Bought myself a new tank (aquael 60 bow front) its 10 gal with a 15w T8 light. Would this be classed as low light? I'm quite happy with low light, just need to know so I can choose suitable plants.
Is This Low Light?
- Thread starter Munroco
- Start date
The December FOTM Contest Poll is open!
🏆 Click to vote! 🏆
I would call that moderate light. I had a 10g previously with a single T8 fluorescent tube; my present 10g has incandescent light. There are a number of plants that will manage very well in your tank. Just make sure you get a decent tube; I would suspect the one that came with it is not, but then it might be fine.
For good tubes, here I would look for a ZooMed Ultra Sun, or the Hagen Life-Glo. The latter is likely to be a bit more in cost, but the former is just fine. The tube will need replacement every 12-15 months, whichever you get. There are likely other comparable tubes that I am not familiar with, esp as you are in the UK and I'm in NA.
If you want some plant ideas, just ask.
Byron.
For good tubes, here I would look for a ZooMed Ultra Sun, or the Hagen Life-Glo. The latter is likely to be a bit more in cost, but the former is just fine. The tube will need replacement every 12-15 months, whichever you get. There are likely other comparable tubes that I am not familiar with, esp as you are in the UK and I'm in NA.
If you want some plant ideas, just ask.
Byron.
TwoTankAmin
Fish Connoisseur
I have to disagree here. I would consider it low light unless you have a high quality reflector. Cylinder shaped tubes emit light in all directions. This mean at least 1/2 of the light is going in the wrong direction. Without a decent reflector, you are barely able to get over 7.5 watts going into the tank. I do not consider this to be a medium/moderate light levels. This is magnified by the shallowness of the tank.
Oddly enough, both shallow and deep tanks need extra light, but for different reasons. In the shallow tank the problem becomes one of dispersal vs distance. Basically the light reaches the substrate before it is able to spread out enough to proved good light to all areas of the tank. This can leave parts of a tank under lighted. Usually, the solution to this problem is not higher wattage but rather more bulbs placed to insure desired light levels reach all areas of the tank. Or one can raise the light fixture some distance above the tank to allow a greater distance before the light hits bottom (this may require more watts).
With deep tanks the need would be higher wattage to insure sufficient light penetrates that depth of water.
Oddly enough, both shallow and deep tanks need extra light, but for different reasons. In the shallow tank the problem becomes one of dispersal vs distance. Basically the light reaches the substrate before it is able to spread out enough to proved good light to all areas of the tank. This can leave parts of a tank under lighted. Usually, the solution to this problem is not higher wattage but rather more bulbs placed to insure desired light levels reach all areas of the tank. Or one can raise the light fixture some distance above the tank to allow a greater distance before the light hits bottom (this may require more watts).
With deep tanks the need would be higher wattage to insure sufficient light penetrates that depth of water.
OP
OP
Thanks guys.
Byron, I'd imagine that the tube that came with the tank will be bog standard at best. Plant ideas would be very welcome. I'm planning to hardscape with stones from the beach and corkscrew hazel cuttings from my sisters garden.
Don't fancy buying a reflector, could use tinfoil I suppose, but as I said I'm not too bothered about having more light, I just want to know so I can plan what plants to use. So any suggestions are welcome. I'm gonna do a journal of setting this up. so there will be more details of the look I'm trying to achieve on that.
Byron, I'd imagine that the tube that came with the tank will be bog standard at best. Plant ideas would be very welcome. I'm planning to hardscape with stones from the beach and corkscrew hazel cuttings from my sisters garden.
Don't fancy buying a reflector, could use tinfoil I suppose, but as I said I'm not too bothered about having more light, I just want to know so I can plan what plants to use. So any suggestions are welcome. I'm gonna do a journal of setting this up. so there will be more details of the look I'm trying to achieve on that.
While TTA's points are certainly valid, I am sticking to what I said previously. The terms low, moderate and high light are very subjective, and like most subjective terms and most common names of fish, they really only mean something relatively specific to the person using them and not necessarily to others. Which is why such terms/names are risky to toss around. But, I will stick to my guns, and say that with a decent tube in the fixture you will be able to grow thriving plants that are not high-light requiring, if that puts it any better. You've asked for some species, so this will also illustrate what I am thinking of in terms of moderate light.
Next point is water parameters. If you have moderately hard (or harder) water, which for my purposes here means a GH of around 8 and above, Vallisneria is one plant to consider. The smaller-growing variety with the "corkscrew" leaves will likely grow to the surface, and can form a nice backdrop. I have little success with this plant in my very soft water. Of course, you can add a hard mineral supplement (like Seachem's Equilibrium or the new liquid product in their AquaVitro line, or a similar liquid in the Brightwell Aquatics' line). [Fish considerations are very important here, as in a small tank fish will likely be wild caught and more demanding of water parameters, but it is an option depending.]
With moderately hard or soft water, the pygmy chain sword and the chain sword (slightly taller in growth) will thrive. The taller species, which is botanically Helanthium bolivianus [previously in Echinodorus, and likely E. quadricostatis or one of the several "species" which have turned out now to not be distinct species at all, lol], will likely also grow to the surface like the Vallisneria, so a very similar sort of plant. The shorter Helanthium tenellum (prev. Echinodorus tenellus) remains shorter. Both will send out runners everywhere once they settle. These are my favourite "substrate" plants. Other options include some of the crypts, though their fussiness (melting at the slightest change in whatever) is sometimes a nuisance. Sagittaria subulata is very similar to the Helanthium species mentioned; in my tanks, this plant never grows like it is said to, rapidly spreading via runners like the chain swords. And another plant along similar lines, but smaller still, is the microsword, Lilaeopsis brasiliensis. This does much better with more light and nutrients including CO2, but I have had it in my 70g for several years now and it is still "alive" though very slow to spread; quite recently it has sent out runners and little plants are spreading a bit. But that means less fuss in thinning out, and it does make a nice little plant right at the front.
The fore-going are all substrate rooted; another plant that will work is Java Fern, and also Anubias (the smaller species), and of course Java Moss. All of these attached to chunks of wood, or rock, can be very effective. And floating plants I would not leave out. Frogbit gets large for a 10g, but Water Lettuce can be kept smaller by regular thinning. Salvinia is a nice floating plant. And a few stem plants do well floating, one of my favourites being Brazilian Pennywort; its leaves will grow on the surface facing upward, and the roots downward, providing an ideal surface cover for many fish. And it is easy to keep pruned, as it will cover the surface in little time once it is settled.
I have used the common Amazon sword, but after a slow start these tend to suddenly grow, and if left would easily fill the entire space of a 10g and beyond (above) so it can work as a temporary specimen plant for a few months. There is a smaller-growing "species" that Rataj described as Echinodorus amazonicus, but recent phylogenetic analysis has proven this not to be a distinct species; this and the former E. bleherae along with a handful of other "species," is now known to all be one, E. griesebachii. Why some of these grow larger than some others is not exactly known, but some botanists have suggested it could be due to environmental differences in their habitat. There are similar occurrences in fish; the two quite different forms of the cardinal tetra for example, yet they are classified as the same species, Parachierodon axelrodi, and phylogenetic analysis has (as far as I know) confirmed the one species. If fish can vary from location to location, so can plants.
Hope this is of use to you, feel free to ask whatever. I'm attaching some photos to illustrate how well these plants grow under this "moderate" light. The first two are of my 10g at two different stages, the first about four years ago and the second recent. And the third photo is my 29g as it now appears, which has a single T8 Life-Glo 20w tube, and is a deeper and longer and wider tank--yet the plants are thriving; that is the pygmy chain sword all over the place, and one Amazon sword which is growing and may have to come out eventually, plus Water Lettuce and some Pennywort covering the surface. Even with a good surface cover, the lower plants grow nicely as you can see.
Byron.
Next point is water parameters. If you have moderately hard (or harder) water, which for my purposes here means a GH of around 8 and above, Vallisneria is one plant to consider. The smaller-growing variety with the "corkscrew" leaves will likely grow to the surface, and can form a nice backdrop. I have little success with this plant in my very soft water. Of course, you can add a hard mineral supplement (like Seachem's Equilibrium or the new liquid product in their AquaVitro line, or a similar liquid in the Brightwell Aquatics' line). [Fish considerations are very important here, as in a small tank fish will likely be wild caught and more demanding of water parameters, but it is an option depending.]
With moderately hard or soft water, the pygmy chain sword and the chain sword (slightly taller in growth) will thrive. The taller species, which is botanically Helanthium bolivianus [previously in Echinodorus, and likely E. quadricostatis or one of the several "species" which have turned out now to not be distinct species at all, lol], will likely also grow to the surface like the Vallisneria, so a very similar sort of plant. The shorter Helanthium tenellum (prev. Echinodorus tenellus) remains shorter. Both will send out runners everywhere once they settle. These are my favourite "substrate" plants. Other options include some of the crypts, though their fussiness (melting at the slightest change in whatever) is sometimes a nuisance. Sagittaria subulata is very similar to the Helanthium species mentioned; in my tanks, this plant never grows like it is said to, rapidly spreading via runners like the chain swords. And another plant along similar lines, but smaller still, is the microsword, Lilaeopsis brasiliensis. This does much better with more light and nutrients including CO2, but I have had it in my 70g for several years now and it is still "alive" though very slow to spread; quite recently it has sent out runners and little plants are spreading a bit. But that means less fuss in thinning out, and it does make a nice little plant right at the front.
The fore-going are all substrate rooted; another plant that will work is Java Fern, and also Anubias (the smaller species), and of course Java Moss. All of these attached to chunks of wood, or rock, can be very effective. And floating plants I would not leave out. Frogbit gets large for a 10g, but Water Lettuce can be kept smaller by regular thinning. Salvinia is a nice floating plant. And a few stem plants do well floating, one of my favourites being Brazilian Pennywort; its leaves will grow on the surface facing upward, and the roots downward, providing an ideal surface cover for many fish. And it is easy to keep pruned, as it will cover the surface in little time once it is settled.
I have used the common Amazon sword, but after a slow start these tend to suddenly grow, and if left would easily fill the entire space of a 10g and beyond (above) so it can work as a temporary specimen plant for a few months. There is a smaller-growing "species" that Rataj described as Echinodorus amazonicus, but recent phylogenetic analysis has proven this not to be a distinct species; this and the former E. bleherae along with a handful of other "species," is now known to all be one, E. griesebachii. Why some of these grow larger than some others is not exactly known, but some botanists have suggested it could be due to environmental differences in their habitat. There are similar occurrences in fish; the two quite different forms of the cardinal tetra for example, yet they are classified as the same species, Parachierodon axelrodi, and phylogenetic analysis has (as far as I know) confirmed the one species. If fish can vary from location to location, so can plants.
Hope this is of use to you, feel free to ask whatever. I'm attaching some photos to illustrate how well these plants grow under this "moderate" light. The first two are of my 10g at two different stages, the first about four years ago and the second recent. And the third photo is my 29g as it now appears, which has a single T8 Life-Glo 20w tube, and is a deeper and longer and wider tank--yet the plants are thriving; that is the pygmy chain sword all over the place, and one Amazon sword which is growing and may have to come out eventually, plus Water Lettuce and some Pennywort covering the surface. Even with a good surface cover, the lower plants grow nicely as you can see.
Byron.
Attachments
TwoTankAmin
Fish Connoisseur
I have kept two different compact swords over the years. One I have had now for about 13 years in two different tanks- Echinorodus bleheri 'Compacta'. Here it is a few years back in a 29 gal tank.
The other one as an even smaller sword, Echinodorus parviflorus var. 'Tropica' (http
/www.aquaticcommunity.com/tr/Echinodorusparviflorus.php)
The other one as an even smaller sword, Echinodorus parviflorus var. 'Tropica' (http
/www.aquaticcommunity.com/tr/Echinodorusparviflorus.php)
I am very fond of E. parviflorus 'Tropica' and used to have several in my 115g. They were fine for several months, and one even sent out an inflorescence which formed adventitious plants. Then for reasons I still can't fathom, they just withered down to nothing. I chucked them when I realized there were no roots so nothing was likely to re-grow from the rotted rhizome.
I'd forgotten about this plant, but one as a specimen in your (Neil) 10g would be nice, if you can find it; a nice contrast plant as it has very dark green leaves that are ovalish and crinkled. I'm glad TTA mentioned this lovely plant.
As TTA's linked site says, this plant was cultivated by Jacobsen & Holm-Nielsen in 1985 from the "species" Echinodorus parviflorus, and the cultivar looks nothing at all like the original. This was another of Rataj's "species" that has turned out to be invalid--it is in fact one of six former "species" that are now synonymous with E. griesbachii.
Echinodorus grisebachii is a highly polymorphic and phenotypically plastic species. Rataj (1975) split this taxon into several distinct species (there were more than 60 in his 2004 revision), which were synonymised by Haynes & Holm-Nielsen (1994). There remained much confusion until the Finnish botanist Samuel Lehtonen's extensive phylogenetic analysis of the entire genus in 2006 and several subsequent papers by Dr. Lehtonen and co-authors. Lehtonen's taxonomic reclassification of the genus has much in common with the earlier proposed by Haynes & Holm-Nielsen (1994), Echinodorus was recognized as holding 28 valid species, and is monophyletic.
Just for fun, the "species" now synonymised with E. griesbachii were E. amazonicus, E. bleherae, E. amphibious, E. gracilis, E. parviflorus, and E. eglandulosus.
Byron.
I'd forgotten about this plant, but one as a specimen in your (Neil) 10g would be nice, if you can find it; a nice contrast plant as it has very dark green leaves that are ovalish and crinkled. I'm glad TTA mentioned this lovely plant.
As TTA's linked site says, this plant was cultivated by Jacobsen & Holm-Nielsen in 1985 from the "species" Echinodorus parviflorus, and the cultivar looks nothing at all like the original. This was another of Rataj's "species" that has turned out to be invalid--it is in fact one of six former "species" that are now synonymous with E. griesbachii.
Echinodorus grisebachii is a highly polymorphic and phenotypically plastic species. Rataj (1975) split this taxon into several distinct species (there were more than 60 in his 2004 revision), which were synonymised by Haynes & Holm-Nielsen (1994). There remained much confusion until the Finnish botanist Samuel Lehtonen's extensive phylogenetic analysis of the entire genus in 2006 and several subsequent papers by Dr. Lehtonen and co-authors. Lehtonen's taxonomic reclassification of the genus has much in common with the earlier proposed by Haynes & Holm-Nielsen (1994), Echinodorus was recognized as holding 28 valid species, and is monophyletic.
Just for fun, the "species" now synonymised with E. griesbachii were E. amazonicus, E. bleherae, E. amphibious, E. gracilis, E. parviflorus, and E. eglandulosus.
Byron.
Similar threads
Most reactions
-
372 -
203 -
202 -
191 -
185 -
177 -
159 -
155 -
142 -
108 -
94 -
93 -
84 -
81 -
79