Are co2 systems required for live plants?
- Thread starter Hebdizzle
- Start date
Heady - I have two dozen tanks operating right now, the majority planted. None of those tank has an airstone, and HOB filter, a biowheel, or any other device requiring surface breaks. My fish are healthy and happy, my plants are healthy and happy, and my inverts are healthy and happy. You need circulation/current, you do not need surface disruption.
Robert, Tom Barr has been able to show that even plants under low to moderate light use about the same C02 levels, 20 to 30 ppm...some people go as low as 15ppm. (For maximum photosynthesis)
In order for plants to go thru phosynthesis, there has to be enough C02 to saturate photosynthesis.
"At air equilibrium, the concentration of CO2 in air and water is approximately equal at about 0.5 mg/L. Unfortunately, CO2 diffuses about ten thousand times slower in water than in air. This problem is compounded by the relatively thick unstirred layer (or Prandtl boundary) that surrounds aquatic plant leaves. The unstirred layer in aquatic plants is a layer of still water through which gases and nutrients must diffuse to reach the plant leaf. It is about 0.5 mm thick, which is ten times thicker than in terrestrial plants. The result is that approximately 30 mg/L free CO2 is required to saturate photosynthesis in submerged aquatic plants."
That is a quote from David Huebert.
I agree you do not have to inject C02 to grow plants. Being "successful" is highly subjective. There is no doubt at all that any plants will grow much more healthy, vibrant looking and at a faster rate by injecting C02, and some plants, not all...but some, are virtually impossible to grow without it.
If you are not going to inject C02, you have a much better chance with slow growing plants or plants that may derive C02 from the KH or from their roots, but that still doesn't change the fact there would be a significant difference if you brought the C02 level up to at least 15ppm if not higher.
Plants that are actively going thru photosynthesis release more oxygen, which is also very beneficial for the tank and even helps to cut back some algaes.
Don't let C02 scare you away from growing plants, but make the step to C02 when you feel ready and want to see improvements in how your plants grow, and be able to have a wider choice of what plants you may grow.
In order for plants to go thru phosynthesis, there has to be enough C02 to saturate photosynthesis.
"At air equilibrium, the concentration of CO2 in air and water is approximately equal at about 0.5 mg/L. Unfortunately, CO2 diffuses about ten thousand times slower in water than in air. This problem is compounded by the relatively thick unstirred layer (or Prandtl boundary) that surrounds aquatic plant leaves. The unstirred layer in aquatic plants is a layer of still water through which gases and nutrients must diffuse to reach the plant leaf. It is about 0.5 mm thick, which is ten times thicker than in terrestrial plants. The result is that approximately 30 mg/L free CO2 is required to saturate photosynthesis in submerged aquatic plants."
That is a quote from David Huebert.
I agree you do not have to inject C02 to grow plants. Being "successful" is highly subjective. There is no doubt at all that any plants will grow much more healthy, vibrant looking and at a faster rate by injecting C02, and some plants, not all...but some, are virtually impossible to grow without it.
If you are not going to inject C02, you have a much better chance with slow growing plants or plants that may derive C02 from the KH or from their roots, but that still doesn't change the fact there would be a significant difference if you brought the C02 level up to at least 15ppm if not higher.
Plants that are actively going thru photosynthesis release more oxygen, which is also very beneficial for the tank and even helps to cut back some algaes.
Don't let C02 scare you away from growing plants, but make the step to C02 when you feel ready and want to see improvements in how your plants grow, and be able to have a wider choice of what plants you may grow.
Last edited:
Heady- If you are going to the expense to set up a 100 gal tank, then the compressed CO2 is the route to go in my opinion. I don't think any DIY is going to be sufficient. I think I saw that Aquabotanic is having a sale on systems or at least part of the system. Florida Driftwood also has a comparable system. With such a large tank, you will probably have a canister filter and you can look on the DIY section of the Aquabotanic forums for several methods of injecting CO2 using reactors externally which use parts you can get at a hardware store. (Much cheaper than buying a reactor premade)
In hobby tanks there is no requirement for photosynthetic saturation. This is part and parcel of the current US madness that unless your tank is operating on a knife-edge of very high light, very high CO2, very careful macro- and micronutrient supplementation, massive weekly prunings and equally massive weekly water changes, then you are not doing it right, and are a total failure at growing plants. Horsefeathers! Yes, it is quite impressive to see tanks looking like fizz factories, but you have to ask yourself if this is to be your goal. Submerse aquatic plants can and do grow quite well with moderate light and CO2 conservation. Why should they have photosynthetic saturation? Is maximum growth rate your goal? It is not mine, has never been, and is unlikely to ever be so. My goal is attractive fullly planted tanks which show off my current favorites of species tanks of schooling fish, and in which they will be comfortable and live long healthy lives. To say that I need to drive those plants at top speed or I do not know what I am doing and am doomed to failure is tunnel vision under the influence of the most popular US style of the moment, and is simply not true.
Yes, I freely admit that CO2 supplementation is beneficial at all light levels. Whyever would it not be? My first post in this thread was to that effect. But 'beneficial' and 'required' are two different words with radically different meanings and implications. Beneficial does not mean required.
Some of my swordplants are themselves or are decendents of plants I bought over 20 years ago. My current vals are largely decendents of plants from the same era, ditto the Anubias (I use it for carpets and have literally square yards of the stuff), and some of the crypts are almost as old in lineage. I doubt my Crinums are nearly that old, as I have cleared them out a couple of times as they are such space and light hogs. I do not consider this failure to grow and maintain healthy plants. I don't have algae problems - a number of my tanks have never even had ANY hard green spot algae. Goodness gracious, wherever did I go wrong?
They are several years old now, but browse through Takashi Amano's first three books - check out the lighting he used then, especially on the larger tanks, and the CO2 supplements. I doubt seriously if he would still suggest the same practices as he has become an industry, but his lighting was moderate and CO2 the same, if any. Those tanks made him famous. Too bad he did not know he was doing it "wrong".
BTW:
"The solubility of Carbon dioxide in cold water is 171.3 cm3 per 100 cc of water. This is quite a high solubility. Oxygen for example has a solubility of 4.89 cm3 and nitrogen has 2.33 cm3 per 100 cc of ordinary cold water. Oxygen, Nitrogen and Carbon dioxide are the three major constituents of air but due to very high solubility, carbon dioxide gets easily dissolved in water."
Heady: I do have a compressed gas system - in storage in the garage. I played that game to test it, but decided it was not needed for my practices and purposes (below ~3W/gallon). Similarly, I have Carbo-Plus units, also in storage, and have tested DIY CO2. At my operation levels, they are not necessary. The latter two would be inappropriate for a large tank in any case. I like to understand how things work, and test a great many things I do not end up using routinely. Currently I am playing with SeaChem's Excel supplement - in one new setup and one established tank. When it came out I did not give it much of a trial, too hap-hazard to be satisfactory to me. Now I'm looking at it a bit more carefully. I doubt I will ever use it routinely, but it is too early to judge.
Yes, I freely admit that CO2 supplementation is beneficial at all light levels. Whyever would it not be? My first post in this thread was to that effect. But 'beneficial' and 'required' are two different words with radically different meanings and implications. Beneficial does not mean required.
Some of my swordplants are themselves or are decendents of plants I bought over 20 years ago. My current vals are largely decendents of plants from the same era, ditto the Anubias (I use it for carpets and have literally square yards of the stuff), and some of the crypts are almost as old in lineage. I doubt my Crinums are nearly that old, as I have cleared them out a couple of times as they are such space and light hogs. I do not consider this failure to grow and maintain healthy plants. I don't have algae problems - a number of my tanks have never even had ANY hard green spot algae. Goodness gracious, wherever did I go wrong?
They are several years old now, but browse through Takashi Amano's first three books - check out the lighting he used then, especially on the larger tanks, and the CO2 supplements. I doubt seriously if he would still suggest the same practices as he has become an industry, but his lighting was moderate and CO2 the same, if any. Those tanks made him famous. Too bad he did not know he was doing it "wrong".
BTW:
"The solubility of Carbon dioxide in cold water is 171.3 cm3 per 100 cc of water. This is quite a high solubility. Oxygen for example has a solubility of 4.89 cm3 and nitrogen has 2.33 cm3 per 100 cc of ordinary cold water. Oxygen, Nitrogen and Carbon dioxide are the three major constituents of air but due to very high solubility, carbon dioxide gets easily dissolved in water."
Heady: I do have a compressed gas system - in storage in the garage. I played that game to test it, but decided it was not needed for my practices and purposes (below ~3W/gallon). Similarly, I have Carbo-Plus units, also in storage, and have tested DIY CO2. At my operation levels, they are not necessary. The latter two would be inappropriate for a large tank in any case. I like to understand how things work, and test a great many things I do not end up using routinely. Currently I am playing with SeaChem's Excel supplement - in one new setup and one established tank. When it came out I did not give it much of a trial, too hap-hazard to be satisfactory to me. Now I'm looking at it a bit more carefully. I doubt I will ever use it routinely, but it is too early to judge.
RTR that was a great post. It's refreshing to hear some well-thought-out responses every once in awhile instead of the usual one-liners.
I'm glad someone else feels the way I do about CO2. I wouldn't mind having a lush garden in my tank in short order but I probably wouldn't be excited about all the pruning etc that goes with it. I just want my plants to be healthy and my plants to look nice. If I wanted a farm, I would buy acreage.
I'm glad someone else feels the way I do about CO2. I wouldn't mind having a lush garden in my tank in short order but I probably wouldn't be excited about all the pruning etc that goes with it. I just want my plants to be healthy and my plants to look nice. If I wanted a farm, I would buy acreage.
