Is There Such A Thing As A 'highlight' Plant?
- Thread starter SuperColey1
- Start date
The August FOTM Contest Poll is open!
🏆 Click to vote! 🏆
tlef316
Fish Fanatic
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2007
- Messages
- 148
- Reaction score
- 0
It's actually only 108 watts Link (probably only 1.4 WPG, i rounded) but thats exactly my point. Nobody really knows. I have tried some red plants (red temple and red ludwiga) only to see them grow leggy for a week or so and then melt away. Yes, there are other issues (I just have a plain sand substrate, does kent freshwater ferts and have No Co2) so i cant just fault the light. But again, i always figured my tank was technically low-med light.
I'm fighting through some issues that would indicate high light (bba on my anubias and valis) but i just attributed that to no Co2. (which it still may be).
Its all very confusing.
I think doing what SuperColey is doing here might be a good way to figure out your "real" light level. Plants are cheap after all. Get a "high light" plant and see if it gets leggy or loses its red color. I have a wacky setup with theoretically 4 wpg of halogen and metal halide, but it's placed high (~50+ cm) above the tank, the halogens are spots, my emersed Echinodorus bleheri shades everything a bit, and I'm battling cloudy water thanks to my bristlenose's soil excavation project and inadequate mechanical filtration at the moment. So I got some Ludwigia glandulosa a week ago, and it seems that despite all my misgivings I have a "high light" setup, as they've started growing surprisingly fast with dense, deep red (almost purple) leaves. I'm dying to post photos of the tank in fact, just need to deal with the cloudiness and get my hands on a camera.
Now I'm actually worried that once the cloudiness clears up again, I'll have more light than my DIY CO2 can handle. We'll see I guess.
Now I'm actually worried that once the cloudiness clears up again, I'll have more light than my DIY CO2 can handle. We'll see I guess.
aaronnorth
www.ukaps.org
That would be high light, you also have to remember tanks over 30g the wpg becomes more leanient because of light thresh hold,
OP
OP
SuperColey1
Planted Section
Beat me to it Aaron. lol. large tank needs less light etc. Dosing and lack of CO2 would have been the problem with the plants.
Chappie posting above Aaron: 4WPG, MH, DIY CO2, same sentence.....Aargh my head is going to explode. These 3 should never be in the same post. lol
I grew Bleheri (Amazon Sword) under the 0.6WPG T8 on its own!!! See it in the left hand pic in my sig. It was growing like mad,lush and healthy and I had to remove it. That was after being told it needed much more light than I was giving it!!!
I think it needs to be proven once and for all that it is not 'more' light that causes most plants to grow better. I think it is a very large possibility that it is the increased CO2 and nutrients we add alongside the light that is the actual 'need'. People tend to think I added more light and now it grows without thinking. Oh I also changed a few other things too.
One thing is for sure. Add more light and don't change anything else, the plant gets worse!!! So why do we assume it was the increased light that improved the situation?
AC
Chappie posting above Aaron: 4WPG, MH, DIY CO2, same sentence.....Aargh my head is going to explode. These 3 should never be in the same post. lol
I grew Bleheri (Amazon Sword) under the 0.6WPG T8 on its own!!! See it in the left hand pic in my sig. It was growing like mad,lush and healthy and I had to remove it. That was after being told it needed much more light than I was giving it!!!
I think it needs to be proven once and for all that it is not 'more' light that causes most plants to grow better. I think it is a very large possibility that it is the increased CO2 and nutrients we add alongside the light that is the actual 'need'. People tend to think I added more light and now it grows without thinking. Oh I also changed a few other things too.
One thing is for sure. Add more light and don't change anything else, the plant gets worse!!! So why do we assume it was the increased light that improved the situation?
AC
That's my intuition as well. I've run across reports on different forums from people who've been able to establish amazingly lush planted tanks by injecting CO2 into sometimes very poorly lit tanks.
Plants can benefit from increased CO2 concentrations up to ~1000 ppm. To me this suggests that CO2 tends to be a major limiting factor, and that a substantial energy cost is usually involved in maintaining the internal CO2 concentration in the plant cells. But of course beyond a certain point increasing CO2 won't do anything if the plants don't get enough energy (light) to go with it, and the physiology of the plant is also a factor: morphological changes such as dense vs leggy growth are probably a response to light levels alone. I suppose you could have plants that increase biomass fast due to abundant CO2 and perfect nutrient balance, but still have the morphology of light-starved plants.
edit: but SuperColey, the wpg MH and DIY CO2 weren't in the same sentence! </grammar nazi>
I'm aware that it's a potential time bomb and I'm preparing to switch to pressurized as soon as I have the money. The tank has only been up for a bit over two months now so it's probably too early to tell how it's going to work out, but so far I haven't had any algae issues after seeing some green gair algae in the first couple of weeks (I add DIY TPN+, no other chemicals). Haven't even had to wipe the front glass in a month.
Plants can benefit from increased CO2 concentrations up to ~1000 ppm. To me this suggests that CO2 tends to be a major limiting factor, and that a substantial energy cost is usually involved in maintaining the internal CO2 concentration in the plant cells. But of course beyond a certain point increasing CO2 won't do anything if the plants don't get enough energy (light) to go with it, and the physiology of the plant is also a factor: morphological changes such as dense vs leggy growth are probably a response to light levels alone. I suppose you could have plants that increase biomass fast due to abundant CO2 and perfect nutrient balance, but still have the morphology of light-starved plants.
edit: but SuperColey, the wpg MH and DIY CO2 weren't in the same sentence! </grammar nazi>
I'm aware that it's a potential time bomb and I'm preparing to switch to pressurized as soon as I have the money. The tank has only been up for a bit over two months now so it's probably too early to tell how it's going to work out, but so far I haven't had any algae issues after seeing some green gair algae in the first couple of weeks (I add DIY TPN+, no other chemicals). Haven't even had to wipe the front glass in a month.
tlef316
Fish Fanatic
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2007
- Messages
- 148
- Reaction score
- 0
wow, learn something new every day. so you're saying if i switched over to a more advanced dosing method (right now i only have flourish root tabs, kent freshwater ferts and seachem potasium) and CO2 (pressurized) that i could grow any plant i wanted?
Also, i should probably switch over to canister filters too.
OP
OP
SuperColey1
Planted Section
I am suggesting rather than saying. No proof for me to say!!! Even if this experiment is succesful to the point that the plant is as vibrant red as you would get in a 'traditional' high light tank there are several more questions to ask:
1 - Is T5HO lighting more than 2 x the equivalent of the WPG rule making this experiment worthless?
2 - Is it just this plant that is not actually a highlight plant?
3 - Is it just my setup that lets me grow plants at lower than their 'suggested' lighting?
So whilst I am experimenting to see if I can grow this plant under 0.9WPG T5HO it will not answer the threads question, more open the door of discussion on why it was possible!!!
I'm not saying a more advanced dosing regime at all. What I am talking about is people associating more light with growth of particular plants when in fact it could be the 'upping' of their dosing levels and CO2 and/or upgrading their equipment circulation/flow wise when they get more light. Most people upgrade their lights and then get bigger filters, better CO2 injection etc.
I am still 'lean dosing' this tank on PMDD+PO4.
Of course you would need very good circulation (10-20x tank volume) to circulate the CO2 and nutrient properly and a reasonable amount of lighting.
Basically supply everything that you should have on a 4WPG tank except the 4WPG itself. No chance of defficiency this way. It will be a worthless experiment if there is any defficiency because then we would suggest it was the lighting when in fact it was defficiency that cause the deterioration
AC
1 - Is T5HO lighting more than 2 x the equivalent of the WPG rule making this experiment worthless?
2 - Is it just this plant that is not actually a highlight plant?
3 - Is it just my setup that lets me grow plants at lower than their 'suggested' lighting?
So whilst I am experimenting to see if I can grow this plant under 0.9WPG T5HO it will not answer the threads question, more open the door of discussion on why it was possible!!!
I'm not saying a more advanced dosing regime at all. What I am talking about is people associating more light with growth of particular plants when in fact it could be the 'upping' of their dosing levels and CO2 and/or upgrading their equipment circulation/flow wise when they get more light. Most people upgrade their lights and then get bigger filters, better CO2 injection etc.
I am still 'lean dosing' this tank on PMDD+PO4.
Of course you would need very good circulation (10-20x tank volume) to circulate the CO2 and nutrient properly and a reasonable amount of lighting.
Basically supply everything that you should have on a 4WPG tank except the 4WPG itself. No chance of defficiency this way. It will be a worthless experiment if there is any defficiency because then we would suggest it was the lighting when in fact it was defficiency that cause the deterioration
AC
aaronnorth
www.ukaps.org
are these tubes 'special' plant grow tubes? or anything else that claims to improve growth?
Really, all Americans? Have you read my journals?
This is an interesting experiment SuperColey. I've grown R. macrandra before, it reverts to a more crypt-like read, or a dull Nymphaea color. Not quite so intense, but not unattractive. A. reineckii was actually a brighter red when I grew both in the same tank.
llj
OP
OP
SuperColey1
Planted Section
Aaron. The tube has : "Plant Grow" printed on it. It is a 4500K. Most tubes in this range have plant something or other names but we know we can grow just as well with 'daylight' so I would discount this theory. lol
Sorry Llj, sweeping generalisation there. You are the only one who doesn't follow the herd. lol
You are saying you have already done this? What light, results, any views?
AC
Sorry Llj, sweeping generalisation there. You are the only one who doesn't follow the herd. lol
You are saying you have already done this? What light, results, any views?
AC
aaronnorth
www.ukaps.org
ok, I was wondering if it didnt just to prove to everyone who still believes that plant tubes are necassary really are not! It would go even better with it being R.Macranda
never mind lol.
OP
OP
SuperColey1
Planted Section
Arcadia Original Tropical is 4000K and would you grow plants under one of them? Fits the pink light and K suggestions!!!
AC
AC
OP
OP
SuperColey1
Planted Section
I said I would update this weekly and I will try to from now on. this is after 2 weeks:
Th new growth starts out pretty similar to Ludwigia Repens in colour, a yellowy/pink peachy colour. It seems to turn red though after a while.
Each stem has new growth and is noticeably slower than when grown in a highlight tank but so far it hasn't turned leggy. The only noticeable difference is the speed of growth.
As you can see the original leaves from the stems are starting to melt but with this plant having such fragile leaves I expected this to happen. When you get this plant almost all of the leaves have damage of some sort.
As for the colour I am expecting the yellowy/pink growth to turn as red as the rest because it is now starting to peek out from beneath the shadow of the needle ferns!!
In summary so far so good. 2 weeks in and looking healthy, most stems losing leaves lower down where there is minimal light but new growth looking good. This should be OK because the stems at the back will only have the top section visible.
AC
Th new growth starts out pretty similar to Ludwigia Repens in colour, a yellowy/pink peachy colour. It seems to turn red though after a while.
Each stem has new growth and is noticeably slower than when grown in a highlight tank but so far it hasn't turned leggy. The only noticeable difference is the speed of growth.
As you can see the original leaves from the stems are starting to melt but with this plant having such fragile leaves I expected this to happen. When you get this plant almost all of the leaves have damage of some sort.
As for the colour I am expecting the yellowy/pink growth to turn as red as the rest because it is now starting to peek out from beneath the shadow of the needle ferns!!
In summary so far so good. 2 weeks in and looking healthy, most stems losing leaves lower down where there is minimal light but new growth looking good. This should be OK because the stems at the back will only have the top section visible.
AC
tlef316
Fish Fanatic
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2007
- Messages
- 148
- Reaction score
- 0
thanks for the update. i'll be watching this one with interest. i've begun the process of upgrading my tank equipment (just received my first of probably 2 Eheim 2217's) and if i could do it without going to a 3 WPG lighting system, i'd like to do so.
Similar threads
Most reactions
-
384 -
235 -
204 -
170 -
155 -
130 -
125 -
125 -
110 -
70 -
69 -
67 -
56 -
52 -
50