Planting A Tank From Scratch?

[Cooper2085]

What substrate would be best? Im looking at using plants that are hardy and can grow in standard aquarium lighting conditions with liquid food.

Im looking to make this easy to do

Can anyone recommend any plants, im looking for short broad leafed plants.

 

[SJ2K]

One of the best planting substrates is Eco-Complete And broad leaf easy plants, amazon sword is one and would do very well in eco-complete.

 

[aaronnorth]

Aqua soil is better, but for a cheap substrate use tetraplant:

aquasoil & eco complete

tetraplant

 

[ICEEGRL]

I am getting better results with flourite black mixed with flourite black sand than with the eco-complete.

Giant hygro, onion plants, jungle val, and most sword plants should do well for larger leafs.
Are you only planning to have large plants?

Oops... I missed the short part!
Those all get tall. I was going from the amazon sword recommendation above.
anubias are a good short plant. Some crypts have a short broad leaf. I can't think of any more right now. I know there are more though...

 

[Wolfenrook]

What substrate would be best? Im looking at using plants that are hardy and can grow in standard aquarium lighting conditions with liquid food.

Im looking to make this easy to do

Can anyone recommend any plants, im looking for short broad leafed plants.

Completely ignoring the previous posts (which are also correct), the best substrate for the conditions you describe is plain old fine quartz gravel. As to good short broad leaved plants I can recommend echinodorus parviflorus and cryptocoryne ciliata, both of which will grow in plain gravel and even better with liquid fertiliser dosing.

Fancy substrates aren't actually essential for most plants to grow, especially if you keep on top of dosing your plant ferts. I grow a LOT of different plants in a mix of fine lime free gravel, API laterite, aquarium peat and activated carbon. You only have to look at my pics that I recently posted to see how well this works.

Ade

 

[KraKen]

The substrate described in the above post would be great for a low light tank suchas the one you described but I would suggest using sand instead of gravel and ditching the peat or replacing it with something like coconut husk since peat is terrible for the environment.

 

[lljdma06]

I just use plain inert gravel, a small grain 1-3mm tops. It is almost like course sand, but without the compaction, and it is an excellent rooting medium. I will sometimes mix with laterite, but usually I'll just bury some rootabs in the substrate if I have root feeders. To each his own on substrates, all of the above are correct, and it's up to you to decide on what you want based on budget, but all have roughly the same effect.

A nice plant, especially if you have at least 1WPG is Lobelia cardinalis. It is short, has round leaves, and grows very slow. I'm not sure it'll grow with standard lighting, unless I have more specifics. What size is the tank, and what is the lighting?

llj

EDIT: Can't spell this morning.

 

[Wolfenrook]

The substrate described in the above post would be great for a low light tank suchas the one you described but I would suggest using sand instead of gravel and ditching the peat or replacing it with something like coconut husk since peat is terrible for the environment.

Wrong again, my tank isn't a low light tank, it's a high light tank. 4 39 watt T5 HO tubes over 36 gallons works out at over 4 watts per gallon, and considering that high light is usually considered as anything of 3wpg and above, plus those are T5HO tubes, not T8s..... I also reacharge my substrate about once a year with root balls (last used JBL 7 balls). Unlike all of these so called 'wonder' substrates, this one has been in the tank since about 1997 without having to be replaced.

As to ditching the peat, I wouldn't advise that. But you could replace it with sphagnum moss instead. As to been terrible for the environment, do you really think that products like ADA Aquasoil don't have an impact on the environment when harvested as well? Everything we use in aquariums has an impact, even down to sand or gravel.

Oh, and I wouldn't advise using sand either, if you are using a deeper substrate bed (as I do) it compacts badly and can become anaerobic quite quickly. The gravel I use is more of a grit, with a maximum size of about 2mms, and is much more resistant to compacting and also is better for allowing convection currents etc to pass through the substrate.

The activated carbon can be replaced with zeolite for even better effect. It's main purposes are to 'soak up' nutrients from the water column and store these until needed, and also to provide a very very large surface area for benificial bacteria to colonise, helping to provide nutrients at the roots.

Most modern plant substrates are based on exactly the same prinicples, but at about 4 times the cost. Give it time and these will go out of fashion and be replaced by some 'new' fad substrate.

Oh and before anybody challenges my growth rates, or mentions algae of any sort. I get very little algae growth (the little algae I have is left over from when I was running a low light set up, and is vanishing now), and absolutely stunning plant growth. My shinnersia rivularis grows about 3 inches a day, my ammania senegalensis about 1 inch a day, and my hygrophila difformis about 2 inches a day. I wont mention how fast my nymphae stellata grows, as that is totally insane. Even my alternanthera reineckii 'lilacina' is thriving.

Good circulation and regular dosing of nutrients will ALWAYS be more important than substrates, and should always be the first thing looked at.

Ade

 

[aaronnorth]

zeolite would be pointless using it, just wasting money like with carbon, it removes the nutrients which plants use to grow, but zeolite also removes ammonia (which plants also use)

 

[Wolfenrook]

zeolite would be pointless using it, just wasting money like with carbon, it removes the nutrients which plants use to grow, but zeolite also removes ammonia (which plants also use)

Not entirely accurate aaron, many planted tank hobbyists have been happily using carbon for years, and many of the plant substrate contain either zeolite or carbon. Also you tend to find that root hairs from the plant roots often pentrate the pores of the carbon/zeolite and are able to take the nutrients from it quite happily. As to zeolite removing ammonia, yes plants are able to use ammonia as a nutrient, but at very low levels. Most of the ammonia actually goes to feed algae, hence the need for regular water changes in planted tanks. Tucking it up inside the zeolite helps to reduce algae growth, and also again the plant roots are able to get at it. Your plants don't actually NEED the ammonia to grow anyway as long as there is adequate nitrate present. You might like to read Tom Barr's comments on the use of Zeolite, a quick google search will give you the main post I am refering to right at the top.

Oh and incidentally, normal gardeners have been using activated carbon as a soil additive for years, especially in container gardening, for the reason that it is believed (and proven) to keep the soil from becoming 'stale'. Substrates like akadama and the like are used often by aquarium gardeners (I hate the term aquascapers myself) for the very reason that it absorbs and stores nutrients from the water column and then releases these as needed, carbon does an even better job of this, and when it 'fills up' it serves the double purpose of acting as a home for benificial bacteria as I mentioned before, same with zeolite.

Ade

 

[aaronnorth]

So you are on about using it for a substrate?

 

[Wolfenrook]

Yup, in the bottom layer, not on it's own. As I said I've been using it successfully for years, and would say that the pics of my tank are all the evidence you need that it works and works well.

Ade

 

[aaronnorth]

Yup, in the bottom layer, not on it's own. As I said I've been using it successfully for years, and would say that the pics of my tank are all the evidence you need that it works and works well.

Ade

oh right, then yes i can see the point in it, i thought you meant in the filter

 

[Wolfenrook]

oh right, then yes i can see the point in it, i thought you meant in the filter

Heck no! lol. Only time I would put carbon in my filter would be if I had used a medication in my tank, which I haven't done in about 9 years or so. lol. Or very possibly if I had added a piece of wood without soaking it enough first and flooded my tank with tanins. As to using zeolite in a filter, only reason I can think of for doing this would be to remove ammonia, which shouldn't be neccessary in an adequately filtered and mature aquarium.

Glad we cleared that up, was a bit confused why you were objecting.

Ade

 

[SuperColey1]

IMO - Carbon in the filter = definate no no. Carbon in the substrate = definate yes yes!!.

I use Leonardite under the nutrient rich substrate which is then under sand. The sand is very fine grain play sand and is as deep as 6 inches in some areas with no compaction.

I think my results and what I have seen speak for themselves about how much benefit this extra source of carbon is.

Anaerobic pockets shouldn't happen in an established heavily planted tank because just like with soil plants manage to push their roots through it thus moving the sand etc. Most people's soil will be a huge amount harder a few inches down than sand at 6-8 inches ever will be so no worries there.

As for your lights Wolfenrook you must be very good with keeping on top of dosing and CO2 with that amount of light. 4WPG it may be watt for watt but compared to T12 which the WPG rule was calculated on you are probs closer to an equivalent of 8WPG with the efficiency of T5s (I have 0.9WPG of T5 HO and am thinking of reducing it due to the speed of plant growth and I only have 'slow growers')

I think the best rule of thumb for any beginner is to start with a nutrient rich substrate under your chosen top layer. This will give room for erors as it will supply nutrients if you aren't giving enough or lapsing through water column dosing.

Carbon layer is not essential to begin with but is not expensive. Leonardite is cheap and called 'Soil Builder Granules' from a company called Earthworks. £8+postage is enough for a 48USG.

Lightingwise I think it is best to err on the side of caution to begin with and stay at 1WPG with good poslished reflectors. You can always upgrade if desired later on if you want rampant faster growth which many aquascaper do so they can get their look, photoshoot it and start on the next scape etc.

Co2 method whether it be none or injected will depend on the fish/inhabitants you have as it is best not to do water changes in a heavily planted non CO2 tank so that you maintain stable CO2 within the natural gaseous exchange at the water's surface. When you water change you are adding CO2 enriched water from the tap so it is impossible to maintain the stability. Injected tanks can water change to their heart's content because they are adding CO2 to an optimum level (for plants) meaning they give more than the plants need at the start of the photoperiod etc. so that they are never defficient. Therefore discus owners are best injecting because they want to do the water changes etc.

Dosingwise if you go low light then most 'decent' off the shelf ferts like TPN+ is sufficient. When you use higher light then it means you need to add more (+phosphate if in a low phosphate water area or doing no water changes) It also means you have to strictly keep up on dosing and water changes as an off the shelf fert will be quite lean. If you decide to go higher light or if you want to investigate cheaper dosing solutions then take a look at this site which is written by JamesC of this forum and UKaps and has many different advice areas for the goal you are after including making your own ferts on the cheap.

There are also many many different options which googling can help you find. Some are bad, some are good, som disproven old world theories which are wheeled out again and again etc but thats the rule of thumb for anything really. As you see above there are many opinions on the way to do anything and you have to try them and then work out which one is right for you and your setup.

I myself am quite lazy and unregimented often missing dosing and sometimes not doing water changes for a month but mostly weekly 10%. Therefore I have CO2 injection, Leonardite, nutrient rich substrate and I make my own ferts for cheapness. I keep low light plants because I prefer to have a 'working' tank in that it is meant to be a more permanent thing rather than a project to reach an end and then stripped down. I also prefer the look of most of the 'slower growth' plants like Crypts, Ferns and Anubias.

I do however not agree with the high/low light groupings of plants as I think that it is more of a nutrient/water parameter thing due to me being able to grow high light plants under 0.9WPG. I do however concede that with certain plants high light does achieve a different effect. Mainly in carpeting plants that under high light they will stay low whereas under low light they will reach their more natural form. So if you want a carpet then high lights it must be.

Andy