Amazon Sword

[sjolliff]

I currently use easy carbo 10ml anf TPN+ 15ml daily but the swords still get holes in the leafs

 

[nmonks]

Do you have a plec or anything similar?

I have *always* found that Amazon swords end up being chewed by such fish, admittedly perhaps all the fish is doing is rasping away algae, but the damage is done nonetheless.

Cheers, Neale

 

[Curiosity101]

I've seen bits and pieces about swords being big root feeders, then people saying that it's complete rubbish and they'll get their nutrients from the water column if they're there. But I found my swords had this problem too even though I dose AE liquid carbon and TPN+

So I started putting API Root Tabs under the roots, since then I've had no problems. And as the tabs are capped by sand there are no excess nutrients leached.

And just on the subject of root feeding vs absorption through the leaves. Simply looking at the HUGE root growth given by the swords in comparison to alot of other plants, I'm inclined to believe they rely largely on root absorption.

 

[Mr Bliss]

I've always had to use root tabs or similar in addition to liquid ferts for my swords, or they'll develop symptoms of iron, copper (maybe) and potassium deficiency. Clearly this is not the case for everyone, and probably depends on the type and amount of ferts used etc. Possibly also on the substrate, given that some of the liquid ferts will diffuse into the substrate as well, and different substrates have different effects on the bioavailability of iron, for example.

And of course, if they happen to grow right out of the tank, like my one meter hight mother E. bleheri, root fertilization becomes the only option.

 

[Dave Spencer]

I've seen bits and pieces about swords being big root feeders, then people saying that it's complete rubbish and they'll get their nutrients from the water column if they're there. But I found my swords had this problem too even though I dose AE liquid carbon and TPN+

Calling it "complete rubbish" sounds a bit harsh.

I recently posted about "heavy root feeders", basically in an attempt to prevent people from buying an expensive nutrient rich substrate, or going to the expense and hassle of buying and putting in root tabs. Dosing liquid carbon and TPN+ can constitute to a lite form of dosing if the light is too high. Off the shelf all in one ferts are essentially watered down, expensive versions of EI, PPS pro, RR or other types of dosing that use salts.

I have no experience with swords as I don`t like them, but the notorious Crypts plus others that get branded with the above phrase, can be grown in an inert substrate, provided the water column is adequately dosed. I made the sweeping statement of "heavy root feeders being a myth based on my own observations, plus the experiences of many others that grow these plants exclusively on water column dosing. There is no doubt in my mind that a nutrient rich substrate alongside water column dosing provides the best results, and using ADA Amazonia allows lazy dosers such as myself a bit of leeway in our forgetfulness. However, for those on a budget, swords etc can be grown in sand with added salts (potassium nitrate, potassium phosphate, trace).

To those that struggle to grow Crypts, swords etc in sand, all I can say is take a look at how you are dosing the water column. I am starting to move away from always using an expensive substrate (amazonia is my preferred choice), and going more for the look I want to achieve. It costs a lot to fill out a 240l tank.

And as the tabs are capped by sand there are no excess nutrients leached.

Nutrients in the substrate leach in to the water column, although I am not sure why this is an issue anyway.

And just on the subject of root feeding vs absorption through the leaves. Simply looking at the HUGE root growth given by the swords in comparison to alot of other plants, I'm inclined to believe they rely largely on root absorption.

This is a fairly logical conclusion to come to, but isn`t the surface area of sword leaves great too, and with a greater flow of water across their surface compared to roots? Maybe the roots are so large in order to anchor the plant in areas of high flow. The leaves are paddle shaped and prone to catching eddies, perhaps. I don`t really know the answer to this one. If they rely largely on root adsorption, how come some people can grow them in sand? Plants adapt to their environment, whether it be in the procduction of RuBisCo in a carbon limited environment, or placing emphasis on nutrient location in the substrate or water.

I've always had to use root tabs or similar in addition to liquid ferts for my swords, or they'll develop symptoms of iron, copper (maybe) and potassium deficiency.

I think attributing a deficiency to any given element is notoriously difficult. In a correctly dosed tank, all nutrients should be readily available to the plants. Yours was probably a little on the lite side for you to see any deficiencies.

......and probably depends on the type and amount of ferts used etc. Possibly also on the substrate, given that some of the liquid ferts will diffuse into the substrate as well, and different substrates have different effects on the bioavailability of iron, for example.

Plants have the ability to reduce Fe+++ to Fe++ to make the iron available, or they release a chelator which allowes Fe+++ to be used. Plants are extremely adaptable (but still come second to algae in most cases), and adapt to the light in the tubes we use as they change intensity and spectrum over time, along with many other factors that change in their environment.

Dave.

 

[nmonks]

I'm going to refrain from adding too much to this argument, but Dave, just to make one thing clear: the surface area of plant leaves is trivially small compared to that of their roots. In now way do leaves equal the nutrient uptake abilities of roots. The root hairs, which are the critical structures here, provide a massive surface area. They also use energy-consuming pumps to move the minerals into the cells against the diffusion gradient.

As we've argued before, those bog plants with big root systems will be better adapted to absorbing nutrients from the substrate rather than the water. That's simply a consequence of a necessary compromise between being able to function above the waterline as well as below it. True aquatic plants may well be different, and have better abilities to absorb nutrients from the water column, though I will make the point that many of these, e.g., Limnobium, Lemna and Elodea, all develop aquatic roots with lots of root hairs.

Cheers, Neale

 

[Curiosity101]

It seems like you took my post personally Dave...don't know why as your weren't mentioned by name...and I wasn't specifically refering to you either.

As for the large root system theory to keep the plant anchored. If the plant is also 'adapting to it's current environment', then my sword would have a considerably smaller root system. Its in an area of relatively low current, and only the uppermost tips show any movement. Even then it's minimal.
This is another reason I believe that the variety of sword I have is heavily reliant on root feeding.

Oh and the reason root tabs leaching quickly into the water column could be a problem is because I'm not EI dosing. Being capped with sand (as opposed to gravel), considerably slows down the leaching process due to lack of water movement.

Either ways...the OP plants are showing a deficiency, and root tabs are a tried and tested method of sorting it out.
I probably add a new tab once every couple of months, and since then have had no issues.

 

[Dave Spencer]

I'm going to refrain from adding too much to this argument, but Dave, just to make one thing clear: the surface area of plant leaves is trivially small compared to that of their roots. In now way do leaves equal the nutrient uptake abilities of roots. The root hairs, which are the critical structures here, provide a massive surface area. They also use energy-consuming pumps to move the minerals into the cells against the diffusion gradient.

I did say I didn`t know the answer to this one, Neale. I was just carrying on a little logical speculation with my own thoughts. I`ll have a little hunt around when I get the time, and see if there is a comparison between plant growth of swords in an inert substrate v a nutrient rich one. I know I still get excellent growth of Crypts in gravel.

As we've argued before, those bog plants with big root systems will be better adapted to absorbing nutrients from the substrate rather than the water. That's simply a consequence of a necessary compromise between being able to function above the waterline as well as below it. True aquatic plants may well be different, and have better abilities to absorb nutrients from the water column, though I will make the point that many of these, e.g., Limnobium, Lemna and Elodea, all develop aquatic roots with lots of root hairs.

I grow a lot of plants emersed these days, to save having to re buy plants I owned previously. None of my stems, which thrive in a marshy environment have particularly well defined root systems, and they don`t appear to have increased proportionally since I took them out of the tank, and put them in to the propogator. Maybe the physiology has changed (hair content), but that would be speculation on my part, and leave me open to another broad side. HC doesn`t appear to grow a greater root sytem out of wtaer, either. What I shall do at the next opportunity, is take some emersed growth stems from tank and compare the roots to those of the same species in its emersed state, to see any notable difference. The stem and leaf physiology changes quite a lot on most that have propogated. A lot of the plants I move out of my tanks and in to my propogator show little change in their root system, but there may be more to it than meets the eye.

It seems like you took my post personally Dave...don't know why as your weren't mentioned by name...and I wasn't specifically refering to you either.

Sorry if I gave that impression. it was just that I started a thread recently, mentioning the subject of nutrients in the substrate.

Either ways...the OP plants are showing a deficiency, and root tabs are a tried and tested method of sorting it out.

Keeping swords and other plants with large root structures in an inert substrate is also a tried and tested method. So, do we blame the method, the tools for executing the method, or do we look at how we use these tools and methods? A lot of people like to attribute poor plant health to sand, iron etc, but never question why other people don`t have these problems. There is a leap of faith to be made here, which concerns looking at ourselves, not the products or methodology. If our plants show deficiencies, then we are getting something wrong, it is not the fault of TPN+ or whatever, it is how we use them. Too many people are successful using TPN+, sand etc without an iron deficiency for it to be the products` or methods` fault.

A nutrient rich substrate with a well dosed water column is the best scenario, as it allows the substrate to last longer, allows forgetfullness in water dosing, and allows the plants to become lazy and do nothing but grow. Anybody that feels that Amazonia or root tabs are a necessity...well it is your tank, your hobby, your choice and your money. Just don`t think that it is essential, is all I am saying.

Dave.

Whoops, sorry sjolliff, the answer should be to you. Take a look at how you are dosing, if your plants are deficient. Lights v CO2 could be the biggest factor here. Dosing iron etc is easy, CO2 is more variable and, seeing as plants are 40% - 59% carbon by weight, leaf disintegration can usually be attributed to a lack of this major building block.

 

[nmonks]

Err... no... more like 95% water. If you remove the water, they may contain a lot of carbon, but that's usually described as "dry weight" or similar.

Cheers, Neale

seeing as plants are 40% - 59% carbon by weight

 

[Dave Spencer]

Err... no... more like 95% water. If you remove the water, they may contain a lot of carbon, but that's usually described as "dry weight" or similar.

Cheers, Neale

seeing as plants are 40% - 59% carbon by weight

Pedant.

Regards, Dave.

 

[nmonks]

I please guilty, m'lud.

Cheers, Neale

Pedant.
Regards, Dave.

 

[Jallen]

Back onto the question...

If you take a picture of it I can tell you if it was grown emersed. Emersed leaves go whitish yellow and develop holes. Pull those off and new leaves replace them VERY fast, even in my 0.8wpg.