1. Welcome to AquaScaping World!

    Become a register member to get FULL SITE ACCESS AND BENEFITS.

    Join the ASW community now!

    Dismiss Notice

Types of nutrient deficiencies and its symptoms??

Discussion in 'Water Chemistry' started by Veerall, Oct 21, 2015.

  1. 1077

    1077 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    United States

    In reality, non of what you have submitted has much merit for those with any real experience growing aquatic plant's
    For new folk's,,I would submit that you must take Free advice for what it's worth.
     
    Icethunder and ShadowMac like this.

    Sponsored link:


  2. 1077

    1077 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    United States
    Precisely on point!
     
    ShadowMac and Icethunder like this.
  3. Solcielo lawrencia

    Solcielo lawrencia Aspiring Aquascaper

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Likes Received:
    169
    Location:
    CA, USA
    Yes, absolutely agree! Free advice from those you consider authorities on the subject are as valuable as what you pay for them. For everyone else, ask for evidence before accepting dogma. And be careful of those who talk a good game but provide no evidence.
     
  4. keithgh

    keithgh Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2011
    Likes Received:
    4,723
    Location:
    Melbourne Australia
    Remember many know/think because its on the WWW it must be true.

    Keith:cat::cat:
     
  5. ShadowMac

    ShadowMac Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Likes Received:
    2,177
    Location:
    North Dakota, USA

    Nutrients independently do not cause algae. This has been proven. The comparison of a natural system to our aquariums creates a false dichotomy. Natural systems are not artificially enriched with CO2, they receive FAR more light, and have far less plant density, among countless other differences. To reference literature that demonstrates phosphate or nitrate runoff creating algae blooms in a natural system and relate that to our aquariums is overgeneralizing the findings. You have greatly over simplified my comment and created a strawman in its place. Yes, algae requires some nutrients to grow, but in ideal conditions excess nutrients will not cause an algae outbreak meaning it is not the single cause and therefore should not be used as an algae management strategy.

    You cannot limit algae growth by limiting nutrients in a planted aquarium. I am not commenting on natural systems. Algae can survive at a far lower threshold of nutrients than macrophytes (our aquatic plants). So a strategy to control algae by limiting nutrients is not a winning proposition for a planted tank keeper.

    If you would like a credible reference for this please review the work of Thomas Barr PhD. (whom I thought you were familiar with). I am very familiar with good research practices and study design, thank you. I did not perform my own experiment with your suggested crude design I reviewed the evidence proposed and agree the Dr. Barr's conclusion. Nutrients DO NOT cause algae.
     
    scottward and Icethunder like this.
  6. ShadowMac

    ShadowMac Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Likes Received:
    2,177
    Location:
    North Dakota, USA

    Solceilo, you are lecturing us on logical scientific thinking while making common logical errors yourself. You cite anecdotes as evidence many of which you have simply cherry picked to support your conclusion.

    The simple fact is grow plants well and you do not get algae.

    a) CO2 supply that is insufficient for your light levels leads to poor plant growth. The excess available energy and nutrients are then available for algae growth.
    b)Poor flow, if flow is too low (this is variable depending upon many factors such as plant density, scape design, bioload in regards to filtration capacity, CO2 distribution method, etc) then nutrients and CO2 cannot adequately be supplied to the plants. If there are dead spots the leaf barrier cannot be broken and the plant cannot uptake nutrients particularly CO2 through the leaves. In this case, plants again grow poorly and the opportunity for algae to grow is there.
    c) Maintenance and substrate disturbances can push detritus into the water column and degrade water quality. It is good practice to maintain clean water. So change the water after messing around in the tank.

    I see you have come to some disagreement with Dr. Barr and it is the methods he promotes that you are railing against. You isolate a single factor and discount the method without considering the fact that it is a combination of factors. What about people with 50 ppm CO2 that can't grow plants!? Well, what about their lighting. flow, substrate, fertilizing routine, maintenance schedule. Keeping a successful planted tank is a variety of factors and non are fully independent of each other. Adjusting the light is commonly advised because it is the one component we generally have the greatest control over. CO2 is notoriously difficult to measure. It is an estimation and experience generally trumps vague measurements.

    Correlations are not causations is a great oversimplification of scientific work. Correlations are valuable and in some instances correlational research is all that is available. You cannot discount because a pure experimental study was not done. As with many of the arguments you proposed you over simplify the method in order to make your argument instead of tackling the detailed nuance and interplay of the many variables.

    I think it is important to promote methods that provide the greatest opportunity for success. EI dosing, careful management of light, good CO2 supply, ample flow and filtration will do just that.

    PS. I'd LOVE to see an aquarium without CO2 running say 120-180 mmol PAR that isn't a green algae farm.
     
    scottward, sushant and Icethunder like this.
  7. Solcielo lawrencia

    Solcielo lawrencia Aspiring Aquascaper

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Likes Received:
    169
    Location:
    CA, USA
    I never said that nutrients alone cause algae; it's a fact that fertilizers alone don't, which is why algae doesn't grow in the fertilizer containers. I said that nutrients are required for growth. Algae also requires light and water. If algae has all of these things, then they will grow. However, there are some nutrients that require bacteria to synthesize in order for certain kinds of algae to grow because it's not provided in fertilizers. Thus, a symbiotic relationship exists between bacteria and certain algae. If the bacteria were non-existent, then these algae would not grow. GDA and GSA are two of these kinds of algae.

    I'm allowed to use anecdotal evidence to support my claims, especially if Barr only uses anecdote without any scientific evidence. Anecdote is also a valid way to see if claims are true or not. If the claim that high light + low CO2 = algae, this can easily be tested. I tested it, and it's false. Thus, the claim was falsified and falsified in ADA tanks that run 150+PAR 20" deep with the lights hung 12" above the surface with CO2 that stays well below 25ppm. Why does Barr's tanks not follow this pattern? Because of excess nutrients. If his CO2 stopped, all that excess nutrient will be used by algae to grow, which it does.

    False, you can have high light and low CO2 and not have visible algae as long as nutrients (especially trace nutrients) are low.

    If there are excess nutrients. If there are no excess nutrients, then algae won't grow. This goes back to the fact that algae (and bacteria) requires these nutrients to grow.

    I don't disagree with this. But if the substrate is never disturbed, then the nutrients (from poop, bacterial synthesis) will not be floating in the water column for algae to use.

    Been there, done that. Assuming that nutrients aren't limited, trace toxicity is my response. Dose excess traces to become toxic to plants (and animals) and the plants suffer from poor health and growth. Trace toxicity will occur much faster with sand substrate than a high CEC substrate because the latter will adsorb the nutrients, the prior won't so nutrients are in the water column wreaking havoc with plants. This is the exact pattern you'll see on various forums of people asking why their plants don't grow and why EI isn't working for them. Or why EI works for a few months and then it all goes downhill, because the substrate stopped adsorbing excess nutrients.

    I dismiss most of his claims based on the lack of evidence, but mostly because my theory explains almost all of his anecdotes and why he doses the way he does, why 2x 50% WCs each week, and why CO2 is so ridiculously high. His evidence is showing pretty pictures of his tanks as evidence that his methods work. And yet, even his plants suffer from toxicity which he wasn't even aware of until after I pointed it out to him. And even then, he explained it away by saying that the reason the lower leaves of AR turn ratty is due to lack of light. Or the upward curled leaves, shortened internodes, and epinasty of Rotala "Green" is just normal. Or the leaf undulations of Ludwigia "Red" is normal. All of these, and more, are symptoms of toxicity which he dismissed. He even disclosed that he isn't even dosing as much traces as from CSM+B, about 1/3 less than a suggested 0.5ppm of Fe (as proxy). So if he isn't even using a full dose in his high light, high CO2, high flow, heavily planted tank, why is it even suggested?

    Lastly, Barr hasn't been able to answer the numerous questions about poor plant growth other than "more CO2". And the people who've nearly gassed, or have gassed, their fish trying to solve their problems? Is the issue still low CO2? Maybe it's the fishes problem for not being able to tolerate 80+ppm of CO2 so the solution is to get more tolerant fish. Or, is the problem something else?

    That's the perception but reality is quite different. Did you know that at there are more threads asking "what's wrong with my plants" than any other kind of threads across various forums? They're dosing EI and their plants still don't grow or have various toxicity issues.

    Final remark: why are anecdotal evidence from Tom more valid than anyone else's? Because he has a PhD?
     
  8. ShadowMac

    ShadowMac Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Likes Received:
    2,177
    Location:
    North Dakota, USA
    I'll start with the last question. Simply put, yes. He has a PhD in relation to aquatic macrophytes, which makes him much more qualified to make conclusions based upon observational anecdotes. Solceilo you are a smart guy I don't question that, however are you not a classically trained artist and not a biologist? The anti-intellectual movement seems to think that anyone can become an expert and their opinion should be just as valid as those with decades of experience and education in a particular field. It is not the case. It is also the common mistake of those who are well educated to seem to think their expertise and experience extends beyond their field. I cannot count how many awful papers or theories I've read from people practicing outside their expertise. They make very simple mistakes often...and these are for all accounts smart people whose egos got in the way.

    You are proposing that we leave a well practiced and proven technique behind based upon your biased observations done in a very pseudoscientific way. You may have tested and observed, but from what I have read there are many MANY problems with your experimental design. You lack controls, you lack replication, you lack unbiased observation or blinding, you lack statistical power, you lack operational definitions and values, and you lack the equipment to accurately measure the components to which you are attributing your effect. There is far too much to go on faith here. You propose that micro nutrient toxicity is the culprit for near every problem faced by planted tank keepers. This catch all approach is a common flaw in pseudoscientific reasoning.

    I would agree that huge amounts of CO2 are generally not needed. The biggest issue is getting enough available when the plants need it and maintaining consistent levels. Aquarists often fail to account for changes in surface agitation due to evaporation or from a dirty diffuser etc. This does not mean the method is wrong, it means the application is incorrect. Much of what Tom says is over simplified and the spirit of it is missed by aquarists. He has always said start with the recommended ranges and you can taper off until you see a problem. The only problem with that is not many hobbyists are consistent in their methods so problems arise regardless, then it becomes difficult to determine what the problem really is. Secondly, many hobbyists make incorrect assumptions about their methods and fail to look at all possible problems.

    You also vaguely talk about "the literature" without citing anything specific. This is very pseudoscientific. If you want your proposition to be taken seriously you need to provide a citation so one can read the academic paper you are citing. Otherwise it is just smoke and mirrors.

    I would also agree that EI is most often richer than what is needed for the plants. That is the point however. Eliminate nutrient limitation. It is entirely conceivable that the index and range may need revision, but the concept holds strong.

    My issue is you are making claims without much evidence. I am a skeptic by nature and will require better proof. You may be onto something with toxicity from micronutrients, they are the most likely culprit of toxicity....but you need better proof to make broad claims and propose everyone jumps ship from the EI method.
     
    Icethunder likes this.
  9. Solcielo lawrencia

    Solcielo lawrencia Aspiring Aquascaper

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Likes Received:
    169
    Location:
    CA, USA
    I can use all the arguments you just used against me against Tom. I do also have a background in biology and have a strong grasp of scientific methodology from my expertise in psychology, though none of this is even relevant because the proof is in the pudding. If so many people are having issues with EI, then the problem is with EI. Again, there are more "what's wrong with my plants?" threads around the web than there are those who sing the success of EI. And those who sing the success of EI do so only initially, before they start experiencing problems. When Tom is able to answer these questions in a way that actually work, then his claims have merit. But they don't most of the time. Why is that? Because the paradigm he uses is flawed; there is no underlying theory based on this paradigm that explains it.

    Keep in mind, I used to sing the praises of EI just as you are doing right now. Almost everything you've just stated, I've stated at some point in defense of it not too long ago. Why do I no longer sing its praises? It's because I know somethings you do not. My theory explains most of the problems that so many people experience. Tom's explanations do not.

    About the literature, I don't need to cite it because it's so well known that nutrients cause algae blooms. Agricultural runoff is the biggest source of pollution which results in these blooms yearly, and they've been getting worse over the years. It's such a common phenomenon that it's reported in the news.

    And lastly, why is it that whenever EI is criticised, people automatically think Tom Barr is being attacked? I've never attacked him, just the dosing methodology. And even he felt I was attacking him whenever I made statements that violated the EI principles. Ad hominem attacks aren't valid reasons ways to attack the argument.
     
  10. ShadowMac

    ShadowMac Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Likes Received:
    2,177
    Location:
    North Dakota, USA
    I am not making ad hominem attacks, nor do I think you are attacking Tom. He is just the most qualified proponent of the EI method, so often is suggested as support for EI. To say there are more people asking for help than singing the praises does not really say anything. People having troubles are far more likely to post than those where things are going swimmingly (pun totally intended). Also, you should realize your bias may make you more likely to pay attention to the posts that support your argument...even if you are aware of the bias. I should say I respect your experience and your opinion, so don't take this personally. I do, however, have issues with the methodology and the conclusions you want to draw from the evidence as it stands. I am interested in your pursuit of toxicity from micro nutrients. I, too have questioned things and made observations that seem inconsistent with current predominant practice.

    It is a bold assumption...that everyone who is having difficulties are having those difficulties because of EI. That the person reporting the issue is correctly assessing the situation and under the same operating definitions you are...this of course is not happening. So again your point is invalid and strongly biased. My experience with aquarists has been there usually is some oversight or incorrect assessment.

    Another large assumption you are making is that the natural ecosystem is the same as our aquarium. Stating you do not need to cite the literature is very wrong. You absolutely need citations if you want your experiments and claims to be taken seriously. Yes, it is well known that agricultural runoff causes algae blooms within river systems. River systems also get way more light than our tanks, have much less plant mass (if any), among countless other factors that are not present within our aquariums. Citations are needed if you reference literature. They are also best used to support new conclusions or your proposed mechanisms. It is just good practice.
     
    Icethunder likes this.
  11. Solcielo lawrencia

    Solcielo lawrencia Aspiring Aquascaper

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Likes Received:
    169
    Location:
    CA, USA
    Tom doesn't even know toxicity when he's looking at it. I had to point it out to him, which he automatically dismissed it as "normal". Even you've had issues, but you dismiss it, just as I did the same in the Hygrophila pinnatifida threads on no less than five different forums all asking for help. When some people stated that H. pinna was suffering from overdose, I dismissed the idea and continued to dose more. I ended up killing all my shrimp and snails, and half my fish died over the next few months. The water was so toxic that no shrimp or snails would survive even after a couple of months of doing large water changes. If I watered houseplants with it, they would start dying. And I had my water tested, too. Turned out my water was really toxic, as were others who had their water tested. Please look up PortalMasterRy's water testing threads over on TPT for the results. That was a huge turning point because it meant that almost all of the traces we dose aren't being used at all.

    You may not believe me now, but in time you will. Everything you've just stated, you'll change your mind on. Why? Because the evidence is undeniable. You can deny it now, but you can't deny it forever. You'll eventually abandon pseudoscience for explanations that actually work to solve problems. Please also read the CSM Toxicity thread on TPT as it contains a wealth of experiences from various sources.
     
  12. ShadowMac

    ShadowMac Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Likes Received:
    2,177
    Location:
    North Dakota, USA
    Anything is toxic, it is dependent on the dosage. Clearly you overdosed, but it is not an indictment of EI. The premise of EI is to provide nutrients in non limiting amounts. You are better off proposing the ranges need to be adjusted.

    To suddenly abandon the well supported method of EI for your proposal based solely upon your experiments would be the opposite of a logical scientifically reasoned position. I am always open to changing my mind if the evidence supports it. But you are proving very little with your experiments, they are poorly controlled, biased, and lack statistical power. No amount of anecdotes will change that.

    Tom's wonderful response to the TPT thread on CSM toxicity is worth noting...my thoughts as I read. I am not a plant expert so cannot comment on phosphate cycling within plants, luckily Tom is and can comment with a good level of expertise.

    "
    "There's a few issues with this post:

    1#, no ppm's or dosing rates listed, the information is almost entirely useless with out dosing rates.
    2. CMS+B and DTPA Fe have a very long history. It's been extremely widely used for growing plants for a good 18 years along with everyone else that's been using CMS, why are you folks only discovering this now?
    3. DTPA is the other chelators that is in Tropica master grow, also, a product that's been used widely for decades.

    I have some pretty nice HC rugs over the years, I lard the stuff in there.
    Why you have issues, that's up to you, but it's not solely due to CMS+B.
    I've seen way too many tanks in the local SFBAAPS clubs who dose heavy on traces if nothing else.

    It also will take a lot more that anything we might dose to impact the sulfur cycling plants.

    I'd challenge you to provide any support in any research paper for that.
    There's hardly any thing out there on growth and Fe chelates and aquatic submersed plants. Let alone Fe chelates and Sulfur.
    Give some dosing data so folks can see if the observations, not just a few that happen to have some correlation, match the hypothesis."

    These are the common mistakes made by garage scientists. The do not follow good methodology and want to draw conclusions from their observations. They do not understand the importance of controls, replication, measurement (accuracy and precision), etc. These are some of the issues I see with your experiments. This does not stand as evidence and is the very definition of a pseudoscientific approach.

    You have avoided addressing the concerns I have raised and presented more of the same information that is problematic. I will say no more on the topic and leave your thread be. I wanted to make my concerns about the process and the conclusions known for other members of the forum.
     
    Icethunder and keithgh like this.
  13. Solcielo lawrencia

    Solcielo lawrencia Aspiring Aquascaper

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Likes Received:
    169
    Location:
    CA, USA
    I've already read that post from Tom. It's a BS argument because I could throw it all right back at him, but I responded anyway. Tom had no response. But again, notice how dismissive and derisive that post is. Instead of addressing the issues that people were having and asking about, he goes off and starts discussing something else to attack. Strawman much? Then makes offhanded insults. Ad hominem much? These are the common tactics he's used over the years whenever EI is criticized. Pseudoscience and logical fallacy much?

    I've stated it numerous times: people don't know what a toxicity looks like even when it's in front of their eyes. Then they proceed to show pictures of plants with various toxicity symptoms and claiming they don't have issues. Just like the thread on UKAPS with all the Tropica overdosing, the person didn't even notice it was causing toxicity. Then proceeded to post a lot of closeups of the plants showing symptoms of toxicity. Identifying toxicity takes experience and trusting intuition. But if all you've ever seen is toxicity, then you won't know any different. It's funny how some green novices can see the issues immediately and start threads asking if these plants should grow like that. But then they get experienced people all saying "that's normal". Just goes to show that experience can bias you to believing all sorts of weird things.

    Lastly, EI isn't well-supported. I call BS on it based on the fact that so many people have problems or eventually have problems using it. Just because someone with authority says it doesn't make it true. The proof is in the pudding. Over 100 threads all asking what's wrong with their plants in the span of three months on TPT alone which show signs and symptoms of toxicity. Do you dismiss this evidence? You probably would, because it violates the principles of EI. And yet, when they back off dosing so much traces, or cease dosing completely, their plants start growing. Dismiss it if you like, but the wave is just about to start sweeping old paradigms away.
     
  14. ShadowMac

    ShadowMac Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Likes Received:
    2,177
    Location:
    North Dakota, USA
    Asking for a detailed description of methodology so it can be critiqued is not a logical fallacy, it is not a strawman, nor pseudoscientific. Asking for citations of research that would support the claims is a scientific approach. Asking that someone provide detailed methodology including dosing levels, methods of measurement, etc. is scientific approach. It is important so the methods can be critiqued and reviewed to determine if they were sound. You and the others in the threads you cited are asking people to take the interpretations of the events as they are presented by the poster. Science doesn't work that way. Time to review how proper research/experiments are done and consider a revision of your methodology in order to make your point. Then perhaps time can be spent discussing the findings instead of the many faults in the methods and why the conclusions may not be supported by the "pseudo" evidence.

    The sulfur cycling comment is his to make...that's what a PhD in the field gets you...an educated opinion that is more informed than some hobbyist who has been keeping aquatic plants for a few years.

    Yes, I dismiss casual observations without a sound detailed and descriptive methodology in collecting and analyzing any substantive data. You cannot definitively prove anything without it. I'm afraid this conversation will go nowhere, you are so adamantly set on your hypothesis you fail to even see the points that are being made against the evidence presented and why it is not valid. You continue to deflect and attack EI instead of discussing the problems I have presented about your approach and why definitive conclusions cannot be drawn from your observations.
     
    Icethunder likes this.
  15. Solcielo lawrencia

    Solcielo lawrencia Aspiring Aquascaper

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Likes Received:
    169
    Location:
    CA, USA
    You'd have to dismiss the entire EI concept because there is none of the things you just asked for, just someone without a PhD making such claims, because he didn't have a PhD when he developed the concept, just some hobbyist who's been keeping aquatic plants for a few years. But you buy into it because....? some hobbyist who's been keeping aquatic plants for a few years said so, and he showed pretty pictures of his plants which made people awestruck and decided to copy his methodology (which doesn't work, not even for him.)

    And again, if you really wanted to find out, you'd do a simply search. Instead, you've just been arguing and using the same old arguments Barr's used over the years which aren't even valid. And if you really wanted to find out, you'd do the experiments I'm doing. Instead, you hide behind his PhD (which he didn't even get until recently), which is a fallacy. It's not the title or educational attainment that one achieves but results of ones efforts. The proof is in the pudding.
     
  16. ShadowMac

    ShadowMac Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Likes Received:
    2,177
    Location:
    North Dakota, USA
    Again, attacking EI instead of addressing the problems with your methodology and the conclusions you want to draw from it.

    Barr did not claim to "invent" EI. He simply became a proponent at its inception. You are attacking EI's dosing levels not the concept of EI which is providing non growth limiting levels of nutrients. If you propose different ranges, then do so and provide some valid evidence for those changes. The concept of EI is applicable and a very common principle at that...Liebig's law of the minimum.

    Have you bothered to read the Barr Report newsletters? They would be a good guide in how to go about your experiments. These newsletters go back 10 years and guess what, they have sound methodology and academic citations. So even before he had his PhD he knew how to run an experiment and write a paper.

    As far as your "pudding"...You keep telling me its pudding but I have no idea how you made it and for all I know it could be mud. So straighten out your methodology provide some references for your conclusions and assumptions. As well some basic controls for your experiments. Otherwise nothing can be said about your pudding and I'm not eating it unless I'm sure its not mud.

    I am not interested in doing experiments. This hobby is for enjoyment and many take it entirely too seriously and greatly overcomplicate it. I'm also not interested in reading forum threads about hobbyists theories and poorly hatched experiments as a way to determine how to grow my aquascapes. I would be interested in reading thoroughly done research/experiments based in sound methods and supported by the literature. Why should I do the work for you? If you want to change my mind bring credible proof.
     
  17. keithgh

    keithgh Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2011
    Likes Received:
    4,723
    Location:
    Melbourne Australia
    Shawn an excellent reply.

    Keith:cat::cat:
     
    ShadowMac likes this.
  18. Solcielo lawrencia

    Solcielo lawrencia Aspiring Aquascaper

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Likes Received:
    169
    Location:
    CA, USA
    The proof is still in the pudding. While you defend it without a shred of evidence and continue to hide behind Barr, and the thousands of people who follow the dosing regime strictly have problems, you ignore it. But when I identify trace toxicity in their plants, and they reduce trace dosing, their plants grow, that's evidence that my observations have merit and the theory is supported. But you aren't interested in evidence that runs counter your prevailing ideas as you just clearly stated. So nothing I say or do would convince you and there really is no point.
     
  19. scottward

    scottward New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Australia
    e.g. Solcielo (who despite repeatedly being asked refuses to provide any photos/photo journal).
     
    ShadowMac likes this.
  20. scottward

    scottward New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Australia
    ..and as I tried to point out to Solcielo I can stick a clean bucket of clean water in my back yard and it will turn to algae soup. Algae doesn't need much in the way of nutrients. If triggered to bloom, it will grow, whether there be very little nutrients or whether their be a lot of nutrients. Let me emphasise that I said "doesn't need *much*" - I didn't say "doesn't need *any at all*".

    Limiting nutrients to supress algae growth is going to have a knock on effect to the higher order plants eventually.
     
    ShadowMac and Icethunder like this.

Share This Page

Sponsored link: