Some more simple notions to help understand things:
Aquatic Plants define the system, not nutrients.
That has long been the issue for aquarists mind set.
Biologist? Ole? Troels? Myself? Claus? George Bowes? Bill Haller? Barko? Anderson?
We have little issue there.
We know if you add more nutrients to dense growth of aquatic weeds, you get more weeds.........
not algae.............
There is no evidence that shows when there is good plant density, that adding PO4 or NO3 causes algae or that naturally high levels induce algae.
If you remove the plants, then something will grow............algae.
Allelopathy argument was attacked well from Ole's refute.
I took a more experimental approach. I used a standard protocol used in Allelopathic research, which, unlike most in this hobby, Diana included..........I've actually done research and worked on. But it need not be at the lab, you can do this method yourself.
Then you'll know. There's awlays some clown that will say it only takes itsy bitsy amounts etc, and that the AC will not remove it etc, nor massive water changes, continuous flow through systems etc(think rivers and other unidirectional systems, better yet, go look at one with plants), there's always some doubt in everything, sorry, there's no "ultimate truth", however, the massive body of evidence and likely hood is what we go by...........and it clearly suggest another mechansim.
An open mind is well and all, as long as your brains do not fall out.
Adding to this arguement, which was also different than Ole's refute.........what are the odds all 300 aquatic plant species produce a wide range of chemicals that all act the same on all algae in aquariums? Billions to one..................
That, the research, the experimental design and test all strongly suggest it's not a factor.
It's up to Diana to show that it is rather than merely adding speculation. However, she did say it was speculation......and a possibility, not fact etc.
Folks read it and think and misinterpt it, same deal with what I write. Many assume that EI is rigid and overdosing etc.......it's not nor ever was meant to be taken that way, it's goal is to provide non limiting nutrients and gets around test kits, a huge issue.
Why algae is caused can be many things.
Reduced current, NH4, poor CO2 leading to poor NH4 uptake, overloading fish tanks/food waste, high light etc.
Non CO2 tanks can run at much lower reuced rates of nutrients than can a CO2 enriched plant tank............and why not?
Th grow 10-20X slower, so 5ppm might be fine for a high light CO2 planted tank, whereas 0.5ppm, beyond the resolution of most all NO3 test kits..............for a non CO2 tank..........
Rate define demand and demand will influence uptake.
A residual level will be hard to track when it's smaller and more subtle.
This is why it's good to use CO2/high light methods and then go back to look at the lower light non CO2 method.
It takes less time and fewer things can go wrong, relationships are easier for us to see.
Then using the knowledge with high light/CO2, we apply to the more natural approach.
Regards,
Tom Barr
Regards,
Tom Barr
