Fertilizer: Liquid Vs Roots Vs Substrate

[waterdrop]

Please compare/contrast aquatic plant fertilization as accomplished by liquid dosing vs. root uptake deposits vs. plant-intended substrate products.

(For example, my novice guess so far (from reading here) is that aquatic plants are more or less equally good at taking in nutrition from either leaves or roots, thus leading to the advice to just go ahead and use both liquid dosing and root deposits. Also have seen comments that substrates like seachem flourite or eco-complete are just making a couple of trace metals available to the roots.)

Am I remotely on the right track with this understanding? Are there other fertilization fundamentals with respect to the comparison of these three methods that you could draw my attention to? For "easy" plants in low-light situations, are there still special considerations for individual types of plants (wrt to these 3 divisions of fertiliation?) Could all aquatic plant fertilization fit within these 3 categories or am I missing any categories?

~~waterdrop~~

 

[Dorkhedeos]

Ill take a guess at it as I dont really know much about plants. I believe that the plant substrates are supposed to be like sponges that hold in nutrients because sand and gravel dont really do this very well. I think root fertilizers are for slow release, so you only need to dose whenever the stick runs out, and liquid you just dose every day or whenever. I am guessing that liquid also targets the leaves and the stem for like java moss and similar plants more than the ones you bury in your substrate. Either way, I guess they are getting nutrients through the entire plant because the fertilizer has to be dispersed into the water and the substrate evenly eventually right? Just my guess, somebody come correct me

 

[Dave Spencer]

Plants are capable of taking nutrients through their leaves, as well as roots. Microsorum sp, Riccia etc are obvious exceptions.

In my experience, the best scenario is to have a nutrient rich substrate and water column working together. This method prolongs the life of the expensive substrate and allows errors to be made when dosing the water column; as in forgetfulness.

A lot is made of heavy root feeders, and how they need root tabs if they are planted in an inert substrate. Personally, I am skeptical of this because I grow Crypts and Pogostemon helferi in inert sand, but with an EI dosed water column. That`s not to say that they wouldn`t do better in something such as ADA aqua soil.

When planted tank enthusiasts fork out a lot of money on a nutrient rich substrate, they are buying a substrate with a cation exchange capacity (CEC). The CEC of the substrate attracts important, positively charged nutrients such as K+, Mg++, Ca++ and NH4+. It is this reservoir of nutrients that allows a little slackness in dosing the water column.

Fertiliser regimens are dictated by light levels. What you dose, how much and how often are all judged on light intensity. Whenever considering taking up the planted tank hobby, think light levels first and foremost. Lighting is the engine that determines how fast your planted tank will go.

Dave.

 

[Wolfenrook]

The majority of aquatic plants feed principly from the leaf and stem. However some plants do benifit from been fed at the roots as well (cryptocoryne and echinodorus species for example). As to plant substrates they are mainly used as a source of gradually released nutrients into the water. Root ferts do this as well, so to be perfectly honest I tend to use root balls every 12 months or so, and dose a complete liquid fert daily. A good plant substrate just gives you extra peace of mind that should you be lazy with your dosing your plants will still get most of what they need, and I use root balls for the same purpose, plus I find that the clay in these gives plants something to root into.

I don't however use root tablets at all. Liquid ferts will make it into the substrate anyway on convection currents and plain old diffusion anyway.

Ade

 

[waterdrop]

All right then, plenty of really good info there for me to think about, many thanks.

As my profile says there, I'm a "re" beginner, returning to fishkeeping after many years. I've been having to absorb the whole shock of fishless cycling, so have concentrated on that first. I'm terrible at plants (just a feeling so far) and so this post was just some homework for me to help build up to the point where I can post up my real beginner thread and try to get started knowing plants better.

So, are you willing to throw out some favorites that you have among the root balls and root sticks? Also, do any of those carry concerns for the fish or aspects of the aquarium other than the plants?

~~waterdrop~~

 

[Wolfenrook]

I last used JBL 7Balls, seem to be working fine with no detrimental effects on fish or shrimp. I have also in the past used Dupla root balls with no detrimental effects to fish.

Ade

 

[waterdrop]

I know its not the root balls but doesn't one of the JBL or ADA substrates do something like change the pH of the water(or make some other change, can't remember) and it takes a few weeks to settle down? There was some discussion of it over in the beginner forum but I can't remember the details now...

~~waterdrop~~

 

[SuperColey1]

ADA Aquasoil. leeches ammonia for the first few weeks so you have to do heavy water changes and let it dissipate before adding livestock.

Aquagrit changes the Ph.

Andy

 

[waterdrop]

Thanks very much.

 

[Dave Spencer]

There is now ADA Amazonia II, which has the same characteristics as normal Amazonia, but is better suited to people with alkaline water, as it lowers kH and pH. It also doesn`t give the water an initial yellowy tinge like ordinary Amazonia (something I never experienced).

The general concensus of opinion is that the original is superior because it doesn`t break up as easily, and is less dusty. Jeff Senske distributes ADA products in the US and he prefers the original, too.

You do realise that ADA aqua soil is expensive stuff, WD? Unless you are getting serious about a planted tank, there are cheaper alternatives to consider, such as inert sand.

Dave.

 

[assemblywizard]

Please compare/contrast aquatic plant fertilization as accomplished by liquid dosing vs. root uptake deposits vs. plant-intended substrate products.

(For example, my novice guess so far (from reading here) is that aquatic plants are more or less equally good at taking in nutrition from either leaves or roots, thus leading to the advice to just go ahead and use both liquid dosing and root deposits. Also have seen comments that substrates like seachem flourite or eco-complete are just making a couple of trace metals available to the roots.)

Am I remotely on the right track with this understanding? Are there other fertilization fundamentals with respect to the comparison of these three methods that you could draw my attention to? For "easy" plants in low-light situations, are there still special considerations for individual types of plants (wrt to these 3 divisions of fertiliation?) Could all aquatic plant fertilization fit within these 3 categories or am I missing any categories?

~~waterdrop~~

Even in "normal" gardening, the benefits of folier feeding are well known--quick growth, a "boost" to nutrients lacking in the soil--even for micro-nutrients ... I have seen the effects of folier feeding on Marijuanna plants vs. hydropoinic feeding alone ... remarkable (no, I DON'T smoke it, just have friends who do--nothing like a good beer here!)

Regards,
JS

 

[waterdrop]

<...>You do realise that ADA aqua soil is expensive stuff, WD? Unless you are getting serious about a planted tank, there are cheaper alternatives to consider, such as inert sand.

Dave.

My seriousness swings back and forth. I'm serious enough about trying to gather info that I joined the AGA just to get the DVD of the back issues (after starting the read the paper ones I could get.) But on the other hand I only have my young son's tank to play with and the family is not ready for me to get too serious, so I'm sure I won't be able to do much for a while. I just find it fascinating that your whole hobby exists! I even hope to go to the Atlanta meeting in November.

How would inert sand differ for the plants from my seachem flourite?

BTW, I know I need to do my homework and look at the EI article that's pinned - plenty of PNK info I believe.

My water is extremely soft (KH=0) and my pH is about 7.5 or so. To me this seems a difficult combination to think about. If the pH were more acid it seems like I might have a great situation for plants and various tetras.

~~waterdrop~~

 

[vinylman]

Aquagrit changes the Ph.

Andy

Really? I don't recall seeing that on the bucket. Upwards or downwards?.

 

[tangokitty]

http/www.plantedtank.net/forums/ Try this site for tons of help from experts! (not saying that people here are not experts)

 

[SuperColey1]

Aquagrit changes the Ph.
Andy

Really? I don't recall seeing that on the bucket. Upwards or downwards?.

There is Aquagrit (green bag) that changes the Ph downward and then there is Underworld Aquagrit (Orange bag) which doesn't. they are 2 different manufacturers.

The most common one on the internet is the green one which does alter the Ph. MA sell the underworld version. Pricewise the green one is half the price.

My water is extremely soft (KH=0) and my pH is about 7.5 or so. To me this seems a difficult combination to think about. If the pH were more acid it seems like I might have a great situation for plants and various tetras.

Not sure on the KH issue here. That is something Dave or Wolfen will have to answer. 7.5 would be fine for both Tetras and plants depending on the KH issue. Latest theories are that plants actually do better in moderately hard water!!!

Andy