Naman,
Are you looking for support for your conclusions first....then going back and looking for anything that supports it?
Sure seems that way.
The article clearly states that PO4 uptake was much higher in the leaves using their methods in this study. Period.
You can carry on and on about ADA till the cows come home, but there's a basic thing you have not done, at least this is what you have said prior: you have not even used ADA products, rather, simply are trying to find some alternatives that mimic the product line.
Near as I can tell, I've actually done the research to determine precisely what is in the ADA products.
You?
If you reads the methods better, and understand the variables that need addressed, inorganic PO4 is the most bioavailable form, which is what was used, redox and other issues in the sediments do play role,s but they are mostly cycling roles, eg bioavailability, which SRP phosphorus is the most bioavailable form.
It becomes very difficult to do a clean experiment when you add soil and other variables in. Hydroponic type studies are very uiseful and used for many research methods, however, they are not meant to be field studies in natural systems.
However, aquariums are not field studies in natural systems.
No one pretended to say this either.
Still, we can make a similar system and use plain sand vs say ADA AS(with PO4 to the water column) then measure dry weights afterwards. I did not use this species, but I have done it with Egeria densa. There is a clear difference in RGR's with the water column. 70% more growth.
This is only for one species,
others might be different.
That part also was selectively(?) overlooked.
Rather than going into a rant critque, do you have a better designed test for this question? Have you done anything thing to resolve the question?
Have you set up a test to answer such questions or is it ADA faith based belief?
You claim it's a fake, you have not shown that. I guess if you wish to try and scream louder about it that other folks, that's your business, but doing so does not make you right, nor does faith or belief.
This research article simply states what it found.
You carry on about it but do not get specific about what it is that's fake.
It's never said it's in a natural field study.
If you know about this species and this type of method, 10 days is a typical longer time frame. Many are even less, say 1-3 days.
It's just a slice in time.
Much of luxury PO4 uptake can be related to phenology of the plant over a season, so while a plant might appear to to have excess PO4 beyond what it might need at that point in time, later in the season when the plant flowers or the PO4 are low, the extra PO4 might come in handy.
I do not think the study is that far removed from what we do in our tanks.
I mean, I pull up plants and replant then even week in many species.
No issues with roots there
You go on and on about how the study is not natural, yet do not apply it to our system and routines in horticulture.
Quote:
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!
|
Well , I think we do agree here. Why not ask Tropica since they and FAN grow most all of their plants hydroponically and without soil?
Or the ornamental container plant trade which does fertigation(leaf uptake) and is about 6 Billion $ per year in CA alone?
Quote:
Is this the very first time we have seen such “proofs” to support “water column only fertilizing” systems is “better” ?
No.
|
No, but then again, no one claims as much either.....
It does support that plants will get nutrients where they can, they are
opportunistic.
I've long suggested that both locations for nutrients makes the best sense for horticulture.
But to learn more about each location, we must isolate them and see what the differences are. It does not mean we go entirely one way and only one method. Plants are not so one sided, nor should you assume as much about others.
BTW, I've
never claimed to invent EI or any method really(even the name "EI" is stupid), they are just support for other folk's suggestions that worked well. Same with non CO2 methods, DSM's, adding ferts to the sediments.
Bottom line is that talk is cheap.
Do you have any scapes we have seen?
Done any research to resolve the question in a tank with plants?
Offered up any methods that might answer such questions?
Have you ever set up a complete ADA system or use their products?
I have.
Regards,
Tom Barr