Aren't those plastic plants?
Some things to consider, less light= less work, easier to balance CO2/stable nutrient levels, less intense algae growth more time to respond to any algae that you do see.
Yea, you have to wait a bit longer, but most are not so concerned with increased growth rates.
Now if I just get folks on my side of the pond to use less light
Been trying for 8 years.
Nice to see the HC rug.
I have not tried to grow it in plain sand yet.
But there is no reason why it cannot grow well there either.
As long as you are consistent with maintaining a tank, most folks can have nice tank with a number of methods.
The issue many appear to have is that when they personally fail with a method, they blame the method, not themselves.
I blame myself if I failed with a method and go back and see what I can to fix it. This is not just EI, this applies to every method. You will see me discuss trade offs with methods, but not that it does not work or is bad for fish etc and other general ambiguous commentary.
Later, you know what controls the resiliency of your tank based on the method chosen.
A stable aquatic state takes a fair amount of energy to degrade it.
Likewise, it takes a fair amount, often a lot of energy to get back to a decent happy state.
BTW, you might find this image useful from Gaiser et al, 2005 on the biomass of attached algae/periphyton in the shallow vegetative Everglades whicgh is a tropical system with algae and plants and is naturally extremely low PO4, far less than anything anyone in the hobby can accurately measure:
Look at pages 24-25-26.
Someone is crazy running around claiming algae is induced by P, but it ain't me.
These folks study nothing but algae and fungi and bacteria in aquatic wetlands with plants.
But what do they know?
Good grief, I still get clowns that argument with me over this.
I know I've tested well, James would have a hard time explaining, as would most anyone, how he, I, the Everglades, hundreds iof lakes that have both plants and algae, have no relation of a decline in the algae with increased P loading.
So why do folks claim this even today even with overwhelming research to the contrary?
Bad experiments?
No.
Never did the experiment?
Yea. Mainly.
How'd they assume that? Misapplied research references.....if they even bothered to look them up in the context of aquatic plants, high biomass ratio to tank volume, tropical shallow lakes. rivers and streams(eg Brasil and Florida).
The research, and it's very good, is there.
They just too lazy and hard headed to look it up.
If you wonder why I get aggressive or seem combative, I have low tolerance for folks that lack critical thinking and want to play semantical games. I supoort what I say with modeling, experimentation and background support. I use recent research as well, not something from the 1970's.
Things have changed in the last 30-40 years
If they are too lazy to do the test, it's simple as well, then they have no business debating whether it works or not.
If they claim they have support or the contrary, nothing is stopping them from posting it(they never do predictably)
If they make a hypothesis that PO4 excess = algae, they need to show and prove that is a correct statement or at least one possible cause.
I've been waiting for 12 years for anyone to show otherwise.
But it's kinda hard to do when you add 2-4ppm of PO4 and still no algae blooms.........
So when they know that, why do they still spread bad, outdated information that does not help hobby, or the hobbyists?
I just don't get it.
But I'm a bad guy for that approach........?
Oh well, if so, then that is what I am
Regards,
Tom Barr
