Aqua Soil absorbing phosphates - great article from Aqua Journal Online!

[naman]

Article at Aqua Journal Online: nature aquarium notes 01, How to use Aqua Soil.

The most interesting thing here is that ADA claims Aqua Soil can hold PO4.
I know it is a result of CEC of clays in raw soil + organic acids (fumic by article).

It explanes WHY in Amano's Tanks with Aqua Soil PO4 levels always below 0.1-0.05ppm. No limiting plants growth, but you have much less algae in case of disbalance. This allows to fix things before tank turnes into desaster.

This is also explanes how substrates with high organic content (as eathworm castings or aqua soil) can be a long term source of nutrients (including PO4!) for plants.

DIY will work just fine:
high CEC substrate (calcined clay as Profile, Turface...) or Zeolite + earthworm castings at the bottom + micro - FTE as JBL Florapol + some peat + bacteria culture starter.

Kudos for ADA.
Their entire System is greatly different from all the rest, and is unbeatable for Stability and Usability.

Reading:

Mechanism of phosphate fixation is over here - Topics in Fertilization and Plant Nutrition, SEVEN LECTURES ON IRRIGATION", By Prof. Uzi Kafkafi.

More on phosphate fixation - Substrate Ideas, Jim Kelly, Oct. 1998.

Organics makes a large share of CEC in natural water's sediments: see Relationship between Fumic Acid and the Force of Ion Exchange Adsorption of River Sediment.; Koizumi Sadayuki, Takayama Katsumi, 1999.

Tons of links on the subject in texts and at the very BOTTOM of this page (in russian) - замена Aqua Soil -> фиксация фосфата.

[John N.]

Quite an interesting read. The fact that Aquasoil has nutrients packed in its soft clay granules makes Aquasoil a great substrate above others like Eco Complete or Flourite in the initial stages. I'm not saying that you can't have great aquascapes with the later basically inert substrates, because you can, you just have to do more regular fertilzing then say a tank with Aquasoil.

The below Lab experiment is a bit misleading since you can/should supplement your water column to make up for the lack of "stock" nutrients in inert substrates, but the Lab experiment does show you that Aquasoil does have an advantage in that regard, especially in new setups.


Grossostigma was planted in Aqua Soil - Amazonia and Forest Sand - Branco


Grossostigma after 10 days

-John N.

[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...

[plantbrain]

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.

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?

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

[plantbrain]

Originally Posted by naman

“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)

It says, for these species, that they take PO4 from the sediments an average of 72%, but the error bars are large. It just says depends on sediments, they can and will go either way, which other research implies.
suppose the sediment had little PO4? What then?

So since you are focused in natural systems, is the aquarium even remotely like natural systems?

Light?
CO2?

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 ?

More "Natural" does not imply better horticulture.
Horticulture has it's own unique ecology.
You mention bad science yet you make very basic mistakes in your own logic.

BTW, here's Elodea, the species specifically in question is an apline Stream at 7200ft , there's no PO4 at all in this water, good CO2 though.



Growing pretty good there and is most of the alpine lakes in the mountains here in CA BTW, the water is snow melt in a granitic aquifer. Pretty clean water.

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 ?

I agree with more biota in the sediment, but at some point, the sediment accumulates too much organic matter and needs to be cleaned out, /vacuumed and the stems need uprooted and replanted.
A good water change and trim helps and things get back to normal.
You also do say 1/4 of the tank at a time so the system is not disturbed too much. Doing the entire sediment is not a good idea.

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?

This assumes another variable, not directly PO4.
PO4 alone in a control tank will not induce algae.
Also, the concentrations are ridiculously low to limit algae.
Plants, as the research you cited above mention, add PO4 via leakage from the sediment to the water column, plenty for the algae to grow, at least the species of algae that concern us.

That's why PO4 and sediment and macrophytes are a big research concern.
They act like pipes, pumping O2 to the sediments and releasing N and P into the water column. When they die back in the winter, they rot and release a lot back into the water column in natural systems that in the north/alpine systems, in tropical and subtropical, this does not occur much, but growth typically is reduced due to reduce light, the same is true for algae.

If you mess up CO2 or add too much light, or do not dose something.....well, yes, but that's not due to PO4 limitation, nor will PO4 limitation save you any more than not doing it in aquariums.

Folks have noted this for 15 years.
This is not some new thing.

You seem to suggest that if we make a mistake somewhere else, then the PO4 limitation will somehow save us from algae, yet I see no evidence for this, nor do other folks, I have plenty of nice examples of aquariums to show this.

Near as I can tell, I've never once seen a tank that you have ever done.
Ironically convenient.....I have less algae issues, grow plants faster, larger etc than the ADA vendors here do.
I know them personally and bring plants to them.

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

Oh sweet irony...........I need pop corn for this.

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.

I actually do agree with you here.
I support using both the sediment and the water column, you suggest that we add very little or next to nothing there.

*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.

Both, not one or the other.
Sediment ferts are certainly easier.......and at lower light levels, this relationship will improve.

Something I've been saying for no less than 15 years, mostly upon death ears sadly(not yours- but many other folks).

**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.

True.

“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 )

They have gone back and forth for decades on this, I'd suggest looking at UF's IFAS Aquatic Sciences dept.
Bachmann and the role of plants and the algae have been really thoroughly investigated. The above is one lake, they did 300+ lakes...........

You can say something about that one lake and within it, but you cannot generalize too much beyond that one lake. With 300+ different lakes, now you can look at general patterns.

These are also tropical/subtropical lakes with plants or at least some access to them, they are shallow, never freeze over etc, much like our tanks. Lots more light etc, less CO2, but still, if you want to use a paper, cite a good one.

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 )

You assume that N is limiting.
It can go either way here.
P or N, and we see this in natural systems and can see it in our tanks.
I nor anyone suggests running N or strongly limiting concentrations.
This is not logic, this is a bad assumption(neglecting the tank).
I can say all sorts of things to support a better method if neglect is really the driving issue you seem to imply.

We should all use non CO2 methods if that really is the argument

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.

I agree sort of except for the parts about algae, and the part of this either or business(sediment or the water column). I've long said both, not one vs the other for fertilization. I've never come against sediment fertilization and have supported it's use and still do. Unless you know specifically how to grow algae, you really do not know why and what causes it.

I also totally disagree with the nutrient flux = algae.

What's the difference if I go from say 0.5ppm of PO4 to 5ppm PO4?
Is algae limited in any way in either case?

No, not at all.

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”.

It is possible, no one disputes that Naman.
What is real the issue is that you seem hellbent on this one vs the other method instead of seeing that both methods work even better than any one of them alone.

Synergistic methods used together, along with good routine care(so that things do not become limiting, or that you really mess things up, proper lighting(something most any method should and does address) CO2 etc), these are not things that ADA alone suggested.

EI and other methods all pay some credence to them, you take this very narrow interpretation that it's just nutrient water column dosing and nothing more.

Clearly anyone can look the methods up and see for themselves that they all do, most any how to grow aquatic plant site does.

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.

Most any site tells you this Naman, this one(ASW, APC, BR, TPT etc) or any other.

This is not ADA and some miracle of Amano's........

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...

Amano sells what he knows and does. It's easier to sell what is the prevailing market than the suggest something new. When ADA started selling AS and other products, the idea that you could limited algae by adding ferts to the sediments was wildly popular.

He's sort of stuck a bit with it and has since.
But the good part is that he suggests lower light, and if you do use high light, only a couple of hours. If you drive light at 500 mic/mols/m^2/sec for 12 hours, this will not work. Plants will run out and not be able to maintain such high rates of growth.

This is not typical for most aquarist.
So why does he suggest adding ferts at all to the water column and how do reconcile the fact that plants pump and release PO4 into the water column?

He runs the tank at a lower growth rate using less light, he's trying to hit the market and still give folks good results. I can and have done this, many have. That's not new either. Still, plenty of folks have nasty algae and issues using ADA, some many will not listen, but my advice and Amano's are not that different, nor that of Ole's, Troels, Karen Randall, or others. We say it in a different way, we each have a different background and area that we are better versed at, but we really seldom discuss plants when we get together.....


It's the hobbyists that make a big stink about the perceived differences, not us. That topic we are certainly in agreement on(and it was discussed at the AGA conference not long ago).

Use less light, no matter what method you use, the results will more stable and less algae. The trade off is less growth rate. That's where it all starts.
We all know that. Then if you like the no water column ferts, knock your self out, but simply because it works for you under some conditions, does not imply it works or is the best method for everyone.

You really do seem to suggest that.

No one method will satisfy everyone's goals.
Some want more light, some less, some garden, some neglect their tanks.
You need to focus the method that best gets you to your goal(whatever it maybe).

Sit back and consider that before responding.
Ask the person you are helping what is their goal?

Regards,
Tom Barr

[plantbrain]

The test shown does not measure pore water, only what leached into/out of the water column. Fresh Iron rich clay absorbs PO4, no surprise there.

Also, if the tap is 0.5ppm and you add plants and do 50% weekly water changes, then they have a lot of PO4, regardless if it's in the sediment or the water column. The plant leaves will get the PO4 before any
binding occurs in a planted tank, not a jar.

As far as algae and PO4, this is has long been shown not correlated in nature as well as aquariums:
http://fishweb.ifas.ufl.edu/Faculty%...macrophyte.pdf
I suppose 319 lakes is not enough data?

Also, sediment has a limited capacity to absorb nutrients at which point is no longer becomes a sink, rather, a source and leaches them out. So this will only last so long before it no longer absorbs PO4. Given the amounts of PO4 I've added, the stuff is all filled up at the binding sites. I have no issues.

Less PO4 does not save anyone from more serious algae issues, this has been shown again and again for over a decade by countless hobbyists and simple test. Poor CO2? Too much light? Many have shown this causes many algae issues and poor plant growth.

I'd say that some plants have better adaptation to some nutrients than others at the root uptake, but I know of no plant that cannot take up nutrients from the leaves.

As far as when a problem does occur, I think the root of the issue is not PO4, this is a secondary issue, and one that does not limit algae.

Take a long hard look at the levels of PO4 required to show limitation in algae species that we might commonly see. They are beyond any test kit you own.

Call up the South Florida Water management district which deals with the Evergaldes water quality, ask them how much PO4 is required to limit periphyton growth and then plant growth.

I did.
I spoke to the lead researcher. She gave a nice presentation for the class.
20-50ppb for pants, less than 10ppb for algae/periphyton.
They do not even know how low it is, because they, nor any research labs has the ability to test at such low levels. A big problem for them.

If you add fish and their waste, then you have far more than this concentration of PO4.

Add any leaching out, or from the leaves of the plants(note; plants are sinks and sources of PO4, something the jar test does not consider) and you rapidly get well beyond limiting levels for algae growth.
regards,

Tom Barr

[StanChung]

Sorry to barge in on what seems like a very heated but enlightening 'discussion'.

My take is I prefer substrate feeding after the lengthy read. I even inject liquid fert into the substrate as an experiment and it worked. Overdosing on the ferts have led to mass fauna death in AS/PS setups that are 2 months old. I have two. Cherry shrimps in particular.

I don't see how we can compare to nature that well especially with streams as the water content is constantly changing. Plants IMO will just grab what they need from what they can't get from the substrate.

The science is imperfect because it's human deduction beyond the scope of mathematics. Biology has so many variables.

A very good example is a researcher says that he found XYZ contents in the fish's stomach. Can he conclude that the fish eats XYZ for sustenance?

If you were simplistic you would say yes. If you thought deeper, you would realize that perhaps the fish is really stupid[or really hungry] and just swallowed anything it thought was food?

Sharks for example or even human babies.

I agree wholeheartedly that it depends on your goals.

I would to add that each have to respect each other's views.
Hobbyist's view[like mine] should be taken with a pinch of salt. Ha!

BTW, I don't see algae as a problem anymore. I see it as maintenance or failure on my part to do so.