Cycling With Or Without Plants - Debating The Merits Of Each

[ian]

There is quite a bit about not adding ammonia though...I think it was Clive on ukaps that said adding ammonia to a planted setup can actually destroy the n bacs. He claimed it was like feeding a baby with a fire mans hose.

 

[Chad]

 He claimed it was like feeding a baby with a fire mans hose.

That's never good...
http/youtu.be/OXc5ltzKq3Y

 

[eaglesaquarium]

There is quite a bit about not adding ammonia though...I think it was Clive on ukaps that said adding ammonia to a planted setup can actually destroy the n bacs. He claimed it was like feeding a baby with a fire mans hose.

 
I agree that it 'can'... the question is at what dosage.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

Ian- if you have a read on Dr Hovanec's site he states that one should not exceed 5 ppm of ammonia-nitrogen or nitrite-nitogen as either will impede the cycle and as it goes higher will kill them. He should know and certainly has nothing to gain by telling people this information.
 
Now most folks use API type kits, not one's which read using the -nitrogen scale. It is like miles vs kilometers. On an API kit the ammonia reading for 5 ppm of ammonia-nitrogen would be 6.4 ppm. For nitrite the difference is much greater, 5 ppm NO2-N would read 16.4 ppm if the kits went that high,
 
Now the amounts of ammonia I have suggested in this thread range from 1 - 3 ppm on a total ion type kit common in the hobby. The only ammonia oxidizing prokaryotic microorganisms found in tanks that this level of ammonia (or subsequent nitrite) might inhibit are the Archaea, if they are present.
 
I find the idea that dosing 3 ppm of ammonia into a new tank with nothing in it to be OK re bacteria and getting a tank fishlessly cycled but doing the same thing into a planted tank where the plants would consume a lot of it, would then kill, harm or retard the bacteria in any way to be illogical. The toxicity of ammonia is dependent upon the concentration.
 
In this instance who ever Clive is, he needs to be able to prove what he implies because the science i have seen doesn't support it.
 
Edited to add:
Btw- I think if the bacteria are being destroyed by high ammonia, so are a lot of the plants?

 

[TwoTankAmin]

Because I seem unable to stop reading on these topics, I came across and interesting 2011 study on AOA and AOB which was directly related to the relationships between plants and microorganisms in cycling occurring in soil. Yes I know that we are looking at aquatic environs, but I think the results here are, at the very least, interesting to consider. The study is titled:
 
"Linking plant identity and interspecific competition to soil nitrogen cycling through ammonia oxidizer communities"
 
Here are a couple of experts from the abstract:

 
Both plants and microbes influence soil nutrient cycling. However, the links between plants, microbes and nutrient cycling are poorly understood. In this study, we investigated how plant identity and interspecific competition influence soil nitrogen cycling and attempted to link plant identity and interspecific competition to community structures of bacterial and archaeal ammonia oxidizers based on terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis (T-RFLP) of bacterial and archaeal ammonia monooxygenase (amoA) genes...........
 
Although multivariate analysis showed that the function and community structure of bacterial ammonia oxidizers were significantly correlated, plant species and interspecific competition did not significantly change the community structure of bacterial and archaeal ammonia oxidizers. These results indicate that plant species and interspecific competition regulate soil nitrogen cycling via a mechanism of other than alteration in the community structure.
 

from http/www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038071710003421
 
The above would indicate that, at least on land, plants and any ammonia oxidizing Archaea and bacteria do not appear to occupy the same niche in respect to cycling nitrogen. While this does not show the same relationships exist in planted tanks, it indicates that it might also the case.
 
And all of this brings (at least for me) the whole discussion full circle. While it is reasonably safe to assume that in well planted tanks, the cycling dynamics are changed because there are more organisms available to handle the cycling chores, both are present and active. We know that plants going into tanks are covered in both AOA and AOB as well as NOB (there are likely more non-nitrifying bacteria involved as well. We know that many of these plants uptake the ammonium component of Total Ammonia and the AOB/AOA uptake NH3. Since these exist side by side it seems to me that as TA in the water is near a plant it is also equally near the AOA/AOB. This means there is no way the NH4 can get into the plant without the NH3 being taken up by the bacteria at the same time.
 
The problems with trying to determine what exactly is going on in aquariums is severely complicated by the lack of direct research on aquariums. It is further complicated by the diversity of tank parameters, contents and maintenance routines. Because aquariums are artificial environments, it becomes very difficult to generalize from any one set of tanks to all apparently similar tanks. However, certain thins can be. An example would be the difference in where the concentrations of nitrifying organism colonize.
 
The research supports the idea that in unplanted tanks nitrifying bacteria in the substrate are only present to a very shallow depth before the lack of oxygen make them unable to function. However, in a tank with rooted plants this changes radically. Now the plants roots are supplying oxygen (and in some cases carbon) to the substrate. This fosters areas of nitrification at a greater depth and also seems to encourage an anaerobic zone which handles denitrification between aerobic zones well colonized by autotrophic bacteria and archaea. The conclusion here is that in tanks with rooted plants more of the bacteria will  live in the substrate than in filters. And then considering that many plants will uptake ammonium from the water (as will the bacteria on them) it is not hard to conclude that the more heavily planted a tank is, the less of the total nitrifying bacteria that will colonize the filters. But even in non-planted tanks research indicates that there is plenty of bacteria down to at least a 4 mm depth (about .16 inch), if one has some critters stirring up the substrate some, that depth probably increases due to O reaching deeper than in undisturbed substrate.

 

[Chad]

The research supports the idea that in unplanted tanks nitrifying bacteria in the substrate are only present to a very shallow depth before the lack of oxygen make them unable to function. 

Just to note: in deeper substrates anaerobic denytrifying bacteria exist. This is the function of live rock and deep sand beds in reef and FOWLR aquaria. I know that doesn't really relate to the cycle but thought it was worthy to note that oxygenated substrate isn't the only home for useful bacteria.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

True chad, but the bacteria in the anaerobic areas are not the nitrifiers for the most part. They are the ones doing other things usually associated with denitrification. The interesting part of the fw plants and bacteria relationships are that there were not only two aerobic zones where nitrification was happening thanks to the O and carbon supplied but the plants, but that between these two zones was a functional anaerobic zone working on the denitrification. Apparently, the presence of the plants helped to encourage both zone types. And the positioning of the zones was also conducive to the entire cycle.
 
Ain't nature grand?

 

[Chad]

True chad, but the bacteria in the anaerobic areas are not the nitrifiers for the most part. They are the ones doing other things usually associated with denitrification...

As I said...
 

...The interesting part of the fw plants and bacteria relationships are that there were not only two aerobic zones where nitrification was happening thanks to the O and carbon supplied but the plants, but that between these two zones was a functional anaerobic zone working on the denitrification. Apparently, the presence of the plants helped to encourage both zone types. And the positioning of the zones was also conducive to the entire cycle.
 
Ain't nature grand?

That is very interesting. I've often thought that the Berlin Method would work just fine in FW tanks. I can see no reason why not. Then we add the benefits of plants to that and it becomes possible to create an ecosystem that requires very little maintenance. Someday I plan on having a FW mirror of my marine tank and I'm excited to see what a FW tanks of that size is capable of doing when fully planted and illuminated by the same lighting as my reef.
 
Nature is grand and all the filtration we need is already supplied it's just a matter of thoughtful hobbyists fine tuning it.

 

[daizeUK]

I'm rather looking forward to Clive's response to this thread.
http/www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/when-to-start-ei-dosing.31452/

Clive is ceg4048 for those who don't know him.
 

zimmy:  read something today saying that you shouldn't start dosing till the tank's been up and running for about 3 weeks.
ceg4048: This is wrong. Dosing should commence within 250 milliseconds of filling the tank with water. Whatever website you read that on should be deleted from your Bookmarks because more poor advice is likely to follow.
zimmy: It's Tropica's website

 
It's rather funny that he advises deleting Tropica as a source of bad information!
Having said that, I do respect Clive's vast wealth of knowledge and experience and I am very interested to see if he can give good reasons for his statement.

 

[daizeUK]

So as I expected, Clive's response is very interesting and pretty much what I thought he would say.
To summarize his main points:

• Shop bought plants are usually grown emersed and thus traumatised when we submerge them in an aquarium
• The plants store of nutrients is used up before they can complete the transition to immersed growth
• Excess nutrients in the water do not trigger algae thus there is no reason not to fertilise
• Providing the plants with sufficient nutrients from the start helps them to adjust and in so doing inhibits algae growth

Yes, he is probably talking specifically about CO2 enriched tanks - so is the Tropica article which tells us to postpone fertilization (it advises addition of CO2).  But as we have seen, CO2-enriched tanks need to be cycled too (unless the owner is confident enough to attempt a silent cycle in which case they won't be reading TTA's guide).
 
I would urge that consideration is given to the scientific validity of Clive's assertations before including any generalised advice about postponing fertilization in a beginner's guide to planted cycling.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

daize- I do not maintain that well planted tanks need to be cycled and never have. I do suggest if one isn't sure to do a single ammonia addition and test to find out. The tanks with plants that need cycling help are the ones described in this thread as not being planted tanks but rather as a tank with some plants. these are the ones that need cycling help, not the ones that are heavily planted. And I will also reiterate what you will see in the fish in rescue article, one way to reduce ammonia is to addition of live plants.
 
Between Clive and Tropica, I will go with Tropica every time. I believe they have been researching and growing aquatic plants for the hobby longer than he has been alive.
 
Read the actual Tropica stuff yourselves and decide. Here are the 1st 4 of 8 steps they suggest plus what they say about when to add fish:

1) Set the lighting time to 6 hours a day in the first 2-3 weeks. Then you can increase to 8-10 hours a day.
2) It is a good idea to provide CO2 from day 1.
3) Change the water 25-50% a couple of times a week in the first 3-4 weeks. After that, change approx. 25% of the water once a week.
4) No fertiliser or a limited amount of fertiliser during the first 3-4 weeks. The plants contain plenty of nutrients already from the nursery, which is sufficient to establish a root network.
 
7) We recommend that the introduction of fish is delayed for 3-4 weeks until the plants have established. In other respects, follow the fish stocking guidelines for new aquariums.

from http/www.tropica.com/en/tropica-abc/start-up/growing-in.aspx
 
If you are curious about how Tropica grows its plants: (I get no sound, not sure why- it may not have any)
[media]http/www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUYP9PK0RGU&list=UUCrPNIv51uC33W8WeKLSAvQ[/media]
 
Incidentally, I am dying to see how many new hobbyists attempting plants for the first time are going to plant heavily or be able to follow that regimen. And wait for another bunch of weeks to be able to add fish.
 
But lets consider detritus and nitrifying bacteria. While there is a definite relationship between the two, detritus, as far as I can discern, is not the host for the biofilms inhabited by the autotrophic bacteria. Lets start with the definition of detritus and, much as I hate to, I will use Wiki for this:
 

In biology, detritus (pronounced dee-try-tus) is non-living particulate organic material (as opposed to dissolved organic material). It typically includes the bodies or fragments of dead organisms as well as fecal material. Detritus is typically colonized by communities of microorganisms which act to decompose (or remineralize) the material

from http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detritus
 
The bacteria that break down detritus are not the nitrifiers, they are bacteria that break down the organic material. Some extract the N back out of the decaying organic matter and turn it into other forms of nitrogen. One of these forms is ammonia. And this ammonia is step one in our nitrification cycle. So detritus is important for, among other things, an ammonia source. It is also a good source of nutrients for plants with roots.
 
However, we also know that decaying matter gets broken down further and used by other microrganisms. It is also consumed by fish and other critters. Thus, it is not exactly a good host for bio-films or nitrifying bacteria. In essence, it isn't stable foundation in this respect. Another way to think about this is in relation to a bare bottom tank with no plants. In such tanks a fair amount of the bacteria is going to colonize the filter. Lets further assume the use of filter are sponges to host the bacteria in their bio-films. Now, instead of the sponges being  sturdy enough to last for years, lets suppose they broke down into smaller and smaller pieces rapidly as detritus would. What would happen to the nitrifying bacteria and biofilms?
 
My understanding is that the nitrifying bacteria do not live on detritus, however their nutrients are often very dependent on detritus as their source. Finally, detritus is organic and the nitrifying bacteria need inorganic carbon which is not provided by detritus, organic carbon is. The bacteria live on silt or sand particles etc. which may be in close contact with detritus.
 
As far as I can tell adding detritus or mulm from an established tank will help the plants and it will add all sorts of other bacteria but will do little or nothing to add autotrophic nitrifying bacteria to a tank directly. My understanding is the nitrifiers will come in on the plants and not any detritus or mulm added. The detritus will help provide an ammonia source though.
 
Imo, saying that excess P or NO2 do not cause algae is simply absurd. That they do this has been known for decades. There is a difference between saying that limiting P and NO2 in planted aquaria will be a problem and therefore one should keep available adequate supplies of these two "nutrients" vs saying that excess P and NO2 do not cause algal blooms. In nature these things are majors causes of fw algal blooms. Granted the source of the nutrients here is man made. However, if excess P and NO2 do not cause algae, then one should be able to dose 5 or 10 times the amount of these two nutrients into a planted tank and not see any algae. Somehow, I don't believe that would be the result.
 
Linda Chalker-Scott, Ph.D., Extension Horticulturist and Associate Professor, Puyallup Research and Extension Center, Washington State University
 

The Myth of Phosphate Fertilizer:​

"Phosphate fertilizers will stimulate root growth of transplanted trees and shrubs"​

 ​

In addition to harming beneficial soil organisms, excess phosphate will eventually find its way into waterways. Unlike urban landscapes, aquatic plants are most often limited by phosphate and the addition of phosphate will induce algal blooms (eutrophication). Such blooms are always followed by increased bacterial activity, resulting in lowered oxygen levels and the eventual death of fish and other animals. As green industry professionals, it is incumbent upon us to recognize that excessive use of phosphorus in landscapes is a resource-wasteful, ecosystem-damaging practice.

from http/puyallup.wsu.edu/~linda%20chalker-scott/Horticultural%20Myths_files/Myths/Phosphate.pdf
 
Now, this is in the wild, in tanks one can always reset things if they go haywire. But as far as I can tell, excesses of P or N02 can and do cause algae. But also that limiting these things are also what can retard healthy plant growth in tanks. Too little of these things starves plants, too much of these things causes algae. There is a lot of space between those two extremes, but both facts are true.
 
I keep hearing from the plant "pros" adding detritus or mulm to a filter jump starts the bacteria. The odd thing is I cannot find any science that supports this. I read lots of studies re the bacteria, in many they jump start things yet in none do they use mulm or detritus for this. In the studies involving aquariums they culture bacteria by taking bio-media and a bit of the surface substrate as the initial source of that bacteria. Then they clone the bacteria ti get the needed numbers. It seems to me if the mulm and detritus were such a superior source, this would be from where they would want to obtain their starter cultures?
 
Microbial communities associated with filter materials in recirculating aquaculture systems of freshwater fish

 
The microbial communities associated with filter materials in closed recirculated systems of carp and goldfish were examined by the clone library method of 16S rRNA gene. The bacterial cells were efficiently recovered by the combination of six washing treatment and swabbing. The bacterial density on pebbles of well-conditioned recirculating water systems was 1.1×107 cells g−1 in the carp-rearing tank and 1.9×108 cells g−1 in the goldfish-rearing aquarium.

from http/www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0044848604005605
 
Where is the mulm?

 

[daizeUK]

I don't understand why there is so much opposition to discussing moderately and heavily planted tanks in this thread - especially considering the whole debate was originally sparked by someone who wanted to use CO2 and came seeking advice on how to cycle it!

However, if excess P and NO2 do not cause algae, then one should be able to dose 5 or 10 times the amount of these two nutrients into a planted tank and not see any algae. Somehow, I don't believe that would be the result.

Clive has in fact done this and is adamant that excess nutrients do not cause algae in a planted tank. Perhaps allelopathy or some similar factor trumps the excess nutrients - I do not know.

 

[Chad]

However, if excess P and NO2 do not cause algae, then one should be able to dose 5 or 10 times the amount of these two nutrients into a planted tank and not see any algae. 

 ​

5 and 10 times seem like arbitrary numbers but also quite high numbers. There is a point at which ability of the plants to take up the nutrient is overreached. Is that 2 times, 5 or 10? There has to be a point at which these nutrients feed algae even in a heavily planted tank if one were to put 10 times the amount usable by plants...

 

[eaglesaquarium]

I don't understand why there is so much opposition to discussing moderately and heavily planted tanks in this thread - especially considering the whole debate was originally sparked by someone who wanted to use CO2 and came seeking advice on how to cycle it!
 

However, if excess P and NO2 do not cause algae, then one should be able to dose 5 or 10 times the amount of these two nutrients into a planted tank and not see any algae. Somehow, I don't believe that would be the result.

Clive has in fact done this and is adamant that excess nutrients do not cause algae in a planted tank. Perhaps allelopathy or some similar factor trumps the excess nutrients - I do not know.
 

 
IMHO, heavily planted tanks do not need a 'cycling' article.  Plenty of other articles on how to run a silent cycle are available, including one on our own site.
 
http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?/topic/299827-why-we-should-not-fishless-cycle-planted-tanks/

 

[daizeUK]

I thought I'd already explained this in posts #87, #90 and #98 but I'll try one last time before I throw in the towel.

Even a heavily planted tank must meet some criteria before you can expect a successful silent cycle.
It must meet a certain minimum coverage of planting.
It must contain a certain quota of fast-growing plants.
It must have adequate CO2, fertiliser and flow.

In other words a silent cycle is only possible when you have a fishkeeper with a certain amount of experience and adequate equipment who is setting up a particular kind of aquascape which conforms to a given recipe of plant mass and types.

I honestly thought that most of us were in agreement on this because there was some argument a few pages back and it seemed that only three-fingers had the opinion that a silent cycle was so easy even a beginner could do it.

My take is that silent cycles are only a real option to a limited number of aquarists. It does not mean that every heavily planted tank should be cycled silently.

Consider 1) A grassy iwagumi layout 2) a low-light jungle of slow-growing java fern and anubias 3) a newbie who is messing around with yeast CO2 for the first time and isn't sure if it's actually going to work.

All of them use CO2 and could be considered heavily planted. I wouldn't recommend any of them to follow that silent cycle guide you linked.
However they can't be classed as complete beginners who have stuck 'a few plants' in the tank either.

They can either follow TTA's guide on planted fishless cycling guide and my fear is that they might potentially run into trouble because it contains advice specific to lightly planted tanks.

Or they follow the silent cycle route and actually end up with a planted fish-in cycle - perhaps mistakenly led to believe that their plants can handle all the ammonia.

I am 100% sure that we do not advocate fish-in cycles of any kind on this forum. So why is there a reluctance to consider the best cycling methods for the wide variety of plant-heavy tanks that don't fit the silent cycle template?