# A theory about algae and how to kill it.



## mcqueenesq (Aug 29, 2011)

Great post. What period of exposure do you suggest for the UV light?


----------



## Constantine (Mar 10, 2012)

Since controlling the available wattage of UV light would be difficult and impractical. Id say 3% of your current lighting regiments time duration would be the best course of action to take and then slowly upping the wattage on the uv source. Since the formula here would be 3% of the lighting duration of your normal lights you would have to use the same wattage of light as your regular lighting system but I feel somewhat nervous by this and I highly stress doing things slowly and working your way up.

6 hours = 360 minutes
360*0.03= 10minutes

Therefore use 10 minutes of uv light exposure on a 6 hour regular lighting duration.


----------



## NWA-Planted (Aug 27, 2011)

Yea the UV exposure is good in concept, but depending on how much and how long of period it would take to affect the algea vs other tank inhabitants.

its like treating cancer in a chemo patient, yes it kills the cancer and to an extent the patient :-/

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Constantine (Mar 10, 2012)

NWA-Planted said:


> Yea the UV exposure is good in concept, but depending on how much and how long of period it would take to affect the algea vs other tank inhabitants.
> 
> its like treating cancer in a chemo patient, yes it kills the cancer and to an extent the patient :-/
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


That's why I'm preaching caution lol.


----------



## NWA-Planted (Aug 27, 2011)

Lol good point, curious though as to how beneficial it could be

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Rockhoe14er (Jan 19, 2011)

Constantine said:


> Second do regular maintenance on your tanks and keep them clean and reduce the amount of nutrients available in the water column. If possible use a substrate that provides the plants with nutrients and have it either in non direct contact with the water column or be sure that it does not degrade and foul the water (IE sand over soil or an aqua soil). Do not over feed or over fertilize.


The problem with dropping the amount of fertilizer in the water column is that when you start to limit your fertilizer then the plants are the ones that suffer not the algae. As you noted algae is far superior than plants at obtaining nutrients so any little nutrients you have will go to them and your plants will start to suffer. The other thing you will notice is if your plants are growing really well algae isn't present. In order to get this you need a very stable tank with almost identical tank co2 concentrations. Plants beat algae when they have undergone protein synthesis and made the changes to grow optimally. If the tank conditions (ie amount of light, co2, fertalizers) are constantly changing then algae will win 100% of the time. 


The big problem with plants is that they have to modify their protein expression, which takes time, to deal with new tank conditions. In order for them to beat the plant vs algae race you need the right conditions then you need to keep them for a long enough time that you plants have made the necessary changes to grow in optimal conditions.


----------



## Postal Penguin (Mar 30, 2009)

It will not work. Water is very opaque to UV which is why UV devices pass the water very close to the bulb. A tank with a depth more than a few inches will render the UV useless. Many aquarium fish also live in less than pristine water in the wild meaning they are exposed to very little UV in the wild which in turn means they are unlikely to handle UV exposure all that well. 

Second, UV of such a strength to penetrate an aquarium would be extremely dangerous to your eyes. Anyone in the room with the light running would run the risk of getting sunburn on their skin and burns in their eyes. 

Thirdly, your fish and other inhabitants would be exposed to this light directly leading to damage of their eyes at the very least. Any UV of sufficient strength to destroy algae would also destroy fish. 

Fourthly, UV will cause plastics to degrade and colors to fade which would cause your equipment and furniture around the aquarium to deteriorate in both appearance and function.

So in the end simply hanging a UV bulb over the aquarium would either be completely ineffective because its not strong enough or incredibly dangerous.

Source: Microbiologist who works with UV in the lab.


----------



## @[email protected] (Oct 24, 2007)

some of the tanks that are in the most danger of algae are those that use metal halide lighting. ask anyone who keeps a reef (i do) and they will tell you that MH bulbs can and do produce UV light. in fact, when i switched 2 year old MH (i know, way too long), with a brand spanking new one, the corals were not adjusted and were injured. the macroalgae didnt care less.
the only way to get rid of algae through sterilization (which is what sufficient electromagnetic radiation can do), is just that: through sterilization. bombard everything with radiation, kill everything, and then you wont have algae. but you wont have a planted tank, just a tub of water.

the best algae control system is basic biology: every niche is filled, and only 1 species can survive per niche. eliminate the niche for that algae, and it will not thrive in your tank. if a few cells endure here an there, that is not an issue. the algae is not visible and the plants are healthy.
how to do that? good CO2. CO2 is almost always the issue. sometimes the amount, sometimes the distribution (how your flow is set up), sometimes both. 
other than that, nutrient deficiencies. 
moderate light + good CO2 + good dosing (im a big fan of EI, but there are others that work for other people) = healthy plants + no algaefication of the tank


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Adding UV to our aquarium lighting to better simulate sunlight would make algae grow as poorly as it does in natural sunlight. Unfortunately, algae grows extremely well in natural sunlight. I think this idea needs more work.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

No algae are better at getting lower concentrations of nutrients, at richer concentrations, plants have the advantage/higher rates of uptake.

They have more allocation and "expenses" than algae.

UV will not work, the light only hits where it is NOT BLOCKED, eg by another leaf on the same plant, you also end up having a lot of mutations and death of beneficial things, eg, the plants, fish etc.

Cut off your nose to spite your face?

CO2 is not about lowering your pH to some plant preference for pH, it's solely about enrichment of CO2 to increase the rates of plant growth, this is true in terrestrial systems as well if you have dounts, and the boundary layer flux in water is 10,000X slower, this leads to a limitation, but that can be overcome by enriching the water.

pH has little to do with it.

FYI, they already have UV's on tanks and they are contained in tubes to avoid the above issues, they are effective killing whatever passes through the chamber, but things in the tank? Not much without killing the patient.

Worth a shot asking and thinking about though.


----------



## Constantine (Mar 10, 2012)

Rockhoe14er said:


> The problem with dropping the amount of fertilizer in the water column is that when you start to limit your fertilizer then the plants are the ones that suffer not the algae. As you noted algae is far superior than plants at obtaining nutrients so any little nutrients you have will go to them and your plants will start to suffer. The other thing you will notice is if your plants are growing really well algae isn't present. In order to get this you need a very stable tank with almost identical tank co2 concentrations. Plants beat algae when they have undergone protein synthesis and made the changes to grow optimally. If the tank conditions (ie amount of light, co2, fertalizers) are constantly changing then algae will win 100% of the time.
> 
> 
> The big problem with plants is that they have to modify their protein expression, which takes time, to deal with new tank conditions. In order for them to beat the plant vs algae race you need the right conditions then you need to keep them for a long enough time that you plants have made the necessary changes to grow in optimal conditions.


Not entirely accurate, plants will absorb much more nutrients through their roots than their stems and leaves. Many plants in the aquarium do indeed lack a cuticle or have a transpiration system that is very primitive but their vascular systems are still more specialized to transfer nutrients from the root system to the leaf for the production of sucrose. Furthermore the available surface area from roots and root hairs usually exceed the plant's leaf and stem surface area by many times allowing the plant to be able to faster absorb greater quantities from the soil rather than the water column. A much more effective method for plant growth when talking about ferts would be to lock those nutrients away under a sediment layer or in the substrate rather then having them free flowing in the water column and potentially causing an algae outbreak. The plant in many cases just like us due to its complexity (note not talking mosses here) is limited to how much nutrients it can absorb through its epidermis and transport. Plants just like us cannot simply absorb their food through their skin and require complex system to actively and passively transport water and nutrients throughout their bodies. The logic here states that throwing ferts in the water column is just asking for trouble especially when plants don't primarily gain their nutrients required for life through their epidermis. However it should be noted that co2 is primarily gained through their epidermis but it should also equally be noted that many plants have evolved the ability to use organic carbon compounds found in the substrate.


----------



## Constantine (Mar 10, 2012)

Postal Penguin said:


> It will not work. Water is very opaque to UV which is why UV devices pass the water very close to the bulb. A tank with a depth more than a few inches will render the UV useless. Many aquarium fish also live in less than pristine water in the wild meaning they are exposed to very little UV in the wild which in turn means they are unlikely to handle UV exposure all that well.
> 
> Second, UV of such a strength to penetrate an aquarium would be extremely dangerous to your eyes. Anyone in the room with the light running would run the risk of getting sunburn on their skin and burns in their eyes.
> 
> ...



Well so much for my brilliant idea but thanks for the input. You gotta give me a bit of credit for wanting to give chemo to my tank though? Next proton beams and targeting systems! Haha. Any ideas from a technology point of view or targeted approach that we can supplement the regular routine of maintenance with?


----------



## Constantine (Mar 10, 2012)

Just my two cents then about uv filters. It seems they would be kind of pointless to me seeing as not all algae types reproduce through conjugation or sending out spores. As far as I can tell this would render them useless against things like gsa or black beard algae that reproduce with plain old cell division rather then conjugation or other forms of reproduction that release spores into the water column.

There has to be a better way gentlemen!

All I want are freaking amano shrimp with freaking lasers on their heads!


----------



## @[email protected] (Oct 24, 2007)

Constantine said:


> Just my two cents then about uv filters. It seems they would be kind of pointless to me seeing as not all algae types reproduce through conjugation or sending out spores. As far as I can tell this would render them useless against things like gsa or black beard algae that reproduce with plain old cell division rather then conjugation or other forms of reproduction that release spores into the water column.
> 
> There has to be a better way gentlemen!
> 
> All I want are freaking amano shrimp with freaking lasers on their heads!


they would be pointless, if they were made exclusively for algae.
they help reduce contagion in case of disease to the livestock by killing pathogens shed into the environment. 
as far as algae is concerned, they are only really helpful for greenwater.


----------



## mistergreen (Dec 9, 2006)

Just be careful with UV. It kills living cells. This includes your fauna and you.


----------



## rocketdude1234 (Apr 8, 2010)

I think the notion of trying to "fight" algae is a losing battle and a notion that is over simplified like the wpg, or ipg rules. We attempt to create a good guy/bad guy mindset when it comes to algae instead of understanding that its there whether or not you see it. Its not necessarily a bad thing in a body of water. Trying to fight algae instead of trying to cater the ecosystem to the inhabitants you want will always leave you fighting an enemy. Make the aquarium about your plants and animals, not about algae.


I started my first reef tank back in February and have recently been wanting to design some experiments around algae and their causation.

Something I have heard before in the reef community is that in tanks that run Bio-Pellets (designed to remove nitrates), cyano outbreaks seem to occur.

On our sw tank, I have been running GFO (ferric oxide) to pull phosphates out of the water and now I get the GSA. 

I'm kind of curious if the whole "when nitrates drop cyano arrives, when phosphates drop GSA arrives," has some merit to it in both fresh and salt.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

rocketdude1234 said:


> I think the notion of trying to "fight" algae is a losing battle and a notion that is over simplified like the wpg, or ipg rules. We attempt to create a good guy/bad guy mindset when it comes to algae instead of understanding that its there whether or not you see it. Its not necessarily a bad thing in a body of water. Trying to fight algae instead of trying to cater the ecosystem to the inhabitants you want will always leave you fighting an enemy. Make the aquarium about your plants and animals, not about algae.
> 
> 
> I started my first reef tank back in February and have recently been wanting to design some experiments around algae and their causation.
> ...


In both cases and in Macro algae/marine plants also, the focus should be on the plants, not the algae.

That is the goal, not to learn 101 ways to kill algae.


----------



## herns (May 6, 2008)

plantbrain said:


> In both cases and in Macro algae/marine plants also, the focus should be on the plants, not the algae.
> 
> That is the goal, not to learn 101 ways to kill algae.


+1roud:


----------



## Denis Onii (Jul 2, 2010)

"Escape from light hypothesis"

Back in Earths early days, there was less ozone so more UV light hit the planets surface. This was a problem for algae because DNA damage can occur under UV light while cell division/mitosis takes place. To avoid this, algae started using the blue photoreceptor as a circadian rythm, tying this to cell division resulting in mitosis only happening during the night.

This can be seen particulary in GDA which will swim toward light in the day but toward a source of ammonium at night (away from light). 

Algae has been dealing with UV light for a couple of billion years :icon_lol:


----------



## HD Blazingwolf (May 12, 2011)

Denis Onii said:


> "Escape from light hypothesis"
> 
> Back in Earths early days, there was less ozone so more UV light hit the planets surface. This was a problem for algae because DNA damage can occur under UV light while cell division/mitosis takes place. To avoid this, algae started using the blue photoreceptor as a circadian rythm, tying this to cell division resulting in mitosis only happening during the night.
> 
> ...


no replacement for practice and experience.. algae takes the cake on that one


----------



## bassmjm (Jun 1, 2011)

plantbrain said:


> In both cases and in Macro algae/marine plants also, the focus should be on the plants, not the algae.
> 
> That is the goal, not to learn 101 ways to kill algae.


Tom is on to something here. Referencing saline habitats and aquaria, the focus should be on the ecosystem we're creating (yes, we're playing "Creator" to every extent). Modern reefkeepers have taught themselves quite a bit by observing their ecosystems in their tiny glass boxes and fostering biodiversity and automation within biological processes. However, I feel that, especially with Amano's ideas, we're forcing nature's hand in most freshwater planted setups. We're not as concerned as much with the microfauna/flora (except algae) in freshwater setups as reefers are in their setups; all we seem to care about is "Is the bacteria there? I think so. I used Bacter 100. Are my ammonia and nitrite levels minimal? Good [even though my plants might be absorbing some]." Rather than playing host to an ecosystem, we seem to be mostly concerned with "I want these plants, these shrimp and/or fish, and I'm going to pump the tank full of carbon dioxide and macronutrients and micronutrients, but I'm going to get so frustrated if I have even one speck of algae!" Algae has such nerve to grow in such an ideal environment!

All that to say: algae exists in nature, and while it may be paradoxically contrary to the aesthetic of "nature aquaria," it will exist in our little nature boxes. Trying to conceive of some wholesale algae slaughter-device is futile. Trying to conceive of how intimately co-dependent our captive organisms--desirable or not--is part, I think, of the beauty of keeping aquatic ecosystems in our homes. Focus less on how to kill algae and more on the needs of your plants and fauna. I think we plant-keepers should focus more on species compatibility (like reefers) in order to achieve more long-term tank stability. Or, to say it another way:

Less technology, more biology.

(Note: the collective pronoun "we" used above is not all-inclusive.)


----------



## Diana (Jan 14, 2010)

Actually, many aquatic plants do not have extensive root hairs such as land plants have, and some aquatic plants prefer leaf uptake of some nutrients. Even land plants can take in quite a lot of fertilizer through their leaves, if it is in the right form. 

This info is from Diana Walstads Ecology of the Planted Aquarium. I will dig out page and paragraph references when I get home. 

I think the concept of starving the water column of nutrients (except carbon) and enriching the substrate has been tried. Maybe it needs to be tried under more rigorous conditions, but my understanding of that concept is that it did not work to control the algae.


----------

