[naman]

Bad science.

Yeah, but don’t be fooled with this baloney PO4 uptake in the leaves is perferred, at least in this species
which cited “Elodea nuttallii: uptake, translocation and release of phosphorus” http://www.int-res.com/articles/ab2008/3/b003p209.pdf
This FAKE experiment resembles to me a myth about chlorophil (that it absorbs red and blue light only) circulated two-three decaded in scientific papers and duplicated on forums. He he…

THIS IS HOW BALONEY ORIGINATES AND PERROTED ALL OVER THE WEB THROWGH THE FORUMS BY BAD READERS READING BAD SCIENTISTS.

It is an argument equal to THIS “musterpiece” in argumenting…

It is an absurd experiment.
Look at the picture #1 from “Elodea nuttallii: uptake, translocation and release of phosphorus”.
This “scientists” pull over plant, and put roots in water solution expecting them to have normal nutrients uptake !? Can you see ANY substrate?
Do they EVER heard of that plants roots need a PROPER ENVIRONMENT to function as they have to?
Substrate with proper Redox in anoxic conditions, pH, KH, organic acids, substrate’s CEC, arbuscular micorrhizae (AMF) to improove P and micros uptake by orders etc etc etc …!?
You can compare nutrients uptake by roots VS leaves only when you created purfect conditions for both of them.
They leaved proper environment for Leaves only, but they virtually killed (hair) Roots and expecting them to do the job what is they intended for!?
We can do similar “research” putting leaves in emerged position and dust them with milled rock phosphate (apatite), and put an ADA Aqua Soil or erthworm castings + calcined clay in the lower part of their flusk and than say: “see, plants prefer to uptake P from sediments, not water column”.
Or we can make the same experiment with Fe and say plants prefer to take up Fe from water column etc…
This is a baloney.

Leaves are leaves, roots are roots.
This is completely different plant’s organs which function in completely different ways, and must have very different proper environment to function.
You can not breath with your stomach after all.

What can we say here? Go back to school…
Even kid can grasp why this “experiment” is a TOTAL FAKE.

Even more.
10 days is what they call “Long-term experiment” !?
We know that plant must have at least 1-2 weaks to adapt for their new environment (rubisco, roots, pH etc). Only after this period (and dosing the same amounts in the same destinations (sediments and/or water) of ferts!!!) we can start measuring uptake in ANY experiments.
Not to mention that they do not included factors as CO2 concentration, diurnal lighting pattern(!) which is grately influenses on P uptake and internal P buffer etc.

Their test has shown nothing but that THIS plant spiecies which have been pulled away from substrate and during adaptation period to new environment under THIS (very unnatural) conditions takes up P mostly from water column.
But what the heck they expected to see !?
BTW, rapid decreas of P uptake in time shown in experiment indicating that plants was Stressed and made a luxury uptake from water column to survive.

Do we need to read this “scientific papers” to know that plants can feed from water column only?
Not at all, as this effect can be seen by every aquarist who made a new setup – plants feed from water column while they grow their roots. And almost any plant can live for years(!) floating on the water surface, even Crypts and Echinodoruses… and their condition depends on species (sure stem plants doing much better). But it does not mean it is normal for them!

Even so, finally they say by themselves that this experiment is a mere suggestion, no more, and as I already said, P uptake depends on the his magesty The Gradient (euthrophic or oligomesotrophic waters):
“Therefore, in eutrophic lakes, phosphorus uptake via shoots is expected to dominate and should be sufficient for E. nuttallii plants to meet their phosphorus requirements. Under such conditions the plants reduce the phosphorus content in the surrounding water and, if possible, they transport the phosphorus into the sediment via release from the roots and therefore change the phosphorus content of pore water. In contrast, in oligomesotrophic lakes, E. nuttallii plants have to meet their phosphorus requirement by phosphorus absorption from sediment via roots. The slower uptake rate of roots in comparison to the faster absorption via shoots might be sufficient to meet the phosphorus requirement of a whole E. nuttallii plant under these environmental conditions. However, if phosphorus uptake from the sediment dominates, roots reduce the phosphorus content in the surrounding pore water.” (Sources of nutrients to rooted submerged macrophytes…)

…maybe some of the plant spicies really prefer to feed on P from water column, but this “experiment” is NOT that experiment which can proof OR disproof this, it’s a shame.

Is this the very first time we have seen such “proofs” to support “water column only fertilizing” systems is “better” ?
No.

Sometimes it is worth to just stop and look around what is motivating you to say this or that – scientific interest or mere brending of your own system of “water column only fertilization” whatever name you stick to it, which is wrong and outdated from the very born in 1980-s (author - The Krib)?

For me it is just getting blind with your own myths.
This is treating scientific papers “on your score”as it is now, or when reverting words about another experiment with cutted roots/stems in such good(!) research papers like this Sources of nutrients to rooted submerged macrophytes……
…which DOES NOT mean at all that “Water Column Only Fertilizing” (as their “authors” call them PPS-pro or EI) is better AT ALL for keeping tanks. See #3 - it is said even stem plants like E. canadensis and C. Cophocarpa grow equally, in rich sediments OR water column dosing only environments, eah?
It is also DOES NOT mean water column only fertilizing (WCF) good for ALL plants, right?
Instead of this reserch proofes that substrate based system grow ALL plants wery well including stem plants (equally!), so what should we prefer to fertilize – mostley substrate or water column !?
The unswer is absolutely evident.

That old WCF method (water column only fertilizing).

Does it really mean “water column only fertilizing” method (WCF) equally effective for ALL plants?
NO. What about testing Echinodorus species? And What about waters low on PO4 ?

Will plants feed from sediments or water column depends on the nutrients Gradient AND proper conditions in root/leaves zones AND plant species. Usually they feed from both sources, but at the different rates.
So plants being opportunistic feed mostly from substrate when it is less P in water column, and as soon as P becomes abandent in water column they take up it from there as soon as possible as natural waters (NOT in aqaurium!**) usually P limited environment for plants. Thats it.
They do not prefer any aquarists fertilizing routing – they just trying to survive.

Yes, “water column only fertilizing” can grow some plants not worse than in rich sediments, but it is not the case for cryps and echinodorus species at all.
More over, most of stem plants will never show all their Beauty untill they are well rooted in nutrient rich substrate (see any ADA tank).

It is known long time ago that plants in NORMAL natural conditions prefers to feed from substrate as they are opportunistic, yeah so they feed where it is more stable source first – the Sediments.
What will be if we look at experiments in nature, when plants rooted in normal sediments and able to take up nutrients from there? Surely we see quite OPPOSITE results:
“Nine common species of aquatic macrophytes took all their phosphorus from the sediments when grown in situ in both a mesotrophic and a mildly eutrophic bay. Even under hypertrophic conditions, the sediments contributed an average of 72 percent of all the phosphorus taken up during growth. These experiments unambiguously demonstrate for the first time that submergent macrophytes in nature over-whelmingly depend on the sediments for their phosphorus supply and characterize them as potential nutrient pumps to the open water.”. (Phosphorus Sources for Aquatic Weeds: Water or Sediments?; Department of Biology, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3A 1B1 Phosphorus Sources for Aquatic Weeds: Water or Sediments? -- CARIGNAN and KALFF 207 (4434): 987 -- Science)

In natural waters (as tropical forest’s rivers) we see VERY low PO4 levels, and very rich sediments. Almost everywhere where plants grow (exept weeds as Elodea).
So, which method of fertilizing is more “natural” and closer to natural ecosistems ?

Is it more beneficial to have good microogranisms cultures (rotifers, microbes etc) in rich and loose substrate (as ADA’s) to let them recycle wastes in sediments giving nurtients for plants and do not syphon gravel regulartly killing their environment ?

Is it more beneficial for aquarist to have less PO4 in water column to have less algae during disbalance (as we know PO4 itself is not the “cause” of algae bloom – pure plants growth is) and feed plants mostly from substrate?

Guess by yourself… but do not forget to look at Amano’s tanks and tanks of those falks hwo use ADA’s system/method/approach/routing, especially of those who had never read this or that forums

DO WE NEED TO CARE OF HOW TO FEED PLANTS – FROM WATER COLUMN OR SEDIMENTS?
Not at all, as they grow in both cases well*… but only UNTIL we don't think about Stability and Usability of the method which we choose to maintaine our artificial environment - planted tank.

*If it is known that stem plants have no negative effect on growth rates being placed in environment with low nutrient levels in water column but with rich substrate, AND that root feeders will be unhealthy without rich substrate.
Than, wich nutrients location should we prefer!? Ha!?
Not to mention the Maintenance factor.

**Moreover, P is not the factor of Stability, as CO2 uptake greatly depends on Rubisco activity, which is directly depends on N avalability first and for most, not P at all.
BTW plants can keep spare P orders more than N.

“Emergent macrophytes respond positively to eutrophication, but fertilization experiments have shown that nitrogen rather than phosphorus may be the key element. Submerged macrophytes are adversely affected by a large increase in the external phosphorus input to a lake. This effect may be caused by epiphyte shading, phytoplankton shading or deposition of unfavourable sediments.”. (Influence of aquatic macrophytes on phosphorus cycling in lakes SpringerLink - Journal Article )

Caring of CO2 without proper NO3:PO4 ratio is pretty much usless.
1:10-16 (Redfield ratio) is good rool of thumb (Seachem, PPS-pro), not 1:5 as in EI.
Lack of P lowers growth rates 2-3 times, lack of N leads to lack of C and drops growth by 5-7 times vertually stopping it and hardly exceeds the saturation level (= survival edge) of photosynthesys. (see Oles data SIL_poster_2004.pdf http://www.bio-web.dk/op/pdf/SIL_poster_2004.pdf )

Any nutrients fluctuations lead to pure plants growth = algae.
Substrate IS much better source of nutrients for plants becouse it is more stable source than water column (that human factor), so when we have a substrate based system like ADA’a there is no radical slowering of growth rates = less algae when we lack of something in water column – plants just take what they need and when they need (mostly) from substrate.

Fact that ADA Aqua Soil can effectively store and deliver PO4 to plants roots and info from mentioned above research papers is very important factor, indeed.
It helps to grasp how is it possible to do not fertilize water column at all and have a lush stem plants which love PO4. This effect is known long time ago from earthworm castings/garden soil “method”.

Labels.

Actually “Water Column Fertilizing Only” is ORDERS WORSE than sediment-based system as ADA’s if you think of it carefully and know something on the subject without trying to advertize fertilization method of your own brand...
This is why we see like PPS (conceptually wrong from the very start) magically turnes into… EI with the new label PPS-pro, and known method with water column dosing + water chainges known from 80-s with the label EI lately claimed to turne into that “EI + Aqua Soil” and promoted as the best way to keep tanks…
Yes, it is orders better than plain EI/PPS-pro whatever label, but ADA’s method differs not only with this, but with lighting method (gradually rising intensity changes a lot of things for plants!), filtration, water circulation, co2 delivery method, etc… and maintanance routings which evolve from all of this.
At first site it lookes like a very subtle chainges, but this chainges plant’s metabolic state, the way Rubisco works, improves stability, makes maintenance much easier etc etc etc
It is much more than merely “EI + Aqua Soil”, so this label or “PPS-pro + Aqua Soil” will never stick to it with someones “inventor’s” name except ADA’s, I hope.
I am not surprised that this “inventors” even have no clue why ADA’s system works so well...