Cycling With Or Without Plants - Debating The Merits Of Each

[Wildbetta]

 
 
 

 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 "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!
 


 
Oh I am not "confused" by any means.  Since that definition of "competition" deals with Ecology as does the definition you want to use -- you can not pick and choose which definition of the same word you want to use.  
 
Supplying a study where two sources of algae compete with each other is not the same as supplying a study that shows that plants and bacteria compete for the same nutrients.  From keeping planted tanks that I pull media from to cycle other new tanks....I see no competition at all between plants and the bacteria.  I see a symbiosis (http/dictionary.reference.com/browse/symbiosis) relationship between the two organisms.  If in my heavily planted tanks, the plants competed with the bacteria then I would not be able to fully jump start a new cycle in a totally new tank with very light planting and have no issues with an immediate cycle with no spikes.

 

[daizeUK]

If there is 'no competition at all' between plants and nitrifying bacteria then the bacterial population should be able to reach its maximum size regardless of how many plants are in the tank. In other words, you could rip all the plants out of any mature aquarium and the bacteria would still be able to process a full load of ammonia without any harm to fish. This doesn't make sense, especially considering that both sides of the discussion have already conceded that the bacterial population will be reduced when plants are present.
 

Because plants consume ammonia, They reduce the amount of bacteria a tank might need to handle its full stocking.

If one species is inhibiting population growth in another species due to consumption of resources then what else do you call it, if not competition?
 

 

[three-fingers]

 
Oh I am not "confused" by any means.  Since that definition of "competition" deals with Ecology as does the definition you want to use -- you can not pick and choose which definition of the same word you want to use.  

I am not pick-and-choosing. I have provided multiple definitions that all support my use of the word.  You have picked only one particular definition out of many from a page I linked to, and as I have pointed it, it is merely of ambiguous wording. I then provided support for my usage of the word "competition" from a peer-reviewed paper to clarify.
 

Supplying a study where two sources of algae compete with each other is not the same as supplying a study that shows that plants and bacteria compete for the same nutrients.  

I never claimed it was the same. They are certainly comparable though.  Regardless of the topic of the study however, it would still support my use of the word "compete".  It also shows that a) and aquarium is an ecosystem and b) organisms can compete within the aquarium.
 

From keeping planted tanks that I pull media from to cycle other new tanks....I see no competition at all between plants and the bacteria.  I see a symbiosis (http/dictionary.reference.com/browse/symbiosis) relationship between the two organisms.  If in my heavily planted tanks, the plants competed with the bacteria then I would not be able to fully jump start a new cycle in a totally new tank with very light planting and have no issues with an immediate cycle with no spikes.

How can you prove you did "fully jump start the cycle" anyway? If the plants or bacteria are taking up the ammonia, the results are the same. There is no way of knowing if you have an established bacterial mass, or the plants with a high nitrogen demand. I have already said to TAA, "you are just guessing based on experience".
 
So this anecdotal "evidence" based on a guess cant support your argument of a "symbiosis" between plants and filter bacteria.
 
If what you meant by "jump start a new cycle"  was adding mature media, then you are adding an established colony of bacteria already, so no wonder there's no spikes...

 

[eaglesaquarium]

I wanted to thank you, three fingers, for continuing to engage in this discussion.  I truly do want to determine the value or lack of value in cycling with plants.  I did do a bit of a fishless cycle with hardy plants (java ferns) and a bit of established media.  It worked fairly well for me, and the algae growth was minimal (I actually like the look of a bit of green spot algae on rocks and hardscape).
 
 
And I want to be clear that I am taking the debate in a different direction... intentionally.  The assertion that the plants and bacteria are in competition, to me, is a completely worthless discussion.  I am looking at this PURELY as an aquarist.  And as an aquarist (and from the newbie perspective, more specifically) I don't care one way or the other which of them is dealing with the ammonia... just as long as the ammonia is not present.  If that job is handled by the bacteria, great.  If its by the plants, equally valuable.  If the plants taking up the ammonia means they are healthier great.  If the plants get their nitrogen from other sources, that's fine for me too.
 
So, on to my questions:
 

 

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 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". 

[/QUOTE]
 
I am not disagreeing with you, but can you actually support the assertion, with actual evidence?
 
You are quoting yourself quite a bit, and that's fine, if you are actively involved in the study of these things.  If so, I'd be very interested to know your credentials.  But, it seems at this point that I am left to take your word for it, against the word of Tom Barr. I need to know your credentials to weigh against his.  As of right now, Tom Barr has better credentials than you (at least in terms of my current understanding, you could be a PhD in the study of aquaculture for all I know).  So, IF the study TTA was referring to is accurate, then I don't see how you can expect me to take your word over his at this point.
 
I understand osmosis, and I also understand active transport.  Living things can overcome basic osmotic pressure, so merely asserting 'osmosis' as a proof that ammonia is taken up by plants even when the ammonia is at low concentrations just doesn't work for me.
 

And, of course, a race is a competition.  But again, looking at it from the perspective of an aquarist, I don't care if they are actually in 'competition' with one another from their perspective, if they are actually 'cooperating' (working together to achieve the end that I desire).  If the end result is that ammonia is lowered, then that's my top priority.  And if the plants can get nutrients through other means and still look healthy and grow, that's even better.
 
 
 

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.

 
Your explanation, I believe...

The potential disastrous results could be for the newbie, who for example, has a tank full of nice healthy plants at first (out of luck), before performing a full fishless cycle, believing they have attained a filter full of bacteria. They then proceed to add a large stock of fish all at once.  All seems well....until the plants start to suffer any nutrient deficiencies, algae infestation, eaten by fish or if the lights are left off for whatever reason - and all of these could easily happen due to a newbie mistake, or if they just don't bother to learn about plant health. Then they could get an ammonia spike enough to kill fish and/or melt plants, leading to a chain reaction.

 
I'm not sure what steps you are saying that the newbie is going through to perform this 'fishless cycle' to believe that they have a viable tank for fish, whether or not its bacteria or not.  How long do you propose this would take? And if it takes more than a week or so, wouldn't the plants start to show problems before the fish would be added, and they start to break down and increase the ammonia during the cycling process?
 
As for the lights being left off, that's a bit of a straw man assertion.  Lights being off for a period of time, even a series of consecutive days does not cause plants to fail.  Its just not true.  People (including people with plants) use blackouts to eliminate algae, and the plants are not dramatically harmed by a few days of darkness.
 
From http/www.theplantedtank.co.uk/algae.htm - referring to how to deal with BGA.

Removal A blackout is the best method for this. Clean out as much of the algae as you can and do a 30 to 50% water change. If your nitrates are low then add some potassium nitrate to get levels to 20ppm. Remove CO2 and add an airstone. Turn off lights and cover the whole tank so no light can enter. Leave it for 3 to 4 days.

 
 
I don't want to come off as adversarial, I am legitimately interested in determining the real pros and cons...

 

[Chad]

If one species is inhibiting population growth in another species due to consumption of resources then what else do you call it, if not competition?

I can't argue with that conclusion at all.

 

[eaglesaquarium]

I think the discussion got dramatically side-tracked by the competition tangent.  IMHO, if the ammonia is dealt with, what does it really matter if its dealt with by the plants or the bacteria?  The question of plant health, of course, is an important one, but I believe that it is a separate issue.
 
And if, as TTA referenced (I still need to find the original source of that) Tom Barr states that the plants don't use ammonia below 0.5ppm, then there's actually not as much 'competition' as was originally stated.  The plants and bacteria would both use the resource to whatever level (and keep the levels safe for fish) and then the bacteria would continue using it at the lowest levels - that would be expected in a 'cycled' tank.
 
I'm no biologist, and I don't pretend to be one.  But, if they are only 'competing' at levels that are toxic to fish, and then the plants bow out at lower levels, I don't see what the issue is here with the 'competition'.  Long term, there would be no competition, as there shouldn't be much ammonia present at any given time in a cycled tank.

 

[three-fingers]

I wanted to thank you, three fingers, for continuing to engage in this discussion.  I truly do want to determine the value or lack of value in cycling with plants.  I did do a bit of a fishless cycle with hardy plants (java ferns) and a bit of established media.  It worked fairly well for me, and the algae growth was minimal (I actually like the look of a bit of green spot algae on rocks and hardscape).

There you go - "established media" - that explains your results . You have added an already established bacteria colony, able to adapt faster to unstable conditions, and better able to compete with the plants.  So you haven't performed a full fishless cycle - which I have been careful in this post to show that I'm defining as "growing an average count of established bacteria on the filter".
 
Its only in a cycling aquarium, without an established bacteria colony, where I am suggesting the always-present competition is actually an issue.
 

You are quoting yourself quite a bit, and that's fine, if you are actively involved in the study of these things. 

Well, quoting yourself is fine regardless of what you study, as long as you aren't suggesting that your quotes are actually evidence of anything - which I'm not. I'm mainly quoting myself to show that I have repeatedly covered the same points. 
 
In some of the quotes I do provide evidence, for example, I provided a link to an explanation of osmosis.  If you understand osmosis, you will understand that it doesn't matter what the NH3 concentration is (0.5ppm or 3ppm), as long as the plant tissue contains a weaker concentration than the water column, the NH3 will "diffuse" into the plant. This requires no energy on the plants part whatsoever. 
 

Tom Barr-
If you look at Diana Walstad's book on this topic, you'll see my point.
There is a figure that illustrates that NH4 is preferred in Elodea.

But at what concentration?
Yuo will note that the rate of uptake falls with NH5 as it hits 0.5ppm.
It's zero, the rate of uptake is essentially zero there.

 
 Tom Barr was only referring to uptake in one particular plant genus - Egeria. This may not be, and indeed, almost certainly is not the case for all aquatic plants.  And in fact, Tom Barr was only quoting figures from Diana Walstad's book, Ecology of the Planted Aquarium - which I really hope this thread inspires people to read!  Also note that he doesn't say the rate of uptake is 0, he says "essentially zero".  Tomorrow I will have to check my copy to see what the exact uptake is on the chart!
 

But, it seems at this point that I am left to take your word for it, against the word of Tom Barr

Not at all, Tom Barr has never once said or implied that bacteria and plants aren't competing, if you accept the definition of competition that I have supplied sources for.  If you can quote anywhere he does suggest this, please do so. I very much doubt Tom Barr (plantbrain on here) will ever see this thread, but I have emailed him to see if he has time to briefly contribute to the thread, just in case!
 

I'm not sure what steps you are saying that the newbie is going through to perform this 'fishless cycle' to believe that they have a viable tank for fish, whether or not its bacteria or not.

The steps listed in the fishless cycling article by TTA.  So adding ammonia, testing, water changing, etc.
 

As for the lights being left off, that's a bit of a straw man assertion.  Lights being off for a period of time, even a series of consecutive days does not cause plants to fail.  Its just not true.  People (including people with plants) use blackouts to eliminate algae, and the plants are not dramatically harmed by a few days of darkness.

Its not a straw man assertion at all, my argument doesn't remotely rely on this point, I only mentioned it as an additional example of a possible variable.  I never once implied plants would "fail", merely that if the lights are off, the plants will have less of a nutrient demand, so the lights being on or off is another variable that effects the ammonia concentration, and therefore also the rate at which the bacteria can reproduce.
 
If your doing a fishless cycle in which the plants are using a significant proportion of the ammonia, then suddenly forget to turn the lights on for a day or two, the ammonia concentration will rise, and how the bacteria respond to this will depend on how established the colony is.  An established colony from mature filter media might reproduce fast enough to use up all the ammonia, but a new colony on brand new filter media will not be able to reproduce and adapt to new nutrient concentrations as fast as an established one.
 

I don't want to come off as adversarial, I am legitimately interested in determining the real pros and cons...

Not to worry, you certainly don't come off that way at all! I couldn't say this for all posters, however.
 

 IMHO, if the ammonia is dealt with, what does it really matter if its dealt with by the plants or the bacteria?  The question of plant health, of course, is an important one, but I believe that it is a separate issue.

It doesn't matter, as everyone seems to agree 

  lol. Plant health isn't the main issue I was worried about, rather, I was worried about a newbie having to deal with too many variable that complicate a fishless cycle.  These variables could at worst result in dead fish, and at best result in time being wasted and some algae.
 
However, for someone like to OP who has bought live plants and spent money on a CO2 kit to try and ensure healthy plants, plant health is obviously an important issue.

 

[eaglesaquarium]

That is a fair response.  I would assert that what works in Egeria may not work in other plants, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't work that same way either.  It could be a characteristic of many aquatic plants, just stem plants, just that genus or just that specie.  Without further research its truly impossible, imho, to make any extrapolations either way to include or exclude others.  There's just insufficient data to draw any conclusion.
 
As for the specific numbers, I would very much like to see those.

 

[daizeUK]

I would like to address some questions to TwoTankAmin regarding his post #40, where he neatly summarized his evidence and arguments.
 

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.

As an aside, the evidence is not from Tom Barr's personal research as he was apparently quoting an excerpt from Diana Walstad's book Ecology of the Planted Aquarium.

In the scenario which you are advocating, of planting a tank and then adding ammonia to establish a bacterial colony, your recommendations for fishless cycling would have us adding ammonia at concentrations of 3ppm - much higher than the minimum 0.5ppm threshold indicated by Walstad for Elodea species. Thus if ammonia is added to a planted tank at these concentrations we are ensuring that the plants are competing with bacteria for ammonia and thus inhibiting bacterial population growth.

On the other hand, Three-fingers recommends that the bacterial colony should be built up first and then plants added afterwards. At this point your evidence shows us that the plants and bacteria will not be in competition for ammonia since the plants do not uptake ammonia at concentrations of less than 0.5ppm, which is what you would expect to find in any cycled aquarium.

I may be missing a huge trick here, but your evidence seems to indicate that Three-fingers' method will result in reduced competition between plants and bacteria and thus have a greater chance of establishing a strong nitrifying colony.
 

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.

Perhaps in a cycled tank, but not in the scenario of fishless cycling which we are supposed to be discussing.
 

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.

I agree with this and I don't think that anyone has argued otherwise. As far as I've read, nobody has claimed that bacteria are not necessary or are driven to complete extinction by 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.

Are you claiming that the majority of nitrifying bacteria in a planted aquarium exist on the plants or in their root systems? What about a tank populated entirely by rootless plants?
 

4. I have shown that the "father" of fishless cycling considers live plants the 2nd best sources for seeding bacteria into tanks.

Acknowledged, but this is not the only method of introducing starter bacteria and the benefits of doing so are contingent on resolving the alleged disadvantages.
 

5. I have show that plants don't uptake ammonia when the levels drop to where the bacteria are still using them.

I think point 5 is the same as point 1?
 

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.

I agree with EaglesAquarium that we don't really care what is processing the ammonia. You even said it yourself back in post #4, "It does not matter how much of the bio-load is handled by plants or by bacteria, all that matters is it is handled." We know that some will be processed by plants and some by bacteria (as you stated yourself at the start of the thread). The proportion is unlikely to have much effect on the recommended method used for cycling unless it turns out to be completely one-sided, for example if the plants are processing all the ammonia without any need for bacteria - I think we've already established that this is not generally the case for your average planted tank.
 

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.

It is known that plants can use nitrate supplied by bacteria, but nitrate is also available from other sources. I have 40ppm nitrate in my tap supply so it is not a particular concern for me and many others deliberately dose potassium nitrate. I'm not sure how this supports your argument that plants should be present in the tank before starting a fishless cycle.
 

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.

I believe a previous discussion showed us that conversion from NH4 to NH3 happens almost instantaneously, so a reduction in NH4 will immediately decrease the supply of available NH3. It doesn't follow that plants are able to instantly use up ALL the NH3 required by bacteria but it doesn't prove that the bacteria are completely unaffected by NH4 uptake from plants either.
 


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.

Are you claiming that plants have absolutely NO effect on the population of nitrifying bacteria? If so, this is at odds with what you have said before and it would mean that plants have zero effect on NH3 levels. If this were true, a silent cycle would be completely impossible.

If not, you cannot view the bacteria simply in isolation. If fish produce 3ppm of ammonia and the plants consume 2ppm of it, it is misleading to state that there is no competition because only 1ppm of ammonia is available.
 


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.

I don't remember anybody recommending adding more than 3ppm ammonia. Three-fingers did state that high concentrations of ammonia could damage plants but he stated that the lethal concentration depends on the species of the plant. I apparently managed to kill a plant with 3-4ppm of ammonia, less than the amount needed to cultivate a different species of bacteria.
 

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.

Can you link to where Three-fingers stated that plants would take all the ammonia leaving none for the nitrifiers? I'm honestly struggling to find it.

There is no definition of competition that states all resources have to be consumed causing the eradication of one species. Read further down the definition you quoted. "Examples of exploitative competition include [...] (2) lions and cheetahs competing for gazelles on the African plains" When a lion eats a gazelle the cheetahs don't all suddenly starve, there is simply one less gazelle for the cheetahs to eat. I hope you would agree that the lions and cheetahs are still competing for food? This is all Three-fingers means by competition, but I'm pretty sure he's stated this several times himself already.

I must agree with EaglesAquarium that all this wrangling over the definition of 'competition' is a non-productive use of time.
 

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'm struggling to find the part where you showed us how a fishless cycle can be done without causing algae and without killing plants. You said anecdotally that you've done this yourself using a different ammonia dosing regimen and you've made some mention of blackouts, but you didn't tell us how to do it.

If your core argument has been amended from "Plant the tank, then cycle it" to performing the cycle under a undisclosed set of controlled conditions, I think we need to know what those conditions are. I know you've said that you're going to write an article that will enlighten us on the subject but it might help the discussion if you could give us a few spoilers right now.
 

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.

In posts #7 and #22 Three-fingers categorically stated that he is not claiming that bacteria and plants cannot co-exist. I wouldn't expect people to provide scientific evidence for claims they have never made.

 

[three-fingers]

That is a fair response.  I would assert that what works in Egeria may not work in other plants, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't work that same way either.  It could be a characteristic of many aquatic plants, just stem plants, just that genus or just that specie.  Without further research its truly impossible, imho, to make any extrapolations either way to include or exclude others.  There's just insufficient data to draw any conclusion.
 
As for the specific numbers, I would very much like to see those.

 
I would prefer to just post a pic of the graph for clarity, but I'm afraid that would be abusing copyright a little haha.
 
The graph is on page 107,  and it is used in the section titled "Aquatic Plants Prefer Ammonium over Nitrates" to demonstrate this preference.
 
Its uptake rate is certainly not zero at under 0.5ppm. It may have been "essentially zero" in the context that Tom Barr was originally discussing it, but the actual value I calculate from the graph is 0.03125mg/l per hour between the concentrations of 0.5ppm and 0ppm NH4.  For comparison, the uptake rate between the concentrations of 1.0ppm and 0.5ppm is 0.0625mg/l per hour.
 
Remember this is only an experiment conducted in certain conditions, the same uptake rates wouldn't apply unless the light intensity in the experiment was replicated. In high-light aquariums, the uptake rate is probably much higher.
 
So at least Egeria does compete for ammonia at under 0.5ppm, I think its reasonable to assume that other aquatic plants would too. If anyone disagrees with this assumption, however, I will try and find figures for different species from a peer-reviewed source. All the graph shows is that uptake rate of NH4 falls with the concentration, and that plants prefer ammonium to nitrate

.
 
Great post, DaizeUK.

 

[plantbrain]

I would remove it! Supplementing carbon will mean the plants have a higher demand for other nutrients too, what fertilisers are you giving your plants?
 
You cant really cycle a planted tank in the same way as a non-planted tank, as the plants just use up the ammonia as a nitrogen source instead of the bacteria.
 
If you have a planted tank - focus on getting the plants healthy and growing for a few weeks before gradually stocking tank with fish.  This means research into water flow, fertilisers and light and monitoring CO2.  The plants will take care of the water quality, not the filter.  Instead of reading up on cycling, you should be reading here

: Planted Aquarium Resource Centre.
 
If your not really set on having a fully fledged planted tank, then cycle the tank without the plants or CO2, then add the plants back when cycling.
 
See here: Why We Should Not Fishless Cycle Planted Tanks.

 
I've never seen a cycle in a planted tank.
Or have I bothered, hehe.
 
No need.
 
Generally, folks do not put a lot of fish into a planted tanks right away.
They wait a month or two.
 
With ADA aqua soil, or minierized top soil, loams, worm castings etc............these can leach some NH4, but most routines, myself, Amano, and dozens of others suggest 2-3x water changes (say 50-80%) for the first 1-2 months. 
Once plant growth, CO2 are dialed in, then you add fish. I add shrimp after about 3-4 weeks.
 
If you have an old filter from a mature tank, or switch the filter materials out, that will help some.
I view the bacteria more as a back up in case you mess up the plants for that NH4.
 
Bacteria have less demands for the NH4, than plants, but plants will remove virtually all of the NH4 rather quickly.
Plant roots and leaves come with bacteria all over them also.
 
So unless you have a lot of NH4 from soil or something, or add very few plants to start with, it's not likely that NH4 will be an issue, and if you start the planted tank correctly, you'll NEVER seen any NH4.
Even so, NH4 is not bad, plants like it, the bacteria will level off to some stable population to get the leftovers.
Just do not over load it.
 
Eg, toss in NH4CL etc at rates above 0.8ppm as NH4 per day or have 20 discus in a 55 Gallon tank fed beefheart 5x a day etc.
You can destroy any aquarium if you try hard enough
 
Folks have dosed NH4 at 0.8ppm a day, I think this is an upper bound for most well run planted tanks for plant consumption.
But..........some % of that is NH4=> NO3 right?
 
YES!
 
But.........what happens to that NO3?
Again, the plants get it.
 
So either way, unless you have a lot detritrification, plants are going to get most of that N either way.
 
I think with good plant health, focus, growth etc...........good root health is a by product, and all the soil, sediment becomes a massive bacterial filter also, due to roots piping O2 to the root zones from the shoot above.
This happens during the day, CO2 is given off by the bacteria and other fauna and by roots also. In well growing tanks, this seems to act to balance algae, and provides better conditions for plants.
Adding mature filter to a new plant, not so much, but does seem to help a little I suppose. 
 
I've set up hundreds of planted tanks, I see no reason to do those fishless CYCLES for a planted tank.  
No one has ever been able to convince me that it offers any good rational.
 
Good water changing in a new aquarium is just plain wise. Helps plants, helps keep the tank cleaner and algae at bay.
It's also simple and should not be hard or complex to figure out. You can see it and I've always felt that folks can convince themselves with common sense that something is true or not.
I already know. Other folks may not. But do not take my word for it, see if you can prove this to yourself.
 
I redid my 120 not long ago, maybe 2 months or so? Maybe it's been a little longer.

 
 
It's doing good, no cycling, like the tank has been set up for years. Never missed a beat. I had the CO2 set up right and other things, lots of healthy plants to start with etc.........but......... 
BTW, Debates and heated arguments are good, you learn a lot from them.
Some view them as personal, but........they are often not. Folks that take it personally often burn out rather quick.
 
In person at a club meeting, these debates do not occur much if ever. I'm more likely to suggest going out somewhere to eat or mountain bike etc or joke about something.
But it's easier to relate and see things at a person's home with the tank etc.
Then everyone can look and see and go "yea".

 

[plantbrain]

 

That is a fair response.  I would assert that what works in Egeria may not work in other plants, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't work that same way either.  It could be a characteristic of many aquatic plants, just stem plants, just that genus or just that specie.  Without further research its truly impossible, imho, to make any extrapolations either way to include or exclude others.  There's just insufficient data to draw any conclusion.
 
As for the specific numbers, I would very much like to see those.

 
I would prefer to just post a pic of the graph for clarity, but I'm afraid that would be abusing copyright a little haha.
 
The graph is on page 107,  and it is used in the section titled "Aquatic Plants Prefer Ammonium over Nitrates" to demonstrate this preference.
 
Its uptake rate is certainly not zero at under 0.5ppm. It may have been "essentially zero" in the context that Tom Barr was originally discussing it, but the actual value I calculate from the graph is 0.03125mg/l per hour between the concentrations of 0.5ppm and 0ppm NH4.  For comparison, the uptake rate between the concentrations of 1.0ppm and 0.5ppm is 0.0625mg/l per hour.
 
Remember this is only an experiment conducted in certain conditions, the same uptake rates wouldn't apply unless the light intensity in the experiment was replicated. In high-light aquariums, the uptake rate is probably much higher.
 
So at least Egeria does compete for ammonia at under 0.5ppm, I think its reasonable to assume that other aquatic plants would too. If anyone disagrees with this assumption, however, I will try and find figures for different species from a peer-reviewed source. All the graph shows is that uptake rate of NH4 falls with the concentration, and that plants prefer ammonium to nitrate

.
 
Great post, DaizeUK.
 

They prefer it when it's at a specific concentration, not all concentrations.  We also have issues with adding that much NH4 with shrimp, and fish etc. Whereas NO3 is essential non toxic.
Anyway, I think folks place way too much talk about the importance of NH4 vs NO3.
 
You would get far more utility by focusing on light and CO2. That's the key to all the methods that folks use to grow aquatic plants.
 
Most do not dose NH4, but some add a little urea to their macro mixes. A little does no harm and might help, but more likely, folks do it "just to be sexy", not because of any significant growth differences.
0.8ppm per day of NH4 is about 3-4 ppm of NO3. I messed with it a lot maybe 15-10 years ago, never found much difference between them with a wide range of plants.
A few seemed to do a little better, most did not. Add added new ADA As which has NH4 to the tank above, some plants seem to grow a bit better, UG, EH, but everything else does not seem to care. 
 
So location of the NH4 vs NO3 might play some role in some species. Not really  a big issue for hobbyists though. Research suggest if either location is rich in N and P, the plants will grow the same. 
(Cedergreen and Madsen, 2001)
 
But that was just with 4 species.
 
Hard to say much other than what your goal REALLY is for planted tanks, is it max production?
Or slow and steady growth?
Or slow growth?
Or to aquascape and garden?
Or to keep as many species as possible?
Non CO2?
CO2 enrichment?
Shrimp breeding/care?
Discus?
 
Etc.........
 
I think those (CO2 and light also)need addressed, then you can go from there.
 
Best hobbyist article I've read:
http/www.tropica.com/en/tropica-abc/basic-knowledge/co2-and-light.aspx
 
Table 1 shows every type of planted tank option anyone might have from low light, to low/no CO2 enrichment to high light and high CO2 and everything in between.
Tropica is a commercial aquatic plant growing producer for most of the EU.
 
They know growth pretty well.
 
NH4 is added to rice fields here locally were I live.
If it's converted or added as NO3, the water carries it off and NO3 is mobile, NH4 is a cation and will bind with soils. So they add it at the last minute and then flood the fields after they seed. They pump liquid NH3 right into the soil.
This flooding prevent rapid bacteria nitrification which is a demanding O2 process. So you get more out of the Nitrogen you add and less run off and loss. 
But they do not keep fish and once the rice emerges, then the plants grow like mad.

 

[three-fingers]

Hi Tom, many thanks for taking the time to make those informative posts!

 

 They prefer it when it's at a specific concentration, not all concentrations.  
 

 
Ah, silly me, the graph seems to suggest that they only uptake NH4 faster than NO3 when NH4 is above 0.5ppm.  NH4 uptake is still happening below 0.5ppm, just at the reduced rate I posted above.
 
Cheers for the correction! 
 

I messed with it a lot maybe 15-10 years ago, never found much difference between them with a wide range of plants.
A few seemed to do a little better, most did not. Add added new ADA As which has NH4 to the tank above, some plants seem to grow a bit better, UG, EH, but everything else does not seem to care. 

This is very interesting as I'm currently experimenting (or really, "messing around"

) with adding NH4 as one of the nitrogen sources in my tank. It's not something I felt I needed to try as I get great growth with KNO3, but since I had hydroponic nutrients lying around that contained ammonium molybdate, Id thought I'd see if any species responded positively to it, as some folks seem to rave about using NH4 on their tanks and I've had amazing results form ADA AS before.
 
Not noticed any difference, plants are still all growing at roughly the same rate as far as I can see, but I'm only adding around 0.2ppm daily along with the NO3 in there too, so since NH4 is below 0.5ppm, it seems I'd be just as well using plain KNO3 - for my current species of plants anyway. I've learnt something very useful form this discussion!

 
Thanks again!

 

[TwoTankAmin]

I will need time to respond. many questions asked and i am working on it all.
 
Tom- happy to see you here. Let me say I am advocating that completing a tank set up that needs bacteria on top of plants should be done with the plants in place. The amount of ammonia added is not great nor are the levels to be maintained and the total time it is actually in the water can be measured in days. Most of the time the ammonia levels will be barely detectible. And when they aren't one can turn out the light to stave off potential for algae. I think we are talking about between 3 and 6 days of any ammonia loading in total and a cycling period that should complete in 2 weeks or less for a lightly planted tanks and a few days for well planted but not high light heavily planted. This does not include the initial week or two where there is no ammonia added but the plants can settle in some.
 
I do not advocate nor have I ever that anybody add ammonia/ammonium to a tank with fish or other aquatic critera. That it another issue entirely.
 
This method is not meant to be applied to heavily planted or high tech tanks. These you can simply stock up in stages and be fine. I know this. It is all the other varieties of planted tanks which come into play here. Especially the ones less experience fish keepers are likely to have.
 
But if you are lurking out there, I wonder if you could bring some clarity to a subject regarding the plants in our tanks which I have been researching and that relates to stomata. I have been reading research papers etc. trying to determine if submerged plants generally have them or not. I read some say no others yes. Some say some plants do and others don't. Some say many of them have them permanently open. I am not sure if that means they do or don't. For the average planted tank, the kinds most fish keepers likely have, would the plants mostly have them in some form or not? I know they may be found on roots and stems as well as leaves. I know some plants may not have them also. 
 
I have seen it flat out said true aquatic plants do not have them and then read elsewhere that they are typical of hydrophytes in general. I am really confused here. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.

 

[three-fingers]

Let me say I am advocating that completing a tank set up that needs bacteria on top of plants should be done with the plants in place.

For clarity, does  "Completing a tank set up" mean cycling i.e. adding 3ppm ammonia and following your guide here, like the OP was with his high-tech (CO2 injection) tank?
 
Or are you now changing your recommendations?
 
Also, how would you determine if a tank needs bacteria on top of plants, especially if you are a newbie?
 

 
The amount of ammonia added is not great nor are the levels to be maintained and the total time it is actually in the water can be measured in days. Most of the time the ammonia levels will be barely detectible.

The amount of ammonia added, as specified in your guide and discussed throughout the thread, is 3ppm. You can not say "ammonia levels will be barely detectable", because of all of the variables discussed already, and this is not remotely the cycle your guide describes.
 

And when they aren't one can turn out the light to stave off potential for algae. I think we are talking about between 3 and 6 days of any ammonia loading in total and a cycling period that should complete in 2 weeks or less for a lightly planted tanks and a few days for well planted but not high light heavily planted.

So now you are recommending turning off the lights in a planted tank when adding 3ppm ammonia, and you expect that with the lights turned off (so the algae and plants wont be photosynthesising) that the tank will cycle in 2 weeks or a few days?

 

This does not include the initial week or two where there is no ammonia added but the plants can settle in some.

You never mention this condition before.
 

 
This method is not meant to be applied to heavily planted or high tech tanks. These you can simply stock up in stages and be fine. I know this. It is all the other varieties of planted tanks which come into play here. Especially the ones less experience fish keepers are likely to have.

Then why did you recommend the newbie OP with live plants and CO2 injection continue with their cycle adding 3ppm ammonia as your guide recommends?

 
Again, have you now amended your argument as DaizeUK asked here?
 
Your question to Tom doesn't relate to anything discussed in this thread, so I would have thought it more appropriate for a PM

.