PDA

View Full Version : Fert deficiency - Alternanthera reineckii



JAY973
12-05-2010, 9:27 PM
Can you help me identify what the deficiency is with the Alternanthera reineckii?

I thought once I had the BBA under control the plant would do a full recovery everything else in the tank is doing great except new growth for this plant. (It's driving me nuts this is suppose to be an easy plant and it was, it grew like mad once upon a time in this very tank see Old FTS.) I really like Alternanthera reineckii and I want to keep it as an accent plant but not in this condition.


http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh251/jay973_photos/120%20gallon/PictureT1i_2888_2.jpg

NEW FTS I have 5 stems Alternanthera reineckii in different spots hoping it would improve. It did a little for algae on the leaves but nothing for the new growth.
http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh251/jay973_photos/120%20gallon/PictureT1i_2889_2.jpg

OLD FTS Alternanthera reineckii in center.... My colorata was RED then too not anymore.
http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh251/jay973_photos/120%20gallon/PictureXSi007.jpg

current
KNO3 15-20ppm
P04 .5-1ppm
Co2 30+ ppm (PH7.4-7.5 w/C02) indicator 4dk 30ppm
CSM+B x2 week

THE V
12-06-2010, 1:30 AM
Perhaps this will help.

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/fertilizing/515-burned-curled-leaves-tips-how-improve.html

very nice tank BTW

JAY973
12-06-2010, 9:24 AM
Perhaps this will help.

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/fertilizing/515-burned-curled-leaves-tips-how-improve.html

very nice tank BTW

Thank you, Perfect just what I suspected... I was trying to originally experiment the CA theory with Equilibrium but it was affecting everything and I already have hard water. I think I need a CA fert.

Thanks again.

coach_z
12-06-2010, 10:04 AM
lights? ferts? co2? etc?
we need more info....help us help you ;)

also, who told you this was an easy plant?

JAY973
12-06-2010, 10:50 AM
current
KNO3 15-20ppm
P04 .5-1ppm
Co2 30+ ppm (PH7.4-7.5 w/C02) indicator 4dk 30ppm
CSM+B x2 week

Water changes 50% weekly (recently change to every 2 weeks no difference)
Lights are 3 80w T5HO on a 660 icecap (8hrs)

plantbrain
12-06-2010, 12:03 PM
Thank you, Perfect just what I suspected... I was trying to originally experiment the CA theory with Equilibrium but it was affecting everything and I already have hard water. I think I need a CA fert.

Thanks again.

No ya don't, that entire thread was full of rubbish and speculations.
K+, Ca++ etc........

How the heck do not know if you just needed to stay up on the CO2?
When you double the plant biomass, what do you think happens as the plants get closer to the light and a lot more biomass with respect to CO2 demand????

Does it go up or down?

Clearly it goes up, WAY UP.
If you do not adjust for the change in CO2 demand or keep up on pruning, then you run a limitation for CO2.

And this plant really shows it good, Ammannia does as well, another so called suspect with Ca/K+ quackery.

P stellata was another, and yet here I manged to grow it and many others at very low Ca+ levels. Adding more Ca+ will not hurt, but it's not the reason/cause for the tip issues, that's CO2.

I've never once seen a confirmed Ca++ deficient aquatic plant in 20+ years. Not saying that they are not out there, just never seen it. Virtually all of the claims are based on pure speculation, nothing more than a guess.

CO2?
Easy to induce these morphologies using that.

Ca++? All you do is add it, if there's no recovery, then that's not it.
Even if there is recovery, it does not imply that adding more Ca++ was the cause, which many seem to assume it the case.

I've never been able to induce Ca++ deficiency, but I've not driven the Ca++ below 2-3ppm either. I doubt many others have for that matter.

CO2 is far more likely and much harder to measure.

Regards,
Tom Barr

plantbrain
12-06-2010, 12:06 PM
current
KNO3 15-20ppm
P04 .5-1ppm
Co2 30+ ppm (PH7.4-7.5 w/C02) indicator 4dk 30ppm
CSM+B x2 week

Water changes 50% weekly (recently change to every 2 weeks no difference)
Lights are 3 80w T5HO on a 660 icecap (8hrs)

CO2, CO2 and CO2, the drop checker is not the most accurate method, there's no way you can say much within 10ppm at best, and most folks are more in the 20ppm range or error.

I keep 50-80ppm and have loads of fish, but I measure it very critically and calibrate.

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u312/plantbrain/resized38gal705.jpg
Other so called Ca++ sensitive plants:
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u312/plantbrain/resizepan3.jpg

........hopefully folks will learn there's much more to CO2, plant biomass and current etc.

regards,
Tom Barr

coach_z
12-06-2010, 12:10 PM
looks like you got some GSA on the leaves? is that correct?

Things will improve if you up your PO4 to about 4ppm and increase your Micros a bit. Based on your tank specs,going lean on your ferts will only help the algae grow.

coach_z
12-06-2010, 12:13 PM
CO2, CO2 and CO2, the drop checker is not the most accurate method, there's no way you can say much within 10ppm at best, and most folks are more in the 20ppm range or error.

I keep 50-80ppm and have loads of fish, but I measure it very critically and calibrate.


Other so called Ca++ sensitive plants:


........hopefully folks will learn there's much more to CO2, plant biomass and current etc.

regards,
Tom Barr
Tom - Can you clarify this? why isnt it as accurate as most think? how do you test and measure?

Squawkbert
12-06-2010, 1:40 PM
HACH kit? (http://www.hach.com/hc/search.product.details.invoker/VendorProductCode=143801/View=PRODUCT_OVERVIEW/NewLinkLabel=Carbon+Dioxide%2C+Dissolved+Oxygen%2C +and+pH+Test+Kit%2C+Model+CA-10WR%2C+Color+Disc/SESSIONID%7CBlV4TWpreE5qWXdNemcyTXpNMkptZDFaWE4wU1 E9PUFWZFFTRQ==%7C)

ASTM D513a?

Change in pH before/after a good N2 or He sparging of sample?

JAY973
12-06-2010, 2:38 PM
P stellata was another, and yet here I manged to grow it and many others at very low Ca+ levels. Adding more Ca+ will not hurt, but it's not the reason/cause for the tip issues, that's CO2.

Regards,
Tom Barr

Tom,

I after reading through the thread none of it made much sense and there didn't seem to be any conclusive evidence or study except that adding Ca did work for Jay.

I have Pogostemon stellatus and it has no signs of Co2 deficiency (if that's what we are saying is the likely cause), which I recently trim before the pic. in the 1st post.

This pic shows it behind the blyxa much bigger yesterday when I trimmed it.
http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh251/jay973_photos/120%20gallon/PictureT1i_2864L_2.jpg

If you share your method of measure Co2 accurately I'll attempt to measure mine. My regulator is on a Milwaukee controller being diffused in a MD1000 reactor. I don't trust my needle valve enough to run without the controller as sometime the bubble rates appear to change, but once the PH target is met it turns off with whatever Co2 still in the reactor still diffusing.

So you are saying the drop checker has a +/- of 10ppm Co2 discrepancy? Which would imply that with 4dk solution 30ppm expected target I can be at 20-40ppm instead.

BTW this plant didn't do well when there wasn't much of a plant mass either it's not like it was added after the tank was established. (just for the record)

JAY973
12-06-2010, 4:03 PM
I had the same plant in the 90g no ferts or Co2 lights where 2x54w Glo and the Alternanthera reineckii although not going to win any awards was doing a lot better than in 120g.

Plants on the right new growth was slow but wasn't the mess it is now.
http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh251/jay973_photos/90%20gallon/PictureT1i_2465_1.jpg

plantbrain
12-06-2010, 9:51 PM
Tom,

I after reading through the thread none of it made much sense and there didn't seem to be any conclusive evidence or study except that adding Ca did work for Jay.

I have Pogostemon stellatus and it has no signs of Co2 deficiency (if that's what we are saying is the likely cause), which I recently trim before the pic. in the 1st post.

This pic shows it behind the blyxa much bigger yesterday when I trimmed it.
http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh251/jay973_photos/120%20gallon/PictureT1i_2864L_2.jpg

If you share your method of measure Co2 accurately I'll attempt to measure mine. My regulator is on a Milwaukee controller being diffused in a MD1000 reactor. I don't trust my needle valve enough to run without the controller as sometime the bubble rates appear to change, but once the PH target is met it turns off with whatever Co2 still in the reactor still diffusing.

So you are saying the drop checker has a +/- of 10ppm Co2 discrepancy? Which would imply that with 4dk solution 30ppm expected target I can be at 20-40ppm instead.

BTW this plant didn't do well when there wasn't much of a plant mass either it's not like it was added after the tank was established. (just for the record)

the problem is you tradxe off KHJ accuracy for loss of pH accuracy with the drop checker.

You also really lose a lot of the response time.
Drop checkers(DC's), have about 2 hour delay, many have trouble treading the colors, you have 3 basically, yellow, green and blue, not much in between.

Plants make a good indicator of something "Right"

You can EASILY rule out an issue with Ca++ by simply seeing if someone has low Ca++ and no such issues, or ask someone to confirm if your hypothesis is true or not. If you have stunting already.......then you cannot do the test, you have some dependency already and it's likely CO2.

It;s only when the plants are growing well and with folks that can lower/add Ca++.

Then they can test and see, since with nice good growth, they have a reference control.

They can test that specific issue and if they get no response, they cannot say why the plant is that way in your case, but they can say why it is NOT.

I've had CO2 issues stop adding gas. Stunted smaller tips growth was common. P stellata got monsterous prior. Same with the other psecies listed.

I've gone through this maybe 5-6 times, all with the same result and conclusion. I tried all sorts of ratios and chemicals, I was never once able to induce stunting. So have other folks.

I have had CO2 issues, and then got these same exact stunting patterns.
I have also reduced the light intensity, which also lowers CO2 demand, and such issues have gone away as well.

Good quality CO2 equipment, a good vernier caliper handle ona Swagelok or even better, an Ideal needle valve with the same handle type, a good in line check valve with MPT or FPT 1/8" threaded fittings post solenoid (get a good solenoid as well, Burket's etc) Nice dual stage regulator etc.

Go high grade there with CO2, low intensity but wide good spread and high quality light.

I think many just go a little too cheap with CO2, and often assume too much about their measurements of CO2. I wish I had an easy solution for everyone.

However, I really do not for accuracty measurements. Some are very $$$, or very imprecise. Depends on the types of alkalinity in your tap water. If it really was all bicarbonate for everyone, that would be the pH/Kh chart pretty good. Most measure KH only once in a great while when something is very wrong typically, few measure it often.

You could do it without all RO and then add bicarb as your only source of alkalinity, that should be pretty accurate in a very well mixed system depending on WHERE you place the pH probe.

Think about it this way, you calibrate the pH probe correct?
You can calibrate and confirm a test kit say for NO3 by making a known stock solution and measuring that over the desired range(say a 5 ppm and 20ppm solution of NO3)

So.......how might you do this for a CO2 measurement and get say a 10ppm and 40ppm standard solution of CO2?


Not so easy.......

O2 is easier and more used, reliable etc, but not CO2 so much.
I measure both, but they instruments I use are several thousands of dollars. Yes, I wanted to know that bad. :hitting:
So, then I have this nice techy stuff, I still have to figure out a calibration method. So I got some known %gas and made sealed bubbling chambers and pH probes with known KH reference cells.

So it's gotten a long way from simple hobby level stuff.
Still, the CO2 meter has been calibrated and the results are very different from what folks expect.

I've also used a similar approach at the same time with O2 meters, using the Hach LDO meter methods. I also data log CO2 over the 24 hour period as well as O2.

This way we can get a complete picture.
I do not like to assume I know more than I do, but at some point you have to stop cutting bait and fish.

More next post.

Regards,
Tom Barr

plantbrain
12-06-2010, 10:09 PM
I had the same plant in the 90g no ferts or Co2 lights where 2x54w Glo and the Alternanthera reineckii although not going to win any awards was doing a lot better than in 120g.

Plants on the right new growth was slow but wasn't the mess it is now.
http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh251/jay973_photos/90%20gallon/PictureT1i_2465_1.jpg

So less light and no CO2..........why do you think the plants are not having any issues based on my prior post? I too have had nice color and nice growth in non CO2 lower light tanks with this plant.

You can easily rule out ratios or absolute Ca or nutrient issues, but.......they will not be highlighted since you have less light and are more CO2 limited/light limited here.

If you have stable CO2(low, med or high), then you will be fine. Hard to measure CO2 to see if it is stable, but you can safely assume it is in the non CO2 tank.

Plants can and do adapt to CO2 concentrations, they make more or less Rubsico to take up more or less depending. If the CO2 goes up and down a lot during the light cycle, this makes it tougher for the plant.
The nutrients will NOT matter if there are not enough reduced carbon skeletons to assimilate the nutrients into more complex chemicals and tissues. So you get new growth tip stunting mostly.

More light = more CO2 demand = more nutrient demand.
What happens if the CO2 demand is not adjusted to the lighting(say CO2 is limiting)? Wasting your light for one........and the nutrients......

Honestly , at the end of the day, many hobbyist just use the eyeballs to adjust the CO2 and do so slowly, patiently and incrementally.

With a vernier handle, you turn the best guess to say 25.
Wait, observe fish good and make sure there's zero sign of respiration stress. This can be helped along much better with good current, but not so much that you break the surface, some rippling is good. Do not worry about losign alittle bit of CO2, you can simply add a bit more, worry more about makig sure there's high good O2.

So you have some starting point.
Then you slowly adjust the CO2 up a tick mark on the handle.
Wait 3-4 days, adjust a tad higher, and wait and watch.
Be patient here.

No rushing, impatient folks gas/kill their fish.

You should be able to dial in a good range between no fish issues and healthly plant growth. If you use lower light, this is even better, since CO2 demand is reduced. So this target is even easier, larger, and you place less CO2 respiration stress on the fish. It takes some time and watching, but a good plant aquarist should easily be able to do this over time.

Most do this at some level anyway, the ppm's are really sort of arbitrary at the end of the day for many. We also have issues with folks not measuring the light in terms of PAR, so there's really not consistency in the units of light measurement, watts/gal never did anyone a favor really.

Every tank I own and have set up is under 2w/gal, and yet I seem to do pretty good with colors and growth and plant sales:o. If you can measure all 3 things collectively well, then you can understand a lot more.

But a 300$ light meter? 2000$ CO2 meters?
Not things folks have at the hobby level really, the light meter is somewhat resonable if you do a group buy and share. Many clubs like ours has a "club meter".

I think if you can upgrade to decent valve and check valve combo, you should be able to do this method, and you could also try adjusting the pH controller down say 0.05units and watch at each incremental step for 3-5 days etc.

These are relative adjustments, you are simply adding a bit more CO2 in a controlled manner even if you do not know the absolute concentration. With less light, you should hit this range sooner than with higher light.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Tom Barr

JAY973
12-06-2010, 11:18 PM
Tom...

The easy thing to do is to pull out the plant and just grow what works, but where is the challenge and the lesson learned in that. (I won't be buying PAR meters or any other expensive devices....LOL) I do however have every intension of doing a couple of upgrades to my Co2 equipment which are long over due.

Thanks for all the information I hope to apply it with some success.

rockhoe14er
12-07-2010, 9:59 AM
wow a lot of good information.

plantbrain
12-07-2010, 2:43 PM
Tom...

The easy thing to do is to pull out the plant and just grow what works, but where is the challenge and the lesson learned in that. (I won't be buying PAR meters or any other expensive devices....LOL) I do however have every intension of doing a couple of upgrades to my Co2 equipment which are long over due.

Thanks for all the information I hope to apply it with some success.

Well, you can simply use relative measures, which is my point really.

1.
So for lighting: use metal screen to layer much like layers of shade cloth on nursery plants in a garden.

2.
CO2: vernier caliper handles my incremental adjustments easier.

3.
Trim and prune to maintain the general biomass total.


I'm not suggesting folks run out and have to buy any of this techy test stuff, to the contrary........I suggested using EI decades ago to avoid testing test kits etc, because......like any pragmatic person.......it does no one no good if they don;t use it to begin with:cool:

It's(feet dosing) a relative measure but something we can know and estimate using water changes.
CO2 and light are tougher there.

But all 3(ferts.CO2/light) can be done via the plants and relative measures and there are good examples of this as well.

But......we learn very little in the hobby as whole from that. We cannot verify or test many ideas and assumptions. So myths are harder to kill.
This does no one much good.

Not everyone will test or verify, but some will. What is ironic are folks that want to claim to know and have not tested or verified. If you don't do the work to show and illustrate it, you cannot say much.
Some seem to think they can and this spreads myths.

It's not just in their hobby either, it's quite common.

Regards,
Tom Barr