Water Test Weirdness

[ace61502]

OK, so I haven't done a water change in 2 weeks on my 75 gallon tank. Got my new API master test kit this past week and used it today.

Ammonia: 0
Nitrite: 0
Nitrate: <5ppm Closer to 0 than 5.
Ph: 8.1

Tested the Ph of my tap water and it's about 7.4. I do have some driftwood that's been in for about a month, so I guess that is raising the ph?

And what's up with the Nitrates? Just a low bioload for this size tank? Maybe I'm not feeding them ENOUGH in fear of overfeeding?

6 4"ish clown loaches
8 Glofish
4 zebra danios
5 red wag platies
3 emerald cory cats
unknown # of platy babies (haven't seen any but, well, you know....)
snails

Thinking I'll change about 10 gallons or so just to lower the ph without it being too drastic. Should I change more? Less?

 

[StandbySetting]

Wood generally reduces the PH, what substrate is in the tank, any rocks? Low nitrates can be cause by many things: Plants, anaerobic pockets etc, but I wouldn't worry about low nitrates.

 

[ace61502]

I do have plants. Java fern which seems to be doing quite well, and swords, which do not.

I'm using pure silica sand, and I have a few rocks that passed the vinegar test with flying colors.

Kinda exciting to know my tank is so stable other than the ph. How urgent is that high of a ph?

ETA: When I was using test strips prior to adding the wood, rocks and plants the ph always came back great. Going to use another test strip to see if they are accurate at all.
ETA2: Result was neutral. Between 6.8 and 7.2. Going to repeat the test tube ph test, even though I basically already did it twice seeing as I had to do the high ph test since the reg one was maxed out.
ETA3: This time it tested at 7.8. I did collect the water with a dropper about 6" below the top instead of just scooping some out in a cup. Is it possible for the ph to be different at different levels?

 

[TwoTankAmin]

A few observations:

1- Test trips are awful, switch to liquid test kits.
2- A lot of tap water contains some level of co2 which makes the ph appear lower. After the co2 outgasses the pH rises to its "natural" level. To determine your actual tap pH fill a glass with tap water. Add an airstone and bubble it for an hour or else let it sit for a day and then test it.
3. Sword plants are heavy root feeder. The do best when given root tabs aka substrate fertilizer. Ferns take their nutrients from the water column.
4. Your tank is basically lightly stocked, so the cycling demand are not great. When your clowns gain more size, this will change.

 

[StandbySetting]

Ph test strips are just as good as liquid ones, that's why they're used in labs and I have the figures to back it up also if you'd like them, I can get the data when I head back to college tomorrow, in fact I'd trust PH strips more than a liquid test kit if multiple tubes are being used for different tests as residues will invalidate the results.

What is the rock that you added? And you're not injecting CO2, adding any PH supplements? The PH should be pretty much the same throughout the whole tank. Test the PH every 12 hours using both test kits over a period of 2 days and report back with the results, as long as it remains stable it shouldn't be a problem. It could be as the above poster states, that you haven't allowed the CO2 and other gasses to dissipate prior to testing, hence the different PH readings.

As to the above poster, plants will readily utilise nutrients from both their leaves and roots, generally more from the leaves when an inert substrate is used.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

As to the above poster, plants will readily utilise nutrients from both their leaves and roots, generally more from the leaves when an inert substrate is used.

As to the above poster

Why do roots exist?

by Elizabeth Worobel <eworobe-at-cc.UManitoba.CA>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996
Several different types of experiments have been carried out in attempts
to answer this question. The first type, first tried almost 100 years
ago, asked the question "Do rooted aquatic plants grow better with a
nutrient rich substrate or with a sand substrate and a nutrient rich
water column." The data clearly indicated that rooted aquatic plants,
though they will grow on sand with nutrients supplied in the water
column, grew far better with nutrients supplied through a rich substrate.
These experiments have been repeated many, many times since with many
different types of rooted aquatic plants and the data consistently show
that plants grown on substrates outgrow those grown on sand with
nutrients supplied through the water column.
The second question was "Which nutrients can be supplied exclusively from
the sediment and which must be supplied via the water column." The data
clearly indicate that P and N can be supplied from the sediment and that
S and micronutrients may also be supplied exclusively from the sediment
(the data for N and P is much more extensive). The only nutrients which
are needed in the water column are Mg, K, Ca and of course CO2. These
consistent for several different types of rooted macrophytes on many
different types of sediments.
The third question was "Which nutrients actually are supplied via the
roots from the sediment." This typ of experiment is much more difficult
to carry out but the evidence indicates that N and P are obtained by
rooted aquatic plants from the sediment, even when readily available in
the water column (this includes genera such as Elodea and Myriophyllum
which have small root:shoot ratios).
The fourth question is "Which nutrients can be supplied exclusively from
the water column." As far as I know this remains unanswered as it is
extremely difficult to manipulate the nutrient content of saturated soils.

From roots

 

[StandbySetting]

I wasn't referring to whether or not they'd grow better, they'll still grow regardless of whether or not you add substrate fertilisers, it's been a long strung debate over in the planted section for many years, and we've come to the conclusion that regardless of the specie you're growing, they'll grow just as well with water column dosing, yes the plant may not be working as efficiently, but on a tank like this the difference will be negligible. It has also been debated many a time on UKAPS, If I remember rightly Tom Barr also did some work on it to come to the same conclusion, I'd dig out the article for you but my membership on there has run out.

 

[eaglesaquarium]

Plants in water are very different from land plants. For many aquatic plants, the roots are nothing more than a holdfast. Floating plants have NO root systems, and yet can thrive. Some aquatic plants can be either planted or floating and can be equally as magnificent looking in the aquarium. So, to address the issue of "roots", I think it is more a matter of specific species of plant than it is plants in general.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

I have butted heads with Tom before on other sites, most notably regarding the use of Jobes Spikes as a substrate fertilizer. While I have a lot of respect for what he does, I am not in the camp that believes he can do no wrong. My own personal experience has proved to me, beyond a doubt, that certain plants will not thrive in a tank unless they get good root feeding. Most notably are many swords and crypts. But here is a bit more evidence.

Rooted stems of three aquatic species were cultured in a two-compartment apparatus which allowed the upper and lower portions of the stem to be kept in different nutrient solutions. P32 was supplied to either the upper or lower compartment. At the end of a 10-day growth period, the specific activity of phosphate was determined in axillary shoots which developed during the course of the experiment from buds in the upper compartment. The results indicated that most of the phosphate in these shoots was not absorbed from the ambient medium but was derived from the rooted stem base in the lower compartment (over 90 % in Myriophyllum brasiliense, 59 % in M. spicatum, and 74 % in Elodea densa). These results give a very different but probably more accurate picture of phosphate absorption in rooted aquatic vascular plants than short-term experiments, in which phosphate is readily taken up from the ambient medium by leaves of M. spicatum and E densa. In M. brasiliense the amount of phosphate translocated is related to the mass of roots present. Evidence is presented that normal growth of axillary shoots occurs even when all mineral ions have to be obtained by translocation from the lower compartment.

From http/www.jstor.org/pss/2441300

If there were no difference between supplying plants with nutrients via root vs water coulumn, please explain why Tropica will make this comment about some but not all plants in its database, especially in regards to Echinodorus:

A nutritious bottom and CO[sub]2[/sub] addition promote growth.

When swords do poorly in a tank, the reason is, more often than not, a lack of nutrients in the substrate.

Similarly, my experience has also shown that certain other plants are just the opposite. A perfect example would be ferns. You can regularly prune roots back to almost nothing on ferns and the plants still thrive. They are clearly taking up their nutrients via leaves rather than roots.

Floating plants have NO root systems, and yet can thrive.

Not true either- keeping it simple, here is a picture of Limnobium laevigatum aka frogbit

My advice to the OP, try pushing some decent substrate fert deep under the sword plant that isn't doing so well and see what happens

 

[StandbySetting]

please explain why Tropica will make this comment about some but not all plants in its database, especially in regards to Echinodorus:

Tropica is a company that still believes that Nitrate and Phosphate cause algae, so I wouldn't take anything they say as gospel.

Floating plants have NO root systems, and yet can thrive.

Not true either- keeping it simple, here is a picture of Limnobium laevigatum aka frogbit

Agreed, I keep Salvinia natans, it has roots.

Adding root tabs wont result in a plant growing better, light is the dependant factor, Echindorus and Cryptocoryne species can do just as well without added substrate fertilisation, because of Nitrogen and Phosphorous fixing bacteria present in the legume root nodules, which will utilise nutrients dosed in the water column

 

[TwoTankAmin]

Tropica is a company that still believes that Nitrate and Phosphate cause algae, so I wouldn't take anything they say as gospel.

And its such a shame they know nothing about growing Aquatic Plants. I wonder how and why they got to be the worlds #1 producer of them? I know if we Google the name "Holger Windelov" what we will find in regards to aquatic plants and aquariums. What will we find if we Google your's?

 

[StandbySetting]

so I wouldn't take anything they say as gospel.

Everything would have been a better choice of word admittedly, but the points I made previously still stand, substrate fertilisation isn't essential, you can get just as good growth without substrate fertilisation.

 

[ian]

this is a good debate, please lets keep it civil.

This is my kind of debate, I have read evidence from both sides regarding whether aquatic roots and whether there is such a thing as a 'root' feeder. There is more to nutrient rich substrates (the soils) than just whether they feed the root, the actually help regulate things like C02, this obviously one of the great benefits of nutrient rich substrates. Personally i use clay capped nutrient rich substrate, i have also used inert substrates, i really don't see any better growth from either. If the water column gets enough nutrients, IME they all grow well. I read a good article about roots systems, but i can't find it for the life of me. It claimed that the root systems of plants like crypts and swords grew to the size they do to actually anchor the plants just before the floods, as they both appear to be around faster flowing areas in the wild.

we also have to remember that the water column extends to the substrate anyway, so doesn't a nutrient rich water column also mean a nutrient rich substrate?

 

[StandbySetting]

we also have to remember that the water column extends to the substrate anyway, so doesn't a nutrient rich water column also mean a nutrient rich substrate?

Yes, the only advantage of a nutrient rich substrate in my experience and opinion is that you can be less lenient with dosing, on a high tech tank where EI isn't being dosed and an off the shelf fert is, nutrients can become depleted pretty quickly (which is why I gave up with the TPN+ on my current tank and switched to EI) now if there is a nutrient rich substrate present, this would act as a reserve, as it will dose the water column through diffusion.

So-called root feeders benefit greatly from water column dosing and in fact are among the most voracious of water column feeders.

This is from Clive on UKAPS, I'll ask him for any evidence he can cite so I can present it.

 

[ian]

Yeah, i remember reading something Clive had done on The Barr Report, there is evidence around. I'm just struggling to find it lol. I'm sure that statement comes from the same place i read about the energy consumption the plants uses when taking from the roots, apparently it takes less energy for a plants to take through the leaves than the roots, this is not to say the plant doesn't take through the roots. Plants are very adaptable and will take from anywhere possible to ensure survival.