/msg00087.html

It's not a question of being MORE careful, it's a question of putting
every one of your assumptions and questions at bay here. You asked a
lot of questions but the time is over for that and time for you to see
the observations for your self.

I suggest:
Take a look at the AGA contest winners, ask on the APD, see what folks
add to their nice tanks that are looking good.
Ask over in Singapore, ask in the UK, Ask down in Dallas Fort plant
club, Ask out in the Bay area www.sfbaaps.com.

Look at Paul and Kevin's assertions, they are by no means backing up
much, eg no control, questionable testing methods(how good accurate
are their test kit?), and 2 low light plant tanks.

I would not base generalizations based on 2 cases studies.
It would warrant further investigation and it did make improvements to
keeping plants.

Which is what I and others did........

So now it's your turn to do some digging.
Please, do some seraching and asking around.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[[email protected]]

Bill Kirkpatrick > wrote in message >...
> I'm going to leave this with...
>
> For all you said, what you haven't answered is the riddle,
> other than to say "wrong". Ok, well, maybe we collectively
> are, that's fine...

Well the scientist are not wrong, we can see that if you add
nutrients, P or/or N to a lake with 50% or more surface coverage with
macrophytes, the lake stays macrophyte dominated. Adding nutrients
makes the plants grow faster.
If the levels are less than 30-50%, often you will get algal pea soup
domination.

That's one reason we have such bad aquatic weed problems in Florida.

> But, if, as you say, higher plants need so very much more of
> "everything" v. algae, just to survive, and all of that must
> be in the water at all times, else our higher plants are
> just dead beyond redemption... then...
> How is it anyone, ever, controls algae? Shouldn't it simply
> explode, killing everyone, and everything?

There's many ways, not just one way we control algae and it's
controlled in nature. Algae is tasty and nutritious and grows back
fast so this supports a large herbivore population, wereas there are
few aquatic plant herbivores(Grass carp etc). Submersed Plants grow,
but it takes them more time to establish.

Algae and macrophytes occupy different niches/environments.
High O2 level;s in lakes, aquariums seems to have a negative effect
likely due to photorespiration to _some_ algae species.

In our tanks we remove the algae, start off the tank with loads of
plants, we always remove the algae and do water changes etc.

Macrophytes main competitive advantage is light.
Macrophytes grow fast enough to out pace the the algal colonization.
We trim off the older leaves, replant thew tops.

> Something must be limiting them. You seem to propose
> nothing, other than the mear physical presence of healthy
> plants. Surely algae do not inspect their environment,
> approve the health, state, and quantity, of the higher
> plants, and give up.

Why not?
Plants do. Seeds will not grow unless precise environmental conditions
exist, the same is true for algae spores.
Try and induce green water without NH4, use NO3 for example, then try
using NH4, you'll see quickly that algae do respond fast to this.

> (Aside - some higher plants to emit various biocides. Let's
> assume our swords do not.

You'd be hard pressed to show this. See APD for more on allelopathy,
I've made some very strong arguments against this happening.

Further, reefs and silk plant
> tanks are known to exist w/o higher plants at all, yet are
> also subject to acute, resolvable, algae infections.)

Reefs are not the same as planted tanks. There are marine planted
tanks, but these are not reef tanks. Not all corals use algae.
Silk plant tanks don't have higher lighting(why add more light?)

> People have gone from no apparent infection, to acute
> infection, and back. I have, even somewhat routinely on my
> reef tanks.

I keep marine planted tanks, but like the FW plants, if the corals are
not feed and kept healthy/ actively growing, the nuisance algae will
bloom.
We see this commonly with refugium folks, their macro's grow like
gangbusters, peter out due to nutrient limitations, go sexual(in
response to what? low, not high nutrients) and then afterwards, the
bad algae come in.
The conditions in marine tanks are more subtle, but many of the same
issues still apply.

If, as you seem to claim, all higher plants
> must fail before nutrients can limit the algae, then what IS
> doing the limiting?

See above, there is likely a few things going on. Few researchers have
really looked at this in terms of a planted tank, there's no grant
money:)

Something is allowing routine
> reclamation of all these obviously inoculated tanks? (and
> not everyone is pumping their tank full of anti-biotics,
> particularly on the reef side.)

I feel I have spent enough time and supported my own arguments and
assertions, it's now time for you to look into things for yourself and
prove that adding PO4 to a planted tank causes algae.

I can easily and handily prove that excess PO4 does not cause algae in
a planted tank. You need to prove to me that it does. The research is
against you, the practical experience is against you, even Paul Sears
concedes otherwise about PO4. Just about every contest winner I know
has used PO4 or has a lot in their tap water.

It is rather easy to prove what something is not, it's tougher to
prove what is going on, often it's several things.

I'm not saying what precisely it is that causes plant domination, but
it does exist and I've given several good plausible nmechanisms for
this to occur.
There are other mechanisms I have not listed but look around first.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[Bill Kirkpatrick]

I said I'd leave this, and probably should live up to my
word, but I can't accept having words put in my mouth.

I originally used the word "cause", and promptly recanted
use of the word as overly strong. For the mistake of ever
answering a simple question, without perfectly refined
scientific word smithing, I'm sorry, again. I restated with
higher specificity, namely that P is one nutrient which can
serve as limiting. I offered Fe, "perhaps", to highlight
the non-exclusive selection of P.

Now, Bio 1, not even 101, teaches... "A Species will
proliferate unless, or until, it encounters a limiting
factor". A proper biological argument, surely any regarding
population control, is framed in terms of what "limits" that
species, and that species directly. When you do otherwise,
you open wider and wider ranges of potential causality.
Ignoring this "rule" is particularly dangerous in population
control, as you can end up putting multiple species in harms
way, caught between your problem population and it's true
limiting factor. In being non-specific you end up with
logic like - "If you kill Plankton, seals dwindle." Sure,
but I'm sure the Plankton is none too happy about your
choice of analysis, may they suggest you should just kill
the fish directly. From your office, you should know this.

You focus on your target and, culling from its requirements
alone, determine what can be limited. Work from there. So,
maybe we do have to kill the Plankton, but the argument is
properly stated "To limit seals, you can limit their food
(fish) or, perhaps, mating grounds; we can't control the
mating grounds well enough; so to limit fish you can limit
their food ..., etc."

Algae/BGA exists. If, as you claim, higher plants are
limiting, they are doing it through bio-chemistry. Name the
link. We know it is resolvable, routinely, in various
media, without nutrient starvation of the higher organisms.
Resolution/limitation (in tank) rarely depends on
predation, need not depend on antibiotic toxicity, and can
be accomplished regardless of lighting levels. Whine all
you want about PO4 "ain't it", Fe "ain't it", XYZ "ain't
it", but until you form a proper biological argument,
spelling out what factors ARE "it", I'll go with the
nutrient limitation, thank you.

Lighting is surely limiting, less light less stuff, but silk
plant tanks still do end up infected so "low light" is
hardly the complete answer. Temp is limiting, range
depending on species, but does the range 68-80 matter to
"our" species? Redox seems implicated, but a well lit,
reasonably clean, plant tank tends to maintain a serviceable
redox on it's own, and I've had BGA at high redox in my reefs.

Regardless, we all control light, temp, and less so redox as
a matter of routine. BGA/Algae comes and goes. It must be
resolving because 1) something in the water is killing it;
or 2) it is failing to find something else it needs (nutrients).

******************************************
wrote:

> I feel I have spent enough time and supported my own arguments and
> assertions, it's now time for you to look into things for yourself and
> prove that adding PO4 to a planted tank causes algae.

[[email protected]]

> Now, Bio 1, not even 101, teaches... "A Species will
> proliferate unless, or until, it encounters a limiting
> factor". A proper biological argument, surely any regarding
> population control, is framed in terms of what "limits" that
> species, and that species directly.

But that is in an _ideal_ situation in order to show the concept, not
to be applied without consideration of many other variables.

There are few macrophyte periphyton competition studies.
This is not Bio 101.

I gave several mechanisms that do in fact limit growth in an aquarium
algae.
Not just one. It also works in non CO2 plants tanks and marine planted
tanks to some extent.

This issue has been discussed several years ago on the APD in depth
and still here and there but no one contends that excess PO4 causes
algae. Paul Sears was part of that discussion, one of the authors of
the paer that you have referenced to.

There are also many exmaples of folks telling how well their plants
grow by adding PO4.

You have not supported your contentions, I have.
The proof is in the pudding, why don't I have algae like you seem to
want to claim?

Magic water?
Crystal powers?

When you do otherwise,
> you open wider and wider ranges of potential causality.

Actually I have proven quite definitively that excess PO4 that is
available for both plants and algae equally, not not cause algal
blooms in planted tanks with good plant biomass, CO2, moderate-high
light, good dosing of the other nutrients.

If you want to talk about causual mechanisms, you need to be able to
isolate the issues and deal with PO4 in a controlled manner.
In order to say x causes y, you need to make certain that the other
parameters are not influencing your results.

Steve Dixon and I were some of the first people to do this in planted
tank context regarding PO4. I also showed that NH4, not PO4 or NO3
caused Green water and staghorn algae blooms in FW planted tanks.

> Algae/BGA exists. If, as you claim, higher plants are
> limiting, they are doing it through bio-chemistry.

Higher plants are limiting the algae?
I do not think they do it through alleopathy, you can add activated
carbon to the filter to remove any organic compounds that cause
allelopathy.

Also, look up the APD and other sites.

> Name the
> link.

?

> We know it is resolvable, routinely, in various
> media, without nutrient starvation of the higher organisms.

Some higher organism have different niches than smaller ones.

> Resolution/limitation (in tank) rarely depends on
> predation,

True but it can tip the scales in a few cases, it's not something I
rely on.

> need not depend on antibiotic toxicity, and can
> be accomplished regardless of lighting levels.

Regardless of lighting levels? You sure you want to say that?

> Whine all
> you want about PO4 "ain't it", Fe "ain't it", XYZ "ain't
> it", but until you form a proper biological argument,

Oh, I most certainly have spelled it out quite well and better than
those before me.

> spelling out what factors ARE "it", I'll go with the
> nutrient limitation, thank you.

Uhm, I did in the last post, I gave multiple plausible causes.
You can believe want you want, you are still wrong.
Research shows this, I can show this in a plant tank, you can show
this to yourself in a planted tank.
The AGA contest winners, all the plant clubs have got it all wrong and
you are the only that's right?

Humm you might want to actually try it and see about this, maybe read
some of the references, ask around.

Hey, you can believe what you want to believe, but your still wrong
about PO4.
That does not change.
You have not supported your own arguements with a single reference
beside Paul and Kevin's.

> Lighting is surely limiting, less light less stuff,

Depends, if light is limiting, then yes, but this is not always the
case.
Aquatic Plants generally are better competitors than algae for light.
Call up Dr. Bowes, the guy's studied aquatic plants and algae for 30+
years.
Ask.

but silk
> plant tanks still do end up infected so "low light" is
> hardly the complete answer.

I never said it was "complete".

You want a complete answer in aquatic plant-algae dynamics here?:-)

>Temp is limiting, range
> depending on species, but does the range 68-80 matter to
> "our" species?

Not too much.

Redox seems implicated, but a well lit,
> reasonably clean, plant tank tends to maintain a serviceable
> redox on it's own, and I've had BGA at high redox in my reefs.

I did not say redox, but you could argue high O2 levels cause many
species of algae, BGA etc to photorespire causing large losses, up to
40-50% of the fixed carbon.

Reef tanks and plant marine tanks are different. Careful not to
compare apples and oranges, same thing goes for Northern deep minimal
littoral zone lakes used to make assumptions about planted tanks vs a
shallow warm water tropical lake packed full of aquatic macrophytes.

One is much more applicable to the questions at hand with planted
tanks.

> Regardless, we all control light, temp, and less so redox as
> a matter of routine. BGA/Algae comes and goes.

Mine does not come and go.
I have not had it become an issue in a decade or more.

It must be
> resolving because 1) something in the water is killing it;

Well, carbon will remove organic causes, water changes also will
reduce the effects, it cannot be nutrients since we have added the
nutrients the BGa needs to live to excess.

> or 2) it is failing to find something else it needs (nutrients).

Maybe it knows something else is growing, much like a seed that will
not germinate due to other plants surrounding it or until a fire comes
along and disturbs it.

Before you reply back, I'd suggest you look up and ask around about
this issue that we limit algae through PO4 or Fe limitation.

The observations all over the world and the winners in many contest
directly conflict with what you are saying, not to mention past
research.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[[email protected]]

One last thing:
I too wondered what the hell was going on when I noticed I had very
high PO4 levels but no algae, great plant growth.

It seemed blasphemy at the time as well. But the observation was
confirmed by many folks and has been for many years now.

So I did feel as you did at one point. It did not make sense at first.

Take care,
Regards,
Tom Barr

[Bill Kirkpatrick]

wrote:
>>Now, Bio 1, not even 101, teaches... "A Species will
>
> But that is in an _ideal_ situation in order to show the concept, not
> to be applied without consideration of many other variables.

Nope, actually, "consistently applied" would be the thing.
Now, human processes are always subject to error,
miscalculation, observational limits, and oversights. For
example, one might miss "fish" as a mid-point between
plankton and seal control - but one would never, willingly,
ignore "fish" simply to dispatch with well formed process in
"consideration of many other variables".

> and still here and there but no one contends that excess PO4 causes
> algae.

Oddly, you still dwell on PO4 as a sole and distinct "cause".

> There are also many exmaples of folks telling how well their plants
> grow by adding PO4.

Hey, plants like PO4.

>
> You have not supported your contentions, I have.

Eh?

> The proof is in the pudding, why don't I have algae like you seem to
> want to claim?
>
> Magic water?
> Crystal powers?

No, but I'd surly have difficulty with the notion of macro
sensibility through the "observational" powers of BGA
regarding relative health of local higher plants.

> Actually I have proven quite definitively that excess PO4 that is
> available for both plants and algae equally, not not cause algal
> blooms in planted tanks with good plant biomass, CO2, moderate-high
> light, good dosing of the other nutrients.

Anecdotal. If I can limit via P (in the world where 0 means
0), or I can limit via Fe (also in world where 0 means 0),
or I can limit via "Factor X", then...

If I choose P, and you choose "Factor X" (knowingly, or
not), then by your science, you can "prove" P is "wrong" all
day long.

>
> If you want to talk about causual mechanisms, you need to be able to
> isolate the issues and deal with PO4 in a controlled manner.

No, you have to deal with BGA in a controlled manner. PO4,
in science-pure water, won't support any form of life, at
all. You simply cannot control for P, alone, in the life
cycle of BGA.

> Steve Dixon and I were some of the first people to do this in planted
> tank context regarding PO4. I also showed that NH4, not PO4 or NO3
> caused Green water and staghorn algae blooms in FW planted tanks.

> Regardless of lighting levels? You sure you want to say that?

Absolutely. I've never, ever, reduced lighting on the reef
tank. BGAs are periodic, and routinely resolvable.
Anecdotally linked to DI breakthrough (and not Zeolite
breakthrough) in the input waters. Persistent NH4 is not
very likely anyway, considering the massive bio-area, water
movement, age of that rock, and unchanged populations of the
tank.

Plant tank is VHO, high PAR, low P. Same size tanks, same
wattage, both reef and plant.

> Uhm, I did in the last post, I gave multiple plausible causes.

I reread, closely. Mostly "ain't it". Maybe I missed your
causes for your style.

> You can believe want you want, you are still wrong.
> Research shows this, I can show this in a plant tank, you can show
> this to yourself in a planted tank.

Anecdotal, and the lake study is ill controlled.

> The AGA contest winners, all the plant clubs have got it all wrong and
> you are the only that's right?

Anecdotal.

> Humm you might want to actually try it and see about this, maybe read
> some of the references, ask around.

I live it. I limit P, provide high-light, dose PMDD, and
have very few problems with BGA/Algae. My plants out pace my
eagerness to prune, I surely care not to "improve" their
status any further.

> Hey, you can believe what you want to believe, but your still wrong
> about PO4.

Ain't it! Fine.

[[email protected]]

> > You have not supported your contentions, I have.
>
> Eh?

References in science relevant to the topic. Examples in the hobby,
your own research etc. eg have you actually tried high PO4 in a
planted tank?
Add KH2PO4 etc......is it repeatable? Can we find many exmaples in
natural field studies as well?

> > Actually I have proven quite definitively that excess PO4 that is
> > available for both plants and algae equally, not not cause algal
> > blooms in planted tanks with good plant biomass, CO2, moderate-high
> > light, good dosing of the other nutrients.
>
> Anecdotal. If I can limit via P (in the world where 0 means
> 0), or I can limit via Fe (also in world where 0 means 0),
> or I can limit via "Factor X", then...
>
> If I choose P, and you choose "Factor X" (knowingly, or
> not), then by your science, you can "prove" P is "wrong" all
> day long.

No, I ve measured PO4 uptake due directly to plants, not algae or
complexing, precipitation.
Why would plants remove it(some can be due to luxury uptake), there's
plenty for the algae to assimilate as well and yet there is no algae
biomass?

This is the observation and has been repeated for many years
now(Tropica, Oriential Aquarium amongst other growers of plants and
Florida has a huge aquatic plant industry and is where I live).
You can pick NO3, Fe, K+ etc, there's plenty for the algae and the
plants.

By limiting these nutrients, you select more for the algae than the
plants which have much larger nutrient requirements than algae.
Algae live in a much smaller environment and difference niches than
macrophytes.

> >
> > If you want to talk about causual mechanisms, you need to be able to
> > isolate the issues and deal with PO4 in a controlled manner.
>
> No, you have to deal with BGA in a controlled manner. PO4,
> in science-pure water, won't support any form of life, at
> all. You simply cannot control for P, alone, in the life
> cycle of BGA.

I was not talking about just water and PO4.
I mentioned to control the other parameters, CO2, light, K+ etc and
vary just the PO4 alone.

Folks often have trouble doing this, they then blame the wrong
parameter such as PO4 rather than low CO2 near the end of the day or
low NO3 etc.
A chemostat does this but is tricky to use and get set up correctly.
Many pelagic algal studies use such a device.

Aquarist can do something close that will control reasonably well for
PO4 by knowing what their tap water(or RO water) contains and doing
large frequent water changes and dosing afterwards to maintain good
nutrients levels while varying the PO4.

Large frequent water changes keeps the nutrients from becoming too
highand the frequent dosing keep the nutrients from running out. In
this manner you can vary whatever nutrient you want to consider.

Many have done this and found this to be true with high PO4 levels up
to 2.0ppm.
Surely at 2.0ppm the algae are not limited, so something else is
keeping the algae at bay in planted tanks.

I suggested a number of papers to support this observation.
You might want to read these before coming back with nothing more than
banther and your own anecdotal comments.

Then you would have something to discuss about why lakes and rivers
with plants are clear and algal free and aquariums that also have high
PO4 levels.

You can argue that lakes are not like aquariums yet what you based
your studies on are also based on Northern lakes often with no/few
macrophytes relative to the lake's surface area.

If you have studies showing planted tanks produce more algae with
added PO4 vs limited PO4, please, let's see these studies or show some
data of some sort.

I found that the Chl a concentrations decreased in well planted tanks
with PO4 levels at 0.5-1.0ppm range over 4 weeks using glass slide
substrates(ref:EPA protocols) while plant biommass increased
dramtically. A tank control with PO4 limitation at less than 0.1 ppm
PO4 had 40% less plant biomass and increased algae(62% more algae vs
the PO4 enriched tank). Plant uptake was estimated at 0.3ppm per day
uptake in the high plant tank.

So what have you found?
I've reported the uptake rates in planted tanks for sometime
concerning PO4 and NO3 etc.

> > Regardless of lighting levels? You sure you want to say that?
>
> Absolutely. I've never, ever, reduced lighting on the reef
> tank.

So less light also? This is a plant list and I'll keep it confirmed to
this topic, reefs are not = to plants, they are critters, some have
algae, many don't. They can supply a great deal of their N and P from
the food they catch rather water column inorganic nutrient uptake.

Big difference. Now if you want to talk about a macroalgae/seagrass
bed in shallow water such as the Keys, things might be closer to being
a comparison.

> > Uhm, I did in the last post, I gave multiple plausible causes.
>
> I reread, closely. Mostly "ain't it". Maybe I missed your
> causes for your style.


Pruning, this removes the algae on the lower leaves.
Water changes, removes any algae scrubbed off from glass etc.
Fluffing plants and good current, remove a fair amount of
periphyton(See Zimba and Hopson)
Photorespiration in specific species of algae(Bowes, Madsen)
Light competition( also Bowes)
Algae sensing a good environment to grow(low Dissolved O2(microsites),
NH4)
Algae and macrophytes are in different Niches( Sand Jensen paper)

I did not see a single reference of any kind from you.

Still haven't except for Paul and Kevin anecdotal paper.

> > You can believe want you want, you are still wrong.
> > Research shows this, I can show this in a plant tank, you can show
> > this to yourself in a planted tank.

> Anecdotal, and the lake study is ill controlled.

So someone that has not read the research and has not tried it, bases
their own contentions of anecdotal study by Paul/Kevin knows all about
it then?

Okayyyyyyy:) whatever

> > The AGA contest winners, all the plant clubs have got it all wrong and
> > you are the only that's right?

> Anecdotal.

Is a large pattern and highly experienced group all wrong?
If I can achieve high levels of health and growth with high PO4, and
is repeatable with many other people incorrect and we are assuming too
much here?
Why are some lakes also similar with similar observations?
I guess they are all wrong and you are right?

If I were you, I'd be questioning my arguements.

> > Humm you might want to actually try it and see about this, maybe read
> > some of the references, ask around.

> I live it.

So do I, but.......I also try different things such as adding NH4, PO4
etc and control the other parameters, I cite and support my arguements
and these also support the observations. You?

> I limit P, provide high-light, dose PMDD, and
> have very few problems with BGA/Algae. My plants out pace my
> eagerness to prune, I surely care not to "improve" their
> status any further.

Let's have something to compare it against.

You apparently only know PO4 limited systems, if by adding PO4 to this
system, you see an improvement with aquatic plants and no algae or
less algae, what would you think then?

What types of PO4 levels are we talking about here?

In order to limit BGA/algae growth, you need to get below 0.005ppm of
PO4, see Ulrich's paper among others.

This has been my contention all along, the needs of the plants are
larger than that of the algae.

N:P ratios for aquatic macrophytes are around 10:1 and for FW algae
about 14:1.
Adding PO4 will favor the plants when both are present rather than
limiting it.

Like I've been saying, try it out since you don't believe me, I've
tried the PO4 limited approaches in the past also. I know both sides
of this coin.

Since you seem concerned about empirical data, I've given a large
number of papers to peruse on aquatic plant and algae ecology and
physiology, have done my own research and given some actual data
yet........you've provided none to support your own "anecdotal"
arguement.

If you want to ask for citations fine, but if you do not read them,
don't ask for more:)

Regards,
Tom Barr