I still stand by my remarks about nutrient run-off causing algal blooms in our rivers. Our Australian rivers have evolved to use the sunlight, water movement (or lack of) and CO2 in the atmosphere, but they never evolved to use the excessive nutrients that are currently going into them. For thousands of years there has been little nutrient added to our systems and then in the last 50years vast quantities have made it into them. This has thrown the balance out of whack and that is what causes the algal problems.
The planted tank (EI) system rellies on a balance between the 3 things plants need, light, nutrients and carbon. If one of these is in excess, or is lacking, then problems occur. The same thing happens in our rivers because we are adding more nutrients and creating an imbalance.
-----------------------------------------------
For Dave Spencer
When I go back to freshwater I will set up a plant tank and post pics on here. Until then I will stay with my corals as they are more interesting with their animal/ plant symbiosis.
I would also, particularly when those streams lack plants and buffer zones, most of which get destroyed when farms are put in, and the natural water ways that have had the water normally very limited in N and/or P are suddenly altered dramatically by humans. I'll be the first guy screaming about it. I also know how to regulate and add buffer zones and water shed management to reduce such impacts. You will not stop farming etc, so we have to do something that can manage both issues so some farming is still done, but careful environmental considerations are implemented as well, in the past, there was no to very little regard for natural ecosystem functioning or resources. Fortunately, things are changing, a bit slow, but they are slowly changing.
Depends on which system you are speaking of for higher nutrients, for example, the Florida Everglades has been highly impacted by PO4, causing larges plant community shifts, Calidium (native) Typha(non native in these new locations), so they are trying to use wetland management as filters to remove the PO4. This also involves water shed dynamics as well. Big issues and huge billions and billions of $ spent and more every year.
This is not something they have not thought a lot about and done a great deal of research about.
There are quite a few that have argued that removal of PO4 is not going to give the results that they seek, rather, restoring the water seasonality and level changes that flood control implemented and drainage for farms, irrigation etc.
Many lakes and swamps have high loads, but still are fine. Others are severely impacted.
It really depends on many factors before we can say any one thing.
Ironically, many regulators have left PO4 bans in place, I think that's good even with such research that questions the validity of the PO4 ban.
Won't hurt, but when it comes to restoration ecology, success is rare overall.
We think it might be one thing, often times it is not.
Aquariums however are much simpler and easier, we have complete control here. We have a tank full of hungry fast growing weeds, if you add high light and CO2, you can bet they will go through a lot of nutrients.
If you want to learn about algae, you need to learn how to induce and grow it well. It needs to be done on purpose, not just trying to run and avoid it.
Otherwise folks end up wasting time, $, and effort doing things that never resolve the root issue. Aquariums, lakes, pools, etc. Stagnant pools are part of natural systems also, they are not always stagnant either, they get flushed out every rainy season.
EI is pretty wide as far excess ranges.
I've never found any upper bounds for PO4 that's practial or human error might do for planted tanks, many have added KH2PO4 instead of KNO3 for example with out any ill effects, 5-10ppm seems to have no impact. It's not toxic either. KNO3, mostly NO3, I've gone to 160ppm for some time, others have gone to 80-100ppm for weeks, months without any issues.
A good upper bound for plants might be in the 80ppm range, and a normal range of 10-30ppm is more typical using the method.
You can do more water changes and large %, say 70% or do 50% 2x a week and maintain and closer range, say 10-20ppm, or even less. You cxan do fewer water changes, but now your error rate goes up. Always a trade off.
It's not set in stone, it's just an old method folks have done + a little math to factor in the % dilution for the water changes based on the ppm's added for the week etc.
Old timers have been doing it for years.
It's particularly useful if you do not test the water and if you do the water changes anyways to prune and trim without sloshing water everywhere.
Most hobbyists get lazy and do not test, many know they "should" at least according to dogma, but don't.
This issue with a method tends to be more Social than Plant Science.
Light and nutrients can be ruled out fairly easy, CO2 cannot, so we factor in light and then apply non limiting nutrients, then we can test+ eyeball CO2 the rest of the way.
I wish I could suggest a simple accurate CO2 method for testing, but eyes are about the best solution.
Accurate dissolved CO2 Meters run 3000$ up to 8000-10000$.
So I'll use the eyes and rule the rest out.
That's not too bad and then you soon realize how huge the issue with CO2 is and how if can influence all the other nutrients etc in our tanks.
CO2 is very much a two edge sword for the hobbyist, it helps the hobby and the grower, but also causes about 95% of all the algae issues.
Sort of like large scale farming, we like the food and cheap cost, but complain about the environmental effects.
Need a good way to mitigate both.
Coral breeding is actually pretty fun and interesting.
I like macro algae and marine plants.
My client's reef tanks are doing mighty good.
You might find the algae scrubber methods much more to your liking than skimmer based systems of refugiums for Macro algae(I like macros for many yreasons, but they are more difficult to care for than the noxious algae that grows on the turf scubbers) I do not treat macro algae/seagrasses as utilitarian plants, but the noxious microalgae and hair algae, I certainly do
"Santa Monica" usename has some long threads on several web sites about it and the results.
Use the plants to clean your systems, they are quite good at it.
Regards,
Tom Barr
No water from irrigation of landscapes should end up in the storm drain,m this causes many orders of magintude than any of the risk associated with EI or planted tank use. You also should use less light as electric cost are the largest cost issue for most aquarist.
