Kevin Novak PhD on youtubes says plant tabs are unneeded and really feed the algae more than the plant.
This is certainly false as a general statement. It does matter which substrate tabs; the diy things like Osmocote definitely can cause algae problems largely because the nutrients are intended for terrestrial not aquatic plants. I have been using the Seachem
Flourish Tabs for a decade now and have no algae issues, but my
Echinodorus without question show considerable improvement. And the Seachem tabs do not release nutrients into the upper water column so algae is not encouraged; I've no idea how they achieve this, but from my experience and research it seems to be a valid claim. The algae issues I had when using liquid fertilizers including iron have disappeared since I changed to primarily using the tabs, and as I say the swords in particular took off. I posted photos in post #7. Back in 2008/9 I had incredible results with Nutrafin Plant-Gro sticks; I have not beeen able to find these anywhere online since, so I assume they stopped manufacturing them.
As for
Echinodorus grisebachii, this is a bog plant that grows emersed in its habitat during the dry season and may (or may not) be submersed depending upon the location. Lehtonen ("An integrative approach to species delimitation in Echinodorus (Alismataceae) and the description of two new species," 2008) provides te following in his description of the species.
DISTRIBUTION AND ECOLOGY. From South Brazil to Central America and Cuba. Floodplains, palm swamps, rivers and creeks with varying water level. Flowering and fruiting year round. From sea level to 280 m.
Perennial, from rhizomes, glabrous, to 110 cm. Leaves emersed and submersed, emersed blades elliptic, undulating, 3 – 7 pseudopinnate veins, 5 – 14 cm long, 1 – 6 cm wide, pellucid markings present as lines, apex acute to acuminate, base attenuate to truncate, petioles triangular in cross-section, 2 – 25 cm long, 2 – 4 mm diam., base with a sheath to 5 cm long, submersed blades linear to elliptic, entire, margins undulate, 1 – 5 pseudopinnate veins, 6 – 25 cm long, 0.7 – 2.5 cm wide, pellucid markings absent or present as lines, apex acute, base attenuate, petioles triangular in cross-section, to 12 cm long, 2 mm diam., base with a sheath to 2 cm long. Inflorescence racemose or paniculate, of 3 – 12 whorls, each 3 – 9-flowered, erect to decumbent, overtopping leaves, often proliferating, 13 – 70 cm long, 1 – 5 cm wide, rachis triangular to slightly alate, peduncles triangular in cross-section, 10 – 35 cm long, 3 mm wide, bracts slightly connate at the base, lanceolate, delicate, shorter than to longer than pedicels subtended, 0.3 – 2.5 cm long, 1 – 3 mm wide, 5 – 9veined, apex acuminate, pedicels spreading in flower, recurved in fruit, terete, 0.2 – 1 cm long, 0.2 mm diam. Flowers c. 1 cm diam., sepals and petals spreading, sepals 6 – 10-veined, c. 2 mm long, c. 1 mm wide, veins without papillae, petals white, not clawed, not overlapping, c. 5 mm long, c. 3 mm wide, stamens 9 – 12, anthers versatile, c. 0.5 mm long, filaments c. 1 mm long, carpels numerous. Fruit obovoid, 3 – 4-ribbed, glandular, 1.5 – 2.2 mm long, c. 0.5 mm wide, glands 2 – 5, separated by ribs, circular, beak terminal, erect, 0.2 – 0.5 mm.
NOTES.
Echinodorus grisebachii is a highly polymorphic and phenotypically plastic species. Rataj (1975) split this taxon into several distinct species, which were synonymised by Haynes & Holm-Nielsen (1994). Before that Holm-Nielsen & Haynes (1985) described
E. eglandulosus, while they were still following Rataj’s (1975) classification and circumscription of the group. The species was said to be distinguished by its fruits that are not glandular (Holm-Nielsen & Haynes 1985). I have studied the holotype, one isotype, and most of the paratypes without finding mature fruits. Instead, all this material has immature fruits lacking glands, which is generally typical for the immature fruits of
Echinodorus. Since the only diagnostic character is not present in the type specimens, the status of this species is highly questionable even under a very narrow species concept. In the phylogenetic analyses (Lehtonen & Myllys 2008)
E. eglandulosus was nested within
E. grisebachii. The analyses (Lehtonen & Myllys 2008) also included one cultivated population matching Rataj’s(1967) description of
E. gracilis. According to DNA evidence it was placed within
E. grisebachii, but total-evidence analysis resolved it as a sister to the rest of
E. grisebachii and
E. eglandulosus (Lehtonen & Myllys 2008). Kasselmann (2001) described a small-sized variant of this species. However,
Echinodorus grisebachii is a morphologically highly variable species, and the type specimen of var. minor falls within the normal size variation of the species. Therefore there is no need for taxonomic recognition of this growth form.