Red Plants, Iron Dependant???

I"m not saying you're wrong.... I used to be a very active part of this
newsgroup, and I know you have a very in depth field of knowledge in this
area. I do, however, know that almost everything I've heard and read says
red plants need more light.

For instance...

The Tropica website lists a ton of plants. You'll see many descriptions
like.... "this specie falls into the 'high light' catergory like other red
plants". I obviously didn't copy this word for word, but generalizations
like that are riddled throughout the Tropica website.

The Kasselmann book also gives many such generalizations. E. Osiris for
example, where she states the red/brown color "...develop under intense
light".

I'm just curious because your statements blew my entire "red plant"
theories! I'm not a chemist, so I take what I read/hear to heart. This is
why I'm fairly confused at the moment.



--
Craig Brye
University of Phoenix Online

" wrote in message
om...
"Craig Brye" wrote in message
...
Yeah... I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I've done "a ton" of
research
as I have kept aquatic plants for several years now. I've always
heard/read
about red plants requiring more light. It's also been my experience
that
red plants I've kept in the past (such as Diandra and E. Rubin) have
always
faltered when the lighting wasn't strong enough (while other plants were
able to prosper).

Are you sure that they just did not need more nutrients instead vs the
other plants? The lighting was not it after all?
What kind of research are you referring to?

I've heard all sorts of claims over the years that folks have written.

Things like:
Plants prefer soft water..........not true.
PO4 causes algae(or excess), not true, I add PO4 liberally, I do not
have algae
Fe causes algae(or excess) Again,. I add it liberally, no algae.
NO3 causes algae(or excess) as above
15ppm is the optimal CO2 level(not true, it's 2x this amount, 30ppm
for common aquatic submersed plants, this concentration comes from
Bowes in various research papers and personal communications)

Just because 95% of folks say it, DOES NOT MAKE IT SO.
I question it because I had findings that certainly suggest otherwise.
No one has suggested any reason or mechanism that refutes the
observations I have stated.

**I think one thing that folks have trouble with is isolation of an
issue.
You have to isolated it and then mess with a range of units that
interest you.

**The other thing is if someone says excess PO4, let's say 1.0ppm
causes algae, why do I not have algae then with high light and
NO3/K/Fe etc?
If this causes algae, where is my algae? Can we still say that is
true?
Why is it true in some cases and not others? Lighting is no
different.

This is a similar situation.
You crank the CO2/NO3/PO4/GH/Traces etc, low light tanks work great.
The Best Eustralis, the best Rotala macrandra, the best D diandra, a
Rubin "Tree", Gloss, Chain swords, Hair grass, mats of Riccia etc, all
did super are 2w/gal of NO FL lighting in a 24" deep tank with 5" of
substrate and good parameters.
The other big issue with lighting, it is the one thing that we cannot
really get a good measure on so it is indirectly measured or grossly
estimated at best. So getting everything else correct and in a good
range that you have chosen will allow you to see how the spectrum and
the intensity influence plant growth.

We went down this about 5-6 years ago on the APD on high light= red
plants.
Neil, myself, Roger Miller, Karen Randall and many others talked about
it.
NO3 at low stable levels seems to be the main trick to redden plants,
not more light was the general conclusion most came to that tested and
tried things out.

You name the plant, I've grown it at 2w/gal of NO FL lights with a
reflector.
There's a few newer stem plants I have not tried, but 99% of the red
plants I have grown very well in moderate to low light by today's
standards.

Take any Ludwigia, or Rotalas and see what color they are when they
break the surface and have far more light.

Karen Randall agrees on this and tells folks that most red plants are
in fact shade low light understory plants. She and I have been at it a
few years too.

The chemical in red, the anthocyanin is mainly considered an anti
herbivory agent in most red plants by Plant Ecologist. The tender tips
of plants(the softer part with the most nutrients) are often red for
this reason.
Some have said the chemical will help protect the plant from high
light also as a possible secondary usage, namely from UV radiation.
Most desert plants are green.....

Regards,
Tom Barr

The Tropica website lists a ton of plants. You'll see many descriptions
like.... "this specie falls into the 'high light' catergory like other red
plants". I obviously didn't copy this word for word, but generalizations
like that are riddled throughout the Tropica website.

The Kasselmann book also gives many such generalizations. E. Osiris for
example, where she states the red/brown color "...develop under intense
light".

I'm just curious because your statements blew my entire "red plant"
theories! I'm not a chemist, so I take what I read/hear to heart. This is
why I'm fairly confused at the moment.
Craig Brye
University of Phoenix Online

I know Claus and Kasslemann personally. So I have no issues going head
to head with them on the issue either. I've stated why their
observations occured.

Now it's time for them or others to say why I have good color at low
light with red plants...................and why I can have red color
at deep depths but green at higher depths and why most red plants are
low light plants.

I have not found any plant that does not do well at 2w/gal which is
often the low end iof the lighting spectrum these days.

Thing is.......2w/gal of NO FL light was "high light" 9-10 years ago!
So when much of the books/species write ups were written, that was the
case.

But people seem to think "more light is better". Not true at all.
There's a range of lighting that is best and easiest to deal with.
This is for all plants. There might be one or two that are finicky
that we may run into, but 99.9% of the time, the needs are similar to
other plants.
At least with most of the 300 or so species we keep right now.
If that is not enough to play with, well, you must have a lot of tanks
and do a lot of work on planted tanks.

I think the average aquarist can figure things out themselves on this
issue.
If I can do it at moderate to low light consisently, and have
excellent color and health, is high light really required?
No.

Claus said most people's tanks had trace deficencies when he came
here, he did not say "not enough light". I'd been adding 5x the
recommended amounts of traces. People felt 0.1ppm of Fe was a good
amount at the time, I had 1.0ppm depending on which test kit used and
time after dosing etc.
People thought excess traces in and of themselves would cause algae.

These days, people add a lot more traces in their CO2 enriched plant
tanks.
Folks are slow to realize that less light is fine, 2-3w/gal is plenty
for any plant you might want. PC/MH's are going to have even more
light so you can go lower on these.

Regards,
Tom Barr

|| I know Claus and Kasslemann personally. So I have no issues going
|| head to head with them on the issue either. I've stated why their
|| observations occured.

lucky guy....

|| Now it's time for them or others to say why I have good color at low
|| light with red plants...................and why I can have red color
|| at deep depths but green at higher depths and why most red plants are
|| low light plants.

Here's a 2cent peice... in a 10g, no floro-3500k, my red tiger lotus, is
actually red.... 1.5wpg, whereas, im my 29g, 65W 6700kPCF, Co2, the same
plant, looks less red at times, almost purple other times...


|| I think the average aquarist can figure things out themselves on this
|| issue.
|| If I can do it at moderate to low light consisently, and have
|| excellent color and health, is high light really required?
|| No.

I'm beginning to see the light... or the lack of....

--
| RedForeman ©® fabricator and creator of the ratbike streetfighter!!!
| ==========================
| 2003 TRX450ES
| 1992 TRX-350 XX (For Sale)
| '98 Tacoma Ext Cab 4X4 Lifted....
| ==========================
| ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤° `°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø
| ((((º`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸. ((((º ·´¯`·. , .·´¯`·.. ((((º
| for any questions you may have....
| www.gmail.com

"RedForeman ©®" wrote in message
...
|| I know Claus and Kasslemann personally. So I have no issues going
|| head to head with them on the issue either. I've stated why their
|| observations occured.

lucky guy....

|| Now it's time for them or others to say why I have good color at low
|| light with red plants...................and why I can have red color
|| at deep depths but green at higher depths and why m d plants are
|| low light plants.

Here's a 2cent peice... in a 10g, no floro-3500k, my red tiger lotus, is
actually red.... 1.5wpg, whereas, im my 29g, 65W 6700kPCF, Co2, the same
plant, looks less red at times, almost purple other times...


|| I think the average aquarist can figure things out themselves on this
|| issue.
|| If I can do it at moderate to low light consisently, and have
|| excellent color and health, is high light really required?
|| No.

I'm beginning to see the light... or the lack of....

--
| RedForeman ©® fabricator and creator of the ratbike streetfighter!!!
| ==========================
| 2003 TRX450ES
| 1992 TRX-350 XX (For Sale)
| '98 Tacoma Ext Cab 4X4 Lifted....
| ==========================
| ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤° `°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø
| ((((º`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸. ((((º ·´¯`·. , .·´¯`·.. ((((º
| for any questions you may have....
| www.gmail.com



If I remember my biology correctly, don't red plants use a chemical other
than chlorophyll to absorb light, hence the different color. And apparently
this other chemical is less efficient, meaning you need more light to
produce the same amount of food/energy/etc. So if my memory serves me
right, this would explain why people would think that red plants need more
light, which they do if they have to produce the same amount of
food/energy/etc., but maybe they don't need to produce the same amount,
maybe they are fine with less.

Harry

Same experience here Red, my tiger lotuses, sunset hygro, ozelot and
various other red plants are far more colorful in low-medium light
tanks than high light. High light is really for growing certain types
of plants and to grow them fast, but for many plants that don't
require such strong lighting, low-medium light often gives best
results IME.

Giancarlo Podio


"RedForeman ©®" wrote in message ...
|| I know Claus and Kasslemann personally. So I have no issues going
|| head to head with them on the issue either. I've stated why their
|| observations occured.

lucky guy....

|| Now it's time for them or others to say why I have good color at low
|| light with red plants...................and why I can have red color
|| at deep depths but green at higher depths and why most red plants are
|| low light plants.

Here's a 2cent peice... in a 10g, no floro-3500k, my red tiger lotus, is
actually red.... 1.5wpg, whereas, im my 29g, 65W 6700kPCF, Co2, the same
plant, looks less red at times, almost purple other times...


|| I think the average aquarist can figure things out themselves on this
|| issue.
|| If I can do it at moderate to low light consisently, and have
|| excellent color and health, is high light really required?
|| No.

I'm beginning to see the light... or the lack of....

--
| RedForeman ©® fabricator and creator of the ratbike streetfighter!!!
| ==========================
| 2003 TRX450ES
| 1992 TRX-350 XX (For Sale)
| '98 Tacoma Ext Cab 4X4 Lifted....
| ==========================
| ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤° `°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø
| ((((º`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸. ((((º ·´¯`·. , .·´¯`·.. ((((º
| for any questions you may have....
| www.gmail.com

Like everybody else, I've read this in many many places too. I got a
reddish/purplish plant and it died in my low-light tank within a couple
weeks.

At low light, the effect of CO2 are still great, yet many do not use
it. The lower light slows the growth down a considerable amount while
still maintaining health. While people hear that low light tanks do
not need CO2, they still reap the same great benefits from CO2
additions, something I suggested about a year prior to Tropica. Then I
mentioned that the clear hard water springs in Florida had the best
plant growth in natural systems, not soft water, Claus also show the
same thing in the Mato Grosso, which have identical spring types but
different fish.

The effect is maintaining good CO2 and nutrients and maintenance,
while lowering the light. It takes more than just light to drive plant
growth.
This maximizes the light usage by the plants.
This method shows the max and min levels of light that will produce
good plant growth.

Swords have always done extremely well at 1.5-2w/gal, D diandra has
been grown to very high levels at this range also.
Red Cabomba, Glossostigma etc....

My point is that the plants could have died, not done well for reasons
other than low light. Even proper trimming/over shadowing etc can
cause some plants to not grow well besi9de just the light/CO2 and
nutrient issues alone, there are other factors that are hard to
address unless the person mentions it or you can see their set up in
person.

Unless you address the other parameters that influence growth and
consider them and test for them, you do not know.......you are are
guessing and assuming.

That will cause you to believe that correlation = causation.
That is a huge myth factory that serves to confuse, exacerbate and
muddle plant growth issues with planted tanks. Isolate, go down one by
one to improve your plant growth......this will help you to become a
much better grower even if simply adding another lamp on solves your
immediate problem.

The total effect is the sum of the best levels for CO2, NO3,K,GH, fish
load, mainteance routines/water changes etc.

Yes, you can get away with not doing a couple of things, but if you do
them, the tank will be that much more stable and you can always
improve the growth some generally.

If you cannot improve growth or think you have no room left for that,
then you should be able to produce any design you have in mind with
any plant etc.
If you are having issues, then you can improve the method.

Regards,
Tom Barr






Regards,
Tom Barr

Well... whether you're right or you're wrong... I'll buy into it because
you stated your case well. I just wish I would have participated in this
conversation 2 weeks ago before I bought the lights for my 75 gal. tank.

--
Craig Brye
University of Phoenix Online

" wrote in message
om...
The Tropica website lists a ton of plants. You'll see many descriptions
like.... "this specie falls into the 'high light' catergory like other
red
plants". I obviously didn't copy this word for word, but
generalizations
like that are riddled throughout the Tropica website.

The Kasselmann book also gives many such generalizations. E. Osiris for
example, where she states the red/brown color "...develop under intense
light".

I'm just curious because your statements blew my entire "red plant"
theories! I'm not a chemist, so I take what I read/hear to heart. This
is
why I'm fairly confused at the moment.
Craig Brye
University of Phoenix Online

I know Claus and Kasslemann personally. So I have no issues going head
to head with them on the issue either. I've stated why their
observations occured.

Now it's time for them or others to say why I have good color at low
light with red plants...................and why I can have red color
at deep depths but green at higher depths and why most red plants are
low light plants.

I have not found any plant that does not do well at 2w/gal which is
often the low end iof the lighting spectrum these days.

Thing is.......2w/gal of NO FL light was "high light" 9-10 years ago!
So when much of the books/species write ups were written, that was the
case.

But people seem to think "more light is better". Not true at all.
There's a range of lighting that is best and easiest to deal with.
This is for all plants. There might be one or two that are finicky
that we may run into, but 99.9% of the time, the needs are similar to
other plants.
At least with most of the 300 or so species we keep right now.
If that is not enough to play with, well, you must have a lot of tanks
and do a lot of work on planted tanks.

I think the average aquarist can figure things out themselves on this
issue.
If I can do it at moderate to low light consisently, and have
excellent color and health, is high light really required?
No.

Claus said most people's tanks had trace deficencies when he came
here, he did not say "not enough light". I'd been adding 5x the
recommended amounts of traces. People felt 0.1ppm of Fe was a good
amount at the time, I had 1.0ppm depending on which test kit used and
time after dosing etc.
People thought excess traces in and of themselves would cause algae.

These days, people add a lot more traces in their CO2 enriched plant
tanks.
Folks are slow to realize that less light is fine, 2-3w/gal is plenty
for any plant you might want. PC/MH's are going to have even more
light so you can go lower on these.

Regards,
Tom Barr

" wrote in message
om...
Like everybody else, I've read this in many many places too. I got a
reddish/purplish plant and it died in my low-light tank within a couple
weeks.

At low light, the effect of CO2 are still great, yet many do not use
it.
snip

I have CO2 injection in my tank, and all my other plants (anubia, java moss,
crypts, banana plants, moss ball, water sprite, vallisneria, a couple
unidentifieds and even an aponogeton bulb - still new but HUGE) do just fine
in my tank. Other than changing from normal to full spectrum fluorescent
(before I even put plants in) and trimming dead leaves, I don't do a single
thing specifically for my plants...even my CO2 injection was more for my pH
than the plants. Maybe the plant was doomed before I even took it home.
Who knows.

"Harry Muscle" wrote in message
...
"RedForeman ©®" wrote in message
...
|| I know Claus and Kasslemann personally. So I have no issues going
|| head to head with them on the issue either. I've stated why their
|| observations occured.

lucky guy....

|| Now it's time for them or others to say why I have good color at low
|| light with red plants...................and why I can have red color
|| at deep depths but green at higher depths and why m d plants are
|| low light plants.

Here's a 2cent peice... in a 10g, no floro-3500k, my red tiger lotus, is
actually red.... 1.5wpg, whereas, im my 29g, 65W 6700kPCF, Co2, the same
plant, looks less red at times, almost purple other times...


|| I think the average aquarist can figure things out themselves on this
|| issue.
|| If I can do it at moderate to low light consisently, and have
|| excellent color and health, is high light really required?
|| No.

I'm beginning to see the light... or the lack of....

--
| RedForeman ©® fabricator and creator of the ratbike streetfighter!!!
| ==========================
| 2003 TRX450ES
| 1992 TRX-350 XX (For Sale)
| '98 Tacoma Ext Cab 4X4 Lifted....
| ==========================
| ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤° `°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø
| ((((º`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸. ((((º ·´¯`·. , .·´¯`·.. ((((º
| for any questions you may have....
| www.gmail.com



If I remember my biology correctly, don't red plants use a chemical other
than chlorophyll to absorb light, hence the different color. And
apparently
this other chemical is less efficient, meaning you need more light to
produce the same amount of food/energy/etc. So if my memory serves me
right, this would explain why people would think that red plants need more
light, which they do if they have to produce the same amount of
food/energy/etc., but maybe they don't need to produce the same amount,
maybe they are fine with less.

My biology wasn't very involved (just regular high school stuff), but I
remember that Carotene (orange-ish) and Xanthophyll (yellow) were said to be
responsible for the red color we see in plants (and in dying leaves when
chlorophyll breaks down, the other pigments can be seen more clearly)...but
it was high school, and *public* high school at that so the entire statement
may be completely inaccurate. I'm sure someone will promptly point out any
errors in my learning. :-)

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:35:36 -0500, "Craig Brye"
bubbled forth the following:

Well... whether you're right or you're wrong... I'll buy into it because
you stated your case well. I just wish I would have participated in this
conversation 2 weeks ago before I bought the lights for my 75 gal. tank.

--
Craig Brye
University of Phoenix Online

Think of it this way -- you now have an extra set of lights that need
a new 75 gal. tank to go under them;-)

Jerry