Cycling With Or Without Plants - Debating The Merits Of Each

[TwoTankAmin]

No your are not correct in this either. At best an aquarium might be considered what is called a model ecosystem which differs from a natural ecosystem. And It would only qualify as a reasonable model if its design and contents are intended to replicate a natural aquatic system, one that exists in nature. Throwing together plants and animals etc. that would never be found together in nature is not an ecosystem.
 
Nor is Wiki is an acceptable source for scientific definitions and can almost never be used for such. So how about we consider what an aquarium book author has to say. But not just some person who wrote one short book. How about we look at John H. Tullock who authored the following books:
 
Successful Saltwater Aquariums: A Beginner's Guide by John H. Tullock (Jan 1994)
The Reef Tank Owners Manual: A Practical Guide to Establishing and Maintaining a Coral Reef Aquarium by John H Tullock (1995)
Natural Reef Aquariums: Simplified Approaches to Creating Living Saltwater Microcosms by John H. Tullock and Jr. Martin A. Moe (Jan 1997)
Clownfish and Sea Anemones (Barron's Complete Pet Owner's Manuals) by John Tullock (Sep 1, 1998)
Dictionary of Aquarium Terms by John H. Tullock (Mar 2000)
Corals (Complete Pet Owner's Manual) by John Tullock (May 1, 2000)
Water Chemistry for the Marine Aquarium by John H. Tullock (Nov 17, 2005)
Bring Me Home! Saltwater Aquariums Make a Great Hobby by John H. Tullock (Jan 1, 2006)
Saltwater Aquarium Models: Recipes for Creating Beautiful Aquariums That Thrive by John H. Tullock (Nov 1, 2006)
Freshwater Aquarium Models: Recipes for Creating Beautiful Aquariums That Thrive by John H. Tullock (Nov 1, 2006)
Your First Marine Aquarium (Barron's Complete Pet Owner's Manuals) by John Tullock (Nov 1, 2007)
 
He seems to know a bit on the subject of aquariums and here is what he says in his book "Freshwater Aquarium Models: Recipes for Creating Beautiful Aquariums That Thrive"
On page 27 he writes:

 
Guidelines for Design
 
Creating an aquarium involves bringing together diverse elements, both living and non-living, and integrating them into a functioning system. An aquarium is not a true ecosystem, of course, but it does tend to exhibit many of the characteristics of natural ecosystems.

 
three, I guess you better help this guy, he must have no clue about this it seems.
 
Here is an example from a High School article given to students. it is an explanation even the most basic educational level students are taught:

 
Your schoolyard, local parks, farms, and managed forests are artificial ecosystems. An artificial ecosystem is planned or maintained by humans. Lakes, rivers, forests, deserts, and meadows can all be classified as natural ecosystems. In a natural ecosystem, the living community is free to interact with the physical and chemical environment. However, this does not mean that the area is untouched by humans: humans are a natural part of many ecosystems. Natural ecosystems haven’t been planned or maintained by humans.

from http/jmh.nbed.nb.ca/sites/jmh.nbed.nb.ca/files/noteattach/teacher/96/comparing_ecosystems_case_study_0.pdf
 
Clearly an aquarium would better fit that definition of an artificial ecosystem.
 
Or how about this from the Franklin Institute (The Franklin Institute is a museum in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and one of the oldest centers of science education and development in the United States, dating to 1824.)

 
Ecosystems Ecosystems (short for ecological systems) are functional units that result from the interactions of abiotic, biotic, and cultural (anthropogenic) components. Like all systems they are a combination of interacting, interrelated parts that form a unitary whole. All ecosystems are "open" systems in the sense that energy and matter are transferred in and out. The Earth as a single ecosystem constantly converts solar energy into myriad organic products, and has increased in biological complexity over time.

from http/capita.wustl.edu/ME567_Informatics/concepts/ecosys.html
 
This would certainly not be the case in an aquarium. What happens in an aquarium is going on because of what the fish keeper puts in and removes. However, the fish keeper is not a part of the ecosystem as what goes on inside the aquarium has no affect in that fish keeper. But without the fishkeeper, the systems dies, leaving the bacteria as the last living things in it. So if you wish to define an aquarium as an ecosystem, then once it is set up, you must eliminate the fish keeper. And when you do that the bacteria will out compete everything until even they die.
 
So take your pick, claim a tank is an ecosystem and then you must conclude the bacteria will out compete the plants in the end before the systems ceases to exist. If you want to claim plants out compete the bacteria, then you can not claim the aquarium is an ecosystem because it only functions and lives as long as a no- interactive member of the system keeps it going. If you remove the the fish keeper from the equation once the tank is set up and allow it to go on unaided, then I will agree it is an ecosystem with a pretty limited duration and one in which the bacteria ultimately out compete all of the other species within that ecosystem before it cease to exist.
 
But what I still want to know is when you will actually inject some cited science into a scientific discussion. You are great at throwing out a word or term, then tossing out any science offered while offering absolutely no support for what you say except to make statements like "So you see, of course an aquarium is an ecological community."
 
I say not it is not, and I challenge you you to provide independent scientific support for what you say. When you do that folks might consider your point of view as having validity First you come up with the word "competition" as if this one word alone proves anything. So I respond with a huge piece on this topic. This very detailed and informative piece starts out using the term ecological community and you ignore all of the information in it and pick out one term and run to Wiki and chop out a few words. You make sure not to include the fll information because here is what it says:
 

 
Community ecologists study the interactions between species in communities on many spatial and temporal scales, including the distribution, structure, abundance, demography, and interactions between coexisting populations.[1] The primary focus of community ecology is on the interactions between populations as determined by specific genotypic and phenotypic characteristics. Community ecology has its origin in European plant sociology. Modern community ecology examines patterns such as variation in species richness, equitability, productivity and food web structure (see community structure); it also examines processes such as predator-prey population dynamics, succession, and community assembly.
 
On a deeper level the meaning and value of the community concept in ecology is up for debate. Communities have traditionally been understood on a fine scale in terms of local processes constructing (or destructing) an assemblage of species, such as the way climate change is likely to affect the make-up of grass communities.[2] Recently this local community focus has been criticised. Robert Ricklefs has argued that it is more useful to think of communities on a regional scale, drawing on evolutionary taxonomy and biogeography,[1] where some species or clades evolve and others go extinct.[3]

from http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_%28ecology%29
 
So go ahead and prove that this definition, which is the one you proffered, actually applies to aquariums. And please try not to to forget to include some science that does so.
 

 
sci·ence noun \ˈsī-ən(t)s\

: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
: a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science
: a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.

from http/www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

 

[three-fingers]

No your are not correct in this either. At best an aquarium might be considered what is called a model ecosystem which differs from a natural ecosystem. And It would only qualify as a reasonable model if its design and contents are intended to replicate a natural aquatic system, one that exists in nature. Throwing together plants and animals etc. that would never be found together in nature is not an ecosystem.

 
Like I said:

I am happy to hear from anyone as to why any aquarium is actually a functioning ecosystem if you feel I am wrong in this respect. 

 
   A human-created aquarium ecosystem isn't likely to be as sustainable as a natural ecosystem, but its still an ecosystem.

 
In other words, I am correct, and you are incorrect.
 
Goodnight for now

.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

three I am done with you until you can follow the rules for this section of the forums;
 
Scientific Section Rules


1. Scientific Etiquette and Presentation of Arguments. Claims/ideas/theories must be backed up by some semblance of evidence, that includes topics that may be controversial. Evidence has to be cited and direct questions need to be answered in a timely manner or the claims dropped. 'I don't know' is an acceptable answer, or if you need more time to research your idea, please post how long you will need. The forum will give you the time if you ask for it but will not tolerate ignoring direct questions. If a member presents a post that can be 'debunked' based on scientific data or evidence, a spirited 'debunking' is fair. Understand that there are gradations of evidence: evidence cited from a peer-reviewed published study is considered significantly stronger than anecdotal evidence. Using a logical fallacy is not evidence, and only makes your argument look weaker; avoid using logical fallacies altogether. In particular, ad hominem attacks (attacking the person, not the argument) is strictly forbidden and will not be tolerated.

2. Editing and Revision of Posts. Changing the content of your post once presented by using the 'edit' button is intolerable. If you need to correct spelling or sentence structure (if it doesn't alter your argument) it is permissible, but please make note of your correction so that the reason is clearly understood by the members involved in the discussion. If you feel you made an honest error, please correct yourself in a separate post explaining why you wish to change your comments.
 
You have provided no science, you have not refuted any of the science i presented. I would suggests the mods should be removing your posts because there is not science in any of them. You have not presented a single piece of science which backs up what you toss off nor have your presented any contrary science.  You can keep saying i am wrong, but can you prove it. Can you prove that you are right? Can you find the science to do so?
 
So I say not only goodnight to you but I am done with anything you try to put over on this thread until it is actually science and not the junk stuff you are offering. I will conclude by saying you have basically invented most of what you posted because you are unable to support it nor to refute any of what I have offered. I am baffled by your inability to do so thus far. You seem to know some vocabulary, but that is insuffieicnet for the scientific section
 
Moreover, can anybody who might be following this thread chime in on this respect. Am I wrong about the science and the lack of it on three's part?

 

[Wildbetta]

Three-fingers -- Evidence of your arguments need to be posted.  I am not seeing much at all to back your side of the debate. Saying "I am right and you are wrong" with no evidence to back it up is basically just your opinion.  The only real refute to the evidence provided by TTA from you is that certain things have nothing to do with the original debate.  This is not backed up either with evidence showing why these particular pieces of evidence provided by TTA are not relevant. At this point, in order for this thread to continue, you need to provide some evidence to back up your side of the debate.
 
 
 
Whether anyone decides to agree with either poster is not the point -- the rules of this section are clear.  Evidence to back up the statements/debates must be provided.  One of the posters has provided their evidence and the other has failed to do so and that needs to be remedied.

 

[daizeUK]

The only real refute to the evidence provided by TTA from you is that certain things have nothing to do with the original debate.  This is not backed up either with evidence showing why these particular pieces of evidence provided by TTA are not relevant.

Where there is reasonable doubt that a piece of submitted evidence is irrelevant (such as terrestrial agricultural studies in an immersed aquarium discussion) I would have thought that the onus should be on the submitter to prove that their evidence is relevant rather than anyone else to prove that it isn't.

 

[three-fingers]

Three-fingers -- Evidence of your arguments need to be posted.  I am not seeing much at all to back your side of the debate. Saying "I am right and you are wrong" with no evidence to back it up is basically just your opinion.  The only real refute to the evidence provided by TTA from you is that certain things have nothing to do with the original debate.  This is not backed up either with evidence showing why these particular pieces of evidence provided by TTA are not relevant. At this point, in order for this thread to continue, you need to provide some evidence to back up your side of the debate.

Well, I'm disappointed to see a moderator is taking this stance.  As long as the thread remains as it is with no mod edits, I am happy for you to close the thread, however, obviously no rules have been broken anywhere 

. 
 
I have cited evidence where needed (links to definitions), but the only claim that I am making is "organisms living in the same environment (in this case, the aquarium) using the same limited resource are competing". 
 
Here, again, is the cited evidence:

OK let me explain it this way. Bacteria and plants do not compete for ammonia (nitrogen). Competing implies there is some sort of equality involved where either side can "win."

No. That's not even the definition of "competition" outside the context of biology. Look here, or even here. But this is what we're talking about here. There is no equality implied in competition whatsoever. Please stop trying to twist the definition to suit your argument.
 

 
As for the "rules":
 

Understand that there are gradations of evidence: evidence cited from a peer-reviewed published study is considered significantly stronger than anecdotal evidence.

 
I understand this. I have posted no peer-reviewed papers as I have not needed to, TTA is the one disagreeing with a very basic concept in biology.  You want me to cite evidence from a peer-reviewed paper that the scientific definition of "competition" is what it is?

  All peer-reviewed papers take this definition for granted, it is the definition scientists were taught at school.
 
TTA has posted multiple links to peer-reviewed papers , but as I repeatedly explain above in the thread, all of evidence he has supplied is irrelevant to our discussion. 
 
His whole argument is based on various logical fallacies, as I have pointed out numerous times.
 
One logical fallacy was that plants and bacteria aren't competing, which you can see is incorrect based on the definition above.
 
His latest logical fallacy is that an aquarium isn't a "functioning ecosystem" and therefor the scientific definition of "competition" (whatever he currently believes this to be) cannot apply. 
 
To restate, all I am saying in this debate is that plants and bacteria compete for nutrients within the aquarium.  A very basic concept that TTA has ben totally unable to refute.
 

Where there is reasonable doubt that a piece of submitted evidence is irrelevant (such as terrestrial agricultural studies in an immersed aquarium discussion) I would have thought that the onus should be on the submitter to prove that their evidence is relevant rather than anyone else to prove that it isn't.

 
Thank you, DaizeUK! Once again, I am relieved to see someone who understands how to debate is reading this thread fully! 

 
I will highlight the relevant sections of the rules that apply to TTA's argument:

Using a logical fallacy is not evidence, and only makes your argument look weaker; avoid using logical fallacies altogether. In particular, ad hominem attacks (attacking the person, not the argument) is strictly forbidden and will not be tolerated.

 

[eaglesaquarium]

Your links to wikipedia do not count as 'evidence' in a scientific discussion.
 
 
As for your other points on the 'relevance' of terrestrial vs. aquatic plants, aquatic and terrestrial plants are far more related than you are conceding... such as the fact that many (certainly not all) aquatic plants can be grown emmersed as well as immersed, and most suppliers actually grow the plants emmersed because it is far easier.  In those instances, the aquatic plants would be drawing nearly all (if not all) of their nutrients from the substrate, not the water column.
 
 
Further, even Tom Barr, who invented the idea of EI dosing, still uses (and recommends) mulm in his tanks, regardless of the substrate chosen - why would that be?  Because there are still a great many aquatic plants that are much more efficient drawing nutrients from their roots than from their leaves, just like terrestrial plants.
 
 

Substrates for EI tanks


 
 
Over the past years I've read endless posts about substrates. In the case of EI tanks, or others, is there really a significant advantage to soil, flourite, eco complete or any of the other exotic and sometimes expensive substrates over plain sand ?

EI uses a water column approach to dosing. It seems over time that even using plain sand the process of decomposition will in effect start to create soil. Perhaps in a new tank one might use fertilizer tabs and mulm during the run in period. I know there are plants that are heavy root feeders and maybe that answers my own question. However in an established tank won't even these plants get significant nutrition from a plain sand substrate ?


Henry

 
Answer from Tom Barr:
 

In general, yes.
However less burden is placed on the water column when you use something like Flourite vs plain sand.

Likewise, there is also an increase in the plants growth and health when you use ADA AS vs plain sand.

It's a visible difference.

It really depends on the trade offs, do you want to pay a bit more for the sediment and have an easier time, and/or enrich the sand sediment?

I think this trade off is worthwhile.
Aesthetics also matter to many folks.

Some do not like to use EI, they prefer a leaner version of EI, or test + dose.
However, it's not the method that gives poor results, it's the user.

I've seen every method fail given a poor user.

Likewise, I've seen every method succeed given a good user.
The social variable is huge.

But the methods are fairly robust, given you learn to use them correctly and apply them.

Problem is, some folks are able to use only one and think all the rest are bad/worse because they had troubles with them.

That's not true.


Regards,
Tom Barr

 



 
 
 
 
So, the ideas posited that:
a) terrestrial plants can't be used to discuss aquatic plants,
and
b) aquatic plants can take up their nutrients from the water column as evidenced by EI, and the substrate plays no role and shouldn't be a part of the discussion
 
 
are both points that I believe to be unsupported, while there is evidence that no only is there overlap, but that it is a viable point that needs to be considered on both sides.  And discussion on that topic should be entertained, not dismissed out of hand.
 
 
I will once again remind the participants that ANY discussion on any part of the forums require respectful speech.  Leniency is given in the scientific section, but comments should not be made on a personal level - only on the arguments being put forward.

 

[daizeUK]

As for your other points on the 'relevance' of terrestrial vs. aquatic plants, aquatic and terrestrial plants are far more related than you are conceding... such as the fact that many (certainly not all) aquatic plants can be grown emmersed as well as immersed, and most suppliers actually grow the plants emmersed because it is far easier.  In those instances, the aquatic plants would be drawing nearly all (if not all) of their nutrients from the substrate, not the water column.

This thread is concerned with the interaction of plants and bacteria in an immersed environment with the addition of ammonia. With the greatest respect to TTA, I currently can't see any reason why we should expect the behaviour of terrestrial soil microbes and cereal crops to mirror these conditions.

 

[three-fingers]

Your links to wikipedia do not count as 'evidence' in a scientific discussion.

Actually, they do "count", as the rules state, peer-reviewed papers are merely stronger evidence than any other source. 
 
I'll reiterate:

You want me to cite evidence from a peer-reviewed paper that the scientific definition of "competition" is what it is?

 
So am I right in thinking you are also rejecting the definition of "competition" that I have supplied 3 different sources for?  One source was a dictionary, the other source was an open-source encyclopaedia, and the other an online science encyclopaedia. 
 

As for your other points on the 'relevance' of terrestrial vs. aquatic plants, aquatic and terrestrial plants are far more related than you are conceding... such as the fact that many (certainly not all) aquatic plants can be grown emmersed as well as immersed, and most suppliers actually grow the plants emmersed because it is far easier.  In those instances, the aquatic plants would be drawing nearly all (if not all) of their nutrients from the substrate, not the water column.

 I'm not implying anything that differs from the above. However all we are debating are aquatic plants submersed in an aquarium, not emmersed growth here.  So TTA pointing to studies that show something to be true for terrestrial plants growing emersed has no bearing on what might be true for aquatic plants mainly uptaking nutrients through the leaves submersed.  I have repeatedly stated the reasons why above, no light in the substrate, no algae to compete with, aerobic as opposed to anaerobic conditions, stability of nutrient values, etc.
 
During cycling ammonia is being added to the water column, not to the substrate.
 

 and the substrate plays no role and shouldn't be a part of the discussion

Please quote just one place where I have suggested "the substrate plays no role".  During fishless cycling, when one is adding ammonia to the water column, nutrient uptake from the roots just plays an insignificant role compared to nutrient uptake from the leaves. 
 
Obviously the significance would vary depend on the substrate type, as for Tom Barr's quote:
 

Likewise, there is also an increase in the plants growth and health when you use ADA AS vs plain sand.

 
ADA Aqua Soil is well known for adding huge doses of ammonia into the water column, so the plants can uptake it through the leaves. Most plant substrates for the aquarium don't do this. This is why he uses "Flourite vs Sand" and "ADA AS vs Sand" as separate examples.
 

This thread is concerned with the interaction of plants and bacteria in an immersed environment with the addition of ammonia. With the greatest respect to TTA, I currently can't see any reason why we should expect the behaviour of terrestrial soil microbes and cereal crops to mirror these conditions.

Thank you, exactly!

 

[TwoTankAmin]

I have tried to explain and illustrate why AOB and AOA strains at work in aquariums are ones with the lowest affinity for ammonia. On the other hand I presented evidence from Tom Barr that when the total ammonia concentration is low, i.e .5 ppm the plant stopped taking up ammonia. At .5 ppm the AOB and AOA in aquaria are able to feed just fine. they can maintain healthy colonies. They can remove this level of ammonia which the plants are not uptaking.
 
This is not competition, it is occupying different niches in the same system. I showed scientific evidence that in nature the plants and the bacteria are present together. I showed if the bacteria were in a low oxygen situation that the plants actually worked to supply them with oxygen. But three is unable to accept these facts and instead has shown nothing.
 
But if i want to accept the definition which again three links to but does not quote, it becomes even clearer that the plants and the specific AOB and AOA relevant to this discussion not compete. But lets make sure we are again on the same page:

Exploitative competition occurs when consumption of a limiting resource by one species makes that resource unavailable for consumption by another.

from http/www.eoearth.org/view/article/152711/
 
I will not even argue that competition and "exploitative competition" may or may not be the same thing as "competition" but rather a more narrowly defined area of it. Instead I will simply blindly accept what three has offered.
 
And then I will hark back to all the science that I offered and which he claims is irrelevant.
 
1. The niche of the bacteria and archaea involved relative to ammonia consumption is at a level where plants do not even compete.
2. There are no cases in nature of any plant loading, or conditions that exist where the nitrifying bacteria still do not coexist with the plants.
3. I have shown plants, especially their roots host biofilms full of nitrfying bacteria. That they will even supply them with oxygen so they can function.
4. I have shown that the "father" of fishless cycling considers live plants the 2nd best sources for seeding bacteria into tanks.
5. I have show that plants don't uptake ammonia when the levels drop to where the bacteria are still using them.
6. I have shown that in the absence of sophisticated equipment, we can not test for the bacteria so we can only know that the ammonia is being completely processed but not by who or what. This means we must rely on science to know what is going on because it has the tools.
7. Science shows us that the end product of the bacteria (and the AOA for which there are not yet discovered and nitrite oxidizer, only bacterial ones) to be  is nitrate, something which plants love and in the absence of man interfering, the primary source of nitrate for plants is bacteria.
8. I showed why ther is both HN4 and NH3 in the water and how the plants went after the NH4 ad the bacteria the NH3. Since these exist side by side in most tanks, the plants must be able to take up 100% of the ammonia as it is being created to prevent the bacteria from getting any.
9. I showed how plants and bacteria are both part of the nitrogen cycles as well, just in different niches and that the bacteria will colonize to whatever ammonia level is available. This means in a 10 gal with one zebra danio and no plants you will have less bacteria than if you add a 2nd danio. This is not competition this is the bacteria doing exactly what they should in that niche of ammonia level.
10. I showed how bumping the ammonia level over 5 ppm Ammonia-nitrogen will kill the very bacteria at work in tanks and that they would ultimately be replaced by a different strain which thrives at such higher levels but not at the lower ones. I could have gone into tons more detail on this but felt doing so was counter productive to the topic.
 
So now lets return to the definition above which is the one three wants to use. I would say that only somebody who is not well uniformed about how the plants work, how the bacteria works and how they are found in nature to work would all indicate the plants are not taking ammonia away from the bacteria and causing there to be no ammonia available to the AOB and AOA. Moreover, the bacteria are certainly not depriving the plants of their ammonium either.
 
I did not rely on Wiki, I did not rely on dictionary definitions. And what has three offered? He merely tosses all of this off as irrelevant and provides no science at all. This is a great scientific arguement. To dismiss science doesn't require science, it only requires three saying it doesn't apply. What I did was to show what he was saying did not apply and provided science to show why.
 
Finally, this discussion was actually about cycling a tank with plants in at the start or not. But when I began to show how and why this can be done and not cause algae vs three's taking the opposite view, the topic started to morph. And this was not done by me. This is the strategy of a person desperate to be right but unable to back it up with any evidence.
 
I showed science that the bacteria and plants coexist and do not eliminate each other. The way to show this is false is to provide other science which refutes it. Not by tossing off a few terms and stating the science isn't relevant. How is it not relevant, its deals with plants and bacteria in the same environments, it shows they are acutally co-operating more than competing. I am still waiting for science that shows this is not the case.
 
When three veered the subject to competition, I did not simply say it is not relevant here, I showed the science as to why it wasn't. When three then veered the subject off to ecosystems, I showed why an aquarium was at best an artificial ecosystem because it was pretty much completely controlled by humans who we not members of that system and who gained no benefit nor suffered anything no matter what happened in a tank. I showed the tank itself as a system would fail and die in the absence of being controlled and that when that happened the last thing to go would be the bacteria not the fish or plants. Bacteria can survive adverse conditions where much of what they need becomes absent for months. Can plants do this?
 
Now if three had at least started off by stating an aquarium was an artificial ecosystem, I would have said sure it is, but so what? If he had said plants and bacteria both use a part of total ammonia and that plants played a bigger role in the uptake of the nitrogenous products we don't want in tanks than the bacteria found in those tanks I would have agreed as well. But when he claims it is an ecosystem and plants in it out compete the bacteria to where they should be gone, I can and will not agree because the science doesn't support that. A tank might be considered a model ecosystem as well if it is used to illustrate how things in nature work, but that would mean it be a true biotope not a hodgepodge. Most tanks are closer to being experiments than ecosystems.
 
I could cite research where AOA and AOB are in tanks with plants, but this was not the point of the study and all it would state is some of the tanks in the research had both plants and bacteria without specifying what plants or how many. There simply is very little research into aquariums specifically, most of the science comes from other areas and gets applied to tanks. For the bacteria in them see Hovanec et. al. But you get no plant stuff included in that science. For tank plants one can turn to Tom Barr, but what you get on the bacteria from him is very limited since he is a plant biologist not a microbiologist.
 
So three once last time I will challenge you. Show that the particular strains of AOB and AOA in aquariums which process NH3 at very low levels as part of the nitrogen cycle are out competed by plants which take in NH4. if you want to talk competition show that once you set up any planted tank you wish to define, then stop adding ferts etc., Let the tank go without human additions and removals for a month or two and then come tell me what life forms have out competed and still exist int the tank.
 
three- I used completely relevant science to support what I have said- science not logical fallacy. Here again Ii see you have discovered another term to obfuscate things rather than any form of science. And I certainly did not insult you in any fashion, I would contend.
 
And now tow mods who have no axe to grind have called you on the very same things i have, So i am not the only person reading this thread who feels you have not contributed any science at all nor that you have refuted the science which i have offered. And still you can not come up with any science. Two people do not get your points, perhaps its because you have not yet made any?
 

TTA has posted multiple links to peer-reviewed papers , but as I repeatedly explain above in the thread, all of evidence he has supplied is irrelevant to our discussion.

 
Prove this please, you saying their are irrelevant is not enough, i can simply say they are and what you say is not relevant. But this is not scientific discussion or argument. I am reminded of that old W.C. Fields quote, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull."  This is not meant as an insult but as a way to describe what it would be if all we both do here is to say the other's info is not relevant but we do not include anything scientific to support either of our opinions and beliefs. But then this would be a thread in some other area of the forum and not the Scientific Section. If you want to show that plants out compete the bacteria for the ammonia complex, there is a pretty easy way to do so.
 
We know they coexist in nature. We know man fertilizes crops. So look at the science which researches this. If the plants out compete the bacteria, the addition of more ammonia etc. should cause the plants to be more numerous, to grow and reproduce more than the bacteria. There should not be a comparable change in the bacterial populations from such supplementation. So I have given you the how here. Go find some science that shows when fertilizers are added or increased that there is a disproportionate benefit to the plants. This would be a good indication they out compete. its easy. I mean if I am so wrong here it should be a snap for you to show this with other science.

 

[Chad]

I prefer the standard dictionary definition of an ecosystem:



"a system formed by the interaction of a community of organisms with their environment." (dictionary.com)
 
But the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has a good definition as well:

 
"An ecosystem is an ecological community comprised of biological, physical, and chemical components, considered as a unit." (http/oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ecosci.html)


The university of Michigan page has yet another definition that brings us closer to aquaria:


"An ecosystem consists of the biological community that occurs in some locale, and the physical and chemical factors that make up its non-living or abiotic environment. There are many examples of ecosystems -- a pond, a forest, an estuary, a grassland. The boundaries are not fixed in any objective way..." (http/www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/ecosystem/ecosystem.html)


The University of California at Berkley states:


"An ecosystem is a community of plants, animals and smaller organisms that live, feed, reproduce and interact in the same area or environment." (http/www.botanicalgarden.ubc.ca/kids/ecosystem.php)

The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations in British Columbia says this:

"An ecosystem may be as small as a rotten log, or as large as the planet, but we define an ecosystem as an area with uniform soil, vegetation and organisms." (http/www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/treebook/ecosystem.htm)

A model ecosystem is one that attempts to mimic a natural ecosystem. However, the model itself is a unique ecosystem in its own right despite it being a model. A model can be both a model and a thing in and of itself at the same time. A model of a car for example is both a model of the original car to scale and an object in its own right that can be touched and handled and has its own unique and measurable properties apart from those of the original object upon which it is modeled. While we attempt to mimic or model a natural ecosystem in our aquaria what we actually do is create a unique ecosystem in it's own right.
 
 
Of course as stated above by British Colombia's Ministry an ecosystem can be large or small and that page goes on to say that we aren't always aware of the relationships within that system. So it's often left out of aquaria that we aquarists are part of that ecosystem we create and as such seldom if ever will create a model that is an accurate representation of the ecosystem upon which we are modeling.
 
In reef tanks there are many of us that keep what known as a mixed-reef. This is a tank with hard and soft corals. These are items that in nature would not belong in the same niche but we create an environment, with care, in which animals that normally would not live together do. Thus we are not modeling but actually creating a unique ecosystem that exists only in our tank and not in the wild.

 

[three-fingers]

 
I did not rely on Wiki, I did not rely on dictionary definitions.

Indeed, you have ignored the dictionary and Wiki definitions.
 
As for:

He merely tosses all of this off as irrelevant and provides no science at all.

 
I hope she doesn't mind me quoting her here, but DaizeUK's points have still to be addressed:

The only real refute to the evidence provided by TTA from you is that certain things have nothing to do with the original debate.  This is not backed up either with evidence showing why these particular pieces of evidence provided by TTA are not relevant.
Where there is reasonable doubt that a piece of submitted evidence is irrelevant (such as terrestrial agricultural studies in an immersed aquarium discussion) I would have thought that the onus should be on the submitter to prove that their evidence is relevant rather than anyone else to prove that it isn't.

 
And:

I currently can't see any reason why we should expect the behaviour of terrestrial soil microbes and cereal crops to mirror these conditions.

 
And please, everyone remember:
 

To restate, all I am saying in this debate is that plants and bacteria compete for nutrients within the aquarium.  A very basic concept that TTA has ben totally unable to refute.
 

 

[eaglesaquarium]

And please, everyone remember:
 

To restate, all I am saying in this debate is that plants and bacteria compete for nutrients within the aquarium.  A very basic concept that TTA has ben totally unable to refute.
 

 

 

I have tried to explain and illustrate why AOB and AOA strains at work in aquariums are ones with the lowest affinity for ammonia. On the other hand I presented evidence from Tom Barr that when the total ammonia concentration is low, i.e .5 ppm the plant stopped taking up ammonia. At .5 ppm the AOB and AOA in aquaria are able to feed just fine. they can maintain healthy colonies. They can remove this level of ammonia which the plants are not uptaking.
 
This is not competition, it is occupying different niches in the same system. I showed scientific evidence that in nature the plants and the bacteria are present together. I showed if the bacteria were in a low oxygen situation that the plants actually worked to supply them with oxygen. But three is unable to accept these facts and instead has shown nothing.

 
Having no 'horse in the race', but as one trying to figure this out, if what TTA has mentioned above here is accurate, then plants and bacteria only 'compete' when there are levels of ammonia in the range where it would be potentially lethal (or at the least harmful) to fish at pH levels found in most planted aquaria (~7.0 +/- 1).
 
 
So my understanding of this is that, based on the work of Tom Barr cited above (I apologize for not looking back to find the link), the bacteria and plants would only be in a 'race' to detox the tank from the harmful effects of the ammonia at higher concentrations.  And putting this into context of a 'cycling' aquarist, the plants and bacteria would be 'cooperating' in the main concern, which is bringing the ammonia levels down to keep the water safe for the fish. 
 
 
And this work by Tom Barr, assuming its accurate, would also suggest that as the ammonia levels drop, the plants cease to take up the ammonia, but leave that job to the bacteria alone, and the plants then take their nitrogen from the nitrate in the water rather than the ammonia.  In other words, the 'competition' is no longer a concern, as the plants no longer are vying for those nutrients, and (I am making an assumption here) seek to get their nitrogen from other sources (either through the water column - nitrite or nitrate or through the substrate).  
 
 
So, for me at least, the question still remains, which is 'better' for cycling - A system which is relying on a single organism to deal with the problem or a system with multiple organisms to deal with the problem? 
 
A secondary concern would be the encouragement of algae growth during the 'cycling' period.  Can a 'fishless cycle with plants' be done in such a way as to encourage plant growth, encourage bacterial growth AND discourage algae growth?  And since this all stemmed from a beginner's question: is it practical to advise a newbie to the world of aquaculture to try to do it? 
 
 
 
This is where the discussion has taken my understanding.  I do look forward to reading more evidence on both sides to address the initial question, based on the work of Tom Barr.

 

[Wildbetta]

 

 
I did not rely on Wiki, I did not rely on dictionary definitions.

Indeed, you have ignored the dictionary and Wiki definitions.
 
As for:

He merely tosses all of this off as irrelevant and provides no science at all.

 
I hope she doesn't mind me quoting her here, but DaizeUK's points have still to be addressed:

The only real refute to the evidence provided by TTA from you is that certain things have nothing to do with the original debate.  This is not backed up either with evidence showing why these particular pieces of evidence provided by TTA are not relevant.
Where there is reasonable doubt that a piece of submitted evidence is irrelevant (such as terrestrial agricultural studies in an immersed aquarium discussion) I would have thought that the onus should be on the submitter to prove that their evidence is relevant rather than anyone else to prove that it isn't.

 
And:

I currently can't see any reason why we should expect the behaviour of terrestrial soil microbes and cereal crops to mirror these conditions.

 
And please, everyone remember:
 

To restate, all I am saying in this debate is that plants and bacteria compete for nutrients within the aquarium.  A very basic concept that TTA has ben totally unable to refute.
 

 


 
And yet a very basic concept that you yourself can not back up with any scientific evidence that I have seen thus far.  All your "evidence" seems to be is the definition of the word "competition" which if you read does not back up your theory in full.  To support my claim, here is the link that you provided : http/www.thefreedictionary.com/competition
 
In the second definition of the word on that page :  6. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Environmental Science) Ecology the struggle between individuals of the same or different species for food, space, light, etc., when these are inadequate to supply the needs of all.
 
Can you supply the needed evidence supporting that there is not adequate nutrients to supply the needs of both the plants and the bacteria?

 

[three-fingers]

Having no 'horse in the race', but as one trying to figure this out, if what TTA has mentioned above here is accurate, then plants and bacteria only 'compete' when there are levels of ammonia in the range where it would be potentially lethal (or at the least harmful) to fish at pH levels found in most planted aquaria (~7.0 +/- 1).
 
 
So my understanding of this is that, based on the work of Tom Barr cited above (I apologize for not looking back to find the link), the bacteria and plants would only be in a 'race' to detox the tank from the harmful effects of the ammonia at higher concentrations.  And putting this
into context of a 'cycling' aquarist, the plants and bacteria would be 'cooperating' in the main concern, which is bringing the ammonia levels down to keep the water safe for the fish. 

Unfortunately for TTA, it isn't accurate. Regardless of concentration, ammonia still gets into the plants via osmosis, as I mentioned in this post.  The plants in the water column and bacteria on the filter are only cooperating from our point of view, the only important biological interaction between them is "competition" for nutrients, as I cover here.
 
So yes, the analogy you use is correct, the plants and bacteria are "in a race".  A race is a type of competition - "a competition of speed, as in running or riding". 
 

So, for me at least, the question still remains, which is 'better' for cycling - A system which is relying on a single organism to deal with the problem or a system with multiple organisms to deal with the problem? 

My reasoning that it is better for a newbie rely on a single organism for cycling instead of multiple organisms is to reduce variables that a newbie wouldn't be able to account for.  I explain why these variables can result in disaster for the newbie in this post.
 
 

 All your "evidence" seems to be is the definition of the word "competition" which if you read does not back up your theory in full.  To support my claim, here is the link that you provided : http/www.thefreedictionary.com/competition

In the second definition of the word on that page :  6. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Environmental Science) Ecology the struggle between individuals of the same or different species for food, space, light, etc., when these are inadequate to supply the needs of all.
 
Can you supply the needed evidence supporting that there is not adequate nutrients to supply the needs of both the plants and the bacteria?
 

 
I can see why you might be confused by that particular ambiguous definition out of many from that page, I should have clarified the only definition I was referring to on that page was "the simultaneous demand by two or more organisms for limited environmental resources, such as nutrients".
 
The ambiguous part of the definition you are referring to is "the needs of all", what is "all"? A specific bacterial count and plant biomass?  Who knows, that definition doesn't specify.
 
To clarify things, I will provide a definition on the terms asked of me - here's a statement from a peer-reviewed published paper that corroborates my definition :
 
Tilman, D. "Ecological competition between algae: experimental confirmation of resource-based competition theory." Science 192.4238 (1976): 463-465)

All possible outcomes of ecological competition, including stable coexistence, were observed in laboratory studies of two species of freshwater diatoms potentially limited by phosphate and silicate. The relative abundance of these nutrients determined the outcome of the competition. The observed conditions of coexistence and competitive displacement agree with those predicated solely from the abilities of each species to aquire and utilize limiting nutrients. Coexistence occurred only when the growth rate of each species was limited by a different resource. 

 
This study deals with competition between two different simple plant species (diatom algae), tested in an aquarium. The same principles apply when discussing a plant species and bacteria species that are using the same nutrient.
 
So, as you can see, I don't need to supply evidence that there is "not adequate nutrients to supply the needs of both the plants and the bacteria" - this is not a condition of "competition".
 
Oh and Tcamos , thanks for your contribution, obviously I agree totally with you

.  I'm very surprised to see other are having such a hard time accepting that an aquarium qualifies as an ecosystem!