# Diatoms: For the new aquarist and debate thread



## xxstitch69xx

nice writeup, thanks.


----------



## Zorfox

I have no doubt silica limitation will limit the growth of diatoms. Likewise, all the other problematic algae can be limited by a number of nutrients as well (including diatoms). Well cared for tanks have no limiting nutritional elements necessary for algae growth. So why do we not see every form of algae in these tanks?

If silica was the cause of diatoms we would have a bloom every time we changed our water. The idea that silica alone is the cause for diatoms simply does not make any logical sense.

The amount of chicken feed provided in an enclosure would limit the number of chickens it would support. No feed and there would be no chickens. If we had two enclosures with unlimited feed one with foxes and one without which one would have more chickens?

Newly setup tanks may have higher than average silica levels. However, they are also devoid of hundreds of bacteria, protozoa, fungi, organic carbon and many other things required for a balanced eco system (foxes if you will). It’s no surprise we see algae in new tanks. Adding all of these by the addition of mulm from and established tank and maybe some peat for carbon seems to curb the new tank syndrome we see.

Instead of concentrating on limiting algae, concentrate on what stimulates the reproductive cycle. That’s why we see algae. Our tanks are non-limiting for most forms of algae. What are the specific triggers for diatoms? I’m not sure. However, focusing on growing plants, keeping a clean tank and balancing light/CO2/fertilizers seems to keep them all at bay.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Sometimes, when I don't fertilize enough and the plants become deficient (leaves dying, holes), diatoms appear on both the leaves and on the tank, sometimes very heavily. But when I start fertilizing and the plants start growing healthily again, the diatoms gradually disappear. There are no algae eaters in the tank so that doesn't explain why the diatoms disappear. It's related to either 1) addition of the fertilizers or, 2) the healthy plant growth. I suspect it's the healthy plant growth but it's possible fertilizers (NPK) stunt or even kill diatoms.


----------



## BruceF

EFFECT OF PHOSPHATE ON GROWTH OF DIATOMS
http://www.ijsr.in/upload/228151688Chapter 21.pdf


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

BruceF said:


> EFFECT OF PHOSPHATE ON GROWTH OF DIATOMS
> http://www.ijsr.in/upload/228151688Chapter 21.pdf


That explains why adding PO4 reduces and removes diatoms when it reaches above a certain concentration.


----------



## Zorfox

BruceF said:


> EFFECT OF PHOSPHATE ON GROWTH OF DIATOMS
> http://www.ijsr.in/upload/228151688Chapter 21.pdf


These studies are all in vitro. Sure we can glean information from them but we can't directly apply the results to the planted tank. There is a much larger set of variables in the tank than in a Petri dish. It's simply comparing apples to oranges.

If we add a tenth of the fertilizers we dose to a Petri dish of water and add light we can grow all sorts of algae. Yet we don't have that algae in a planted tank with the same nutrient levels and light. This shows a disparity we can't ignore.


----------



## BruceF

D. geminata often, but not always, occurs in waters
where the N ratio is high for much of the year, but
the key factor is the ratio of organic to inorganic
phosphate. D. geminata thrives where organic P is
predominant and the overall P concentration is low
enough for organic P to be an important P source.

http://www.jlakes.org/web/Biology-freshwater-diatom-H2009.pdf


----------



## FatherLandDescendant

Zorfox said:


> Instead of concentrating on limiting algae, concentrate on what stimulates the reproductive cycle. That’s why we see algae. Our tanks are non-limiting for most forms of algae. What are the specific triggers for diatoms? I’m not sure. However, focusing on growing plants, keeping a clean tank and balancing light/CO2/fertilizers seems to keep them all at bay.


First off let me say (again) I have never tried arguing that silica alone is responsible for diatom growth. 

From what I've been reading the trigger is a higher nitrate level. Diatoms mostly appear at the end of the tank cycling phase. I have adopted the non-limiting aspect of fertilization, yet still have diatom issues, plants are growing well, excellent color, currently no obvious signs of deficiency (GSA retreating). Granted I still dig around in the tank from time to time (which could explain my situation), but by the end of the week my nitrate level is jumps to 80ppm, do a 50% WC, clean the tank and it drops back to 10ppm, yet by the end of the week I have diatoms coating my water sprite and a slight representation on my driftwood. 

I disagree with your comment that


> "If silica was the cause of diatoms we would have a bloom every time we changed our water."


 If silica becomes depleted initially because it is "used up" and we only partially replace the water, were not reintroducing 100% of what was there at the onset of the initial bloom, but 25% or 50% what have you. That should be the concentration it should be maintained at.


----------



## lauraleellbp

> Many don’t agree with the statement that silica is responsible for diatom blooms; I’ve spent many nights, read many studies and various papers regarding diatom algae, and while true that silica isn’t responsible for diatom blooms, it’s not totally true. Silica, more accurately silicic–acid is the one “nutrient” diatom algae are dependent on apart from the other plant and algae life, no other plant life uses a silica component. Weather in our tanks, a lake, a pond, or the ocean, it has been shown, in multifarious studies done over decades, that silica depletion is the key to moving diatom blooms towards their bust cycle, and that nutrient limiting (with the exception of iron) only slows the growth of diatom algae, thus prolonging a bloom event.


Based on my personal (and obviously limited anecdotal) experience, I've only have bad brown algae outbreaks on 1) new tanks or 2) tanks where I just did a significant substrate disturbance or replacement that 3) had some sort of lighting change- often sunlight related.

So personally, I think there is quite a bit of substance to the idea that a brown algae outbreak is going to be related to silica being thrown up into the water column.

Otos, BN plecos, and Nerite snails are pretty effective biological controls- one of the reasons I always include some if not all of these in my stocking plans.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Zorfox said:


> These studies are all in vitro. Sure we can glean information from them but we can't directly apply the results to the planted tank. There is a much larger set of variables in the tank than in a Petri dish. It's simply comparing apples to oranges.


I've had heavy diatoms by not dosing any phosphates but the day after I add normal amounts, it went away. That's not coincidence so there is clearly a direct relationship. Saying that there's many variables is true, but that also disregards everything about PO4 when my experiences show otherwise.


----------



## FatherLandDescendant

Zorfox said:


> These studies are all in vitro. Sure we can glean information from them but we can't directly apply the results to the planted tank. There is a much larger set of variables in the tank than in a Petri dish. It's simply comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> If we add a tenth of the fertilizers we dose to a Petri dish of water and add light we can grow all sorts of algae. Yet we don't have that algae in a planted tank with the same nutrient levels and light. This shows a disparity we can't ignore.


We some what replicate test conditions in our tanks, in as much as they are controlled enviroments. They use larger than Petri dishes to do their studies with, many studies I've read take place in 100s of gallon enclosures.

That being said you are correct, tank conditions and study conditions differ significantly. The difference comes in the fact that study to aquarium conditions differ in the plant life we keep where as they ONLY culture enclosures for diatom growth. I think the release of chemicals from the plants (can't recall the specific chemical) inhibit even diatom growth along with other types of algae.

It is a mulit-componet issue, one that as has been shown for the most part will resolve itself if the appropriate conditions are created. This is a general understanding because it ALSO depends on the species being cultivated, be it in our tanks or a study enclosure. The species of diatom may (and most likely do) differ from Kentucky to say Montana, as they will differ from which ever species (and the papers list which they studied) the study focused on.

Bump:


lauraleellbp said:


> Based on my personal (and obviously limited anecdotal) experience, I've only have bad brown algae outbreaks on 1) new tanks or 2) tanks where I just did a significant substrate disturbance or replacement that 3) had some sort of lighting change- often sunlight related.
> 
> So personally, I think there is quite a bit of substance to the idea that a brown algae outbreak is going to be related to silica being thrown up into the water column.
> 
> Otos, BN plecos, and Nerite snails are pretty effective biological controls- one of the reasons I always include some if not all of these in my stocking plans.


But mind you that those algae eaters don't digest the silica, metabolically they don't need it for bone structure, it is processed as waste (poop) and expelled, placing it into the substrate, where when stirred it is reintroduced into the water column.


----------



## Zorfox

FatherLandDescendant said:


> First off let me say (again) I have never tried arguing that silica alone is responsible for diatom growth.


That was in fact my interpretation of your statement. I’m glad we are on the same page. I also don’t feel silica is to blame alone. Is it a causative factor? It’s quite possible. What conditions need to be present to cause an outbreak? Well….
I had the same question in this thread. Simply saying silica is not the cause does not provide a remedy. 


FatherLandDescendant said:


> From what I've been reading the trigger is a higher nitrate level.


That’s easily falsified. Many gorgeous algae free tanks have had NO3 levels upwards of 80ppm. No diatoms. Again, causative factor? Possibly.


FatherLandDescendant said:


> Granted I still dig around in the tank from time to time (which could explain my situation), but by the end of the week my nitrate level is jumps to 80ppm, do a 50% WC, clean the tank and it drops back to 10ppm, yet by the end of the week I have diatoms coating my water sprite and a slight representation on my driftwood.


Stirring up the substrate causes all sorts of algae. NH4 levels go up even if we can’t measure them with our cheap tests. It’s always a good idea to do large water changes after large cleanings IME. NO3 dropping from 80ppm to 10ppm after a 50% water change? I must have missed something.


FatherLandDescendant said:


> I disagree with your comment that If silica becomes depleted initially because it is "used up" and we only partially replace the water, were not reintroducing 100% of what was there at the onset of the initial bloom, but 25% or 50% what have you. That should be the concentration it should be maintained at.


My point is that if silica was to blame a water change introduces more so we should see another bloom. Diatoms don’t need huge amounts to reproduce.



Solcielo lawrencia said:


> I've had heavy diatoms by not dosing any phosphates but the day after I add normal amounts, it went away. That's not coincidence so there is clearly a direct relationship. Saying that there's many variables is true, but that also disregards everything about PO4 when my experiences show otherwise.


I agree. I don’t mean to imply that limiting nutrients won’t cause them regarless of which nutrient it may be. However, we really shouldn’t limit nutrients if we want maximal growth and healthy plants which is sort of my point. 

I think diatoms are one of those algae that has more than one trigger meaning it’s harder to nail down a specific cause. I will say so far that it’s nice to debate the issue rather than argue. BIG difference. :thumbsup:


----------



## lauraleellbp

FatherLandDescendant said:


> But mind you that those algae eaters don't digest the silica, metabolically they don't need it for bone structure, it is processed as waste (poop) and expelled, placing it into the substrate, where when stirred it is reintroduced into the water column.


Agreed, but I always approach planted tanking from the pragmatic, functional standpoint- if it's not coating my plants or obstructing the view, I could care less if there's algae in my tank. Silicates that have been eaten I suspect would end up trapped and concentrated inside *solid* waste- possibly even in a different chemical form, IDK- but therefore NOT suspended in the water column, and more easily removed during routine tank maintenance.

Zorfox- there's water changes and then there's gravel vacuuming. IME (again, allegorical) brown algae blooms tend to follow big disturbances in substrate. 



> NO3 dropping from 80ppm to 10ppm after a 50% water change? I must have missed something.


If filter cleaning and freshening of any chemical media also occurred at the time of the water change, this could be a possible explanation.


----------



## greaser84

Do aquatic plants use silicates? I know they absorb just about everything else, does anyone know if they absorb silicates?


----------



## FatherLandDescendant

Zorfox said:


> That was in fact my interpretation of your statement. I’m glad we are on the same page. I also don’t feel silica is to blame alone. Is it a causative factor? It’s quite possible. What conditions need to be present to cause an outbreak? Well….
> I had the same question in this thread. Simply saying silica is not the cause does not provide a remedy.


I did make that statement in my OP 



Zorfox said:


> That’s easily falsified. Many gorgeous algae free tanks have had NO3 levels upwards of 80ppm. No diatoms. Again, causative factor? Possibly.
> 
> Stirring up the substrate causes all sorts of algae. NH4 levels go up even if we can’t measure them with our cheap tests. It’s always a good idea to do large water changes after large cleanings IME.


Many diatoms form resting cells that bed in the substrate. A large substrate disturbance reintroduces previously locked silicates in the form of these resting cells back into the water column, moving then into favorable growth conditions where they return to a vegetative state.



Zorfox said:


> NO3 dropping from 80ppm to 10ppm after a 50% water change? I must have missed something.


That's been the norm the last few weeks, first week of EI dosing my steady 10ppm with flourish products went to 40 then to 80 where it seems to threshold. I'm going to continue on for one more week with my current recipe, if it's still at 80 next Saturday night then I plan on adjusting my KNO3 amount. That is also with light feeding, every other day:icon_ques Though may be the result of substrate seeding with a organic material layer in the bottom of the tank?



Zorfox said:


> My point is that if silica was to blame a water change introduces more so we should see another bloom. Diatoms don’t need huge amounts to reproduce.


Not if the majority of the silica in the tank is locked, either in resting cells that have dropped into the undisturbed layer of the substrate, or locked in the wast matter (poop) expelled after diatom consumption by controll crews.




Zorfox said:


> I agree. I don’t mean to imply that limiting nutrients won’t cause them regarless of which nutrient it may be. However, we really shouldn’t limit nutrients if we want maximal growth and healthy plants which is sort of my point.


Nutrient limiting has been showed to slow diatom growth, thus prolonging its manifestation, with the exception of Fe which has been shown to increase silica uptake, and there by accelerating silica depletion, when limited.



Zorfox said:


> I think diatoms are one of those algae that has more than one trigger meaning it’s harder to nail down a specific cause. I will say so far that it’s nice to debate the issue rather than argue. BIG difference. :thumbsup:


Agreed, even healthy plant growth has multiple components that have to be employed to achieve said healthy growth. 



lauraleellbp said:


> If filter cleaning and freshening of any chemical media also occurred at the time of the water change, this could be a possible explanation.


I don't do both of those things together, if I refresh the media in my power filter it's the day after a WC if not 2. and a week before said WC.



greaser84 said:


> Do aquatic plants use silicates? I know they absorb just about everything else, does anyone know if they absorb silicates?


They do not.


----------



## Zorfox

greaser84 said:


> Do aquatic plants use silicates? I know they absorb just about everything else, does anyone know if they absorb silicates?


Actually they do. The uptake rates are different across plant types. To learn more research plant silicification, phytoliths and the silicone cycle. 



FatherLandDescendant said:


> That's been the norm the last few weeks, first week of EI dosing my steady 10ppm with flourish products went to 40 then to 80 where it seems to threshold. I'm going to continue on for one more week with my current recipe, if it's still at 80 next Saturday night then I plan on adjusting my KNO3 amount. That is also with light feeding, every other day Though may be the result of substrate seeding with a organic material layer in the bottom of the tank?


I'm not sure what you're asking here.


----------



## roadmaster

My own belief is that bacterium that develops as tanks mature(many species ), makes it more difficult for diatoms for the problem is rarely mentioned in mature tanks .
In my experience ,the older the tank ,the less problems with diatoms.
They seem prevalent in newly established tanks I have set up and go away over time which varies from weeks to months.


----------



## FatherLandDescendant

Zorfox said:


> I'm not sure what you're asking here.


I related it initially as a correlation between my high nitrate levels and my current diatom issue. The question mark at the end of the last statement was more or less rhetorical:wink:


----------



## CrypticLifeStyle

Have you read into how diatoms need silicate acid to reproduce? Just curious ☺


----------



## FatherLandDescendant

CrypticLifeStyle said:


> Have you read into how diatoms need silicate acid to reproduce? Just curious ☺


It's in the OP:wink:


----------



## CrypticLifeStyle

OK so it can be agreed then silica does plays a very active role in a diatom bloom. I don't deal with it with my freshwater tanks anymore since they are so old, but anytime I move, my reef tank will always have a week of diatoms on the glass after each move, and the sand is disturbed in the process. The sand is from the beach I live on.


----------



## pianofish

So with my new tank, I really want to develop a nice thick coating of diatoms for my Stiphodon Gobies, and Hillstream loaches. Do we have any tried and true methods for guaranteeing that I will get more diatom like substances. Why are they so prevelent in rivers and streams? Or is that a much more complex question? I'm trying to develop a smorgasbord of soft algaes in my tank. I have had very successful planted tanks where the diatoms eventually went away, but aside from increasing my photoperiod and light intensity, what else can I do to help? From reading this thread, it seems like limiting Phosphates might help?


----------



## FatherLandDescendant

pianofish said:


> So with my new tank, I really want to develop a nice thick coating of diatoms for my Stiphodon Gobies, and Hillstream loaches. Do we have any tried and true methods for guaranteeing that I will get more diatom like substances. Why are they so prevelent in rivers and streams? Or is that a much more complex question? I'm trying to develop a smorgasbord of soft algaes in my tank. I have had very successful planted tanks where the diatoms eventually went away, but aside from increasing my photoperiod and light intensity, what else can I do to help? From reading this thread, it seems like limiting Phosphates might help?


One of the first things you'd have to do to sustain diatom blooms long term is find a source of silicic-acid and dose it as you would a fert IMO. That particlear compound is crutial to diatom growth as it's used to create cell walls, and used in DNA the structures. Keeping the substrate stirred up may be another method IDK.

Depending on the species (over 20,000 cataloged of an estimate of 2million) your trying to cultivate, phosphate limiting may slow the silica uptake of diatoms, thus slowing growth.

I would suggest you to research diatoms specifically and maybe come up with a few methods to try. Never heard of someone want to grow diatoms, it's always people trying to make them go away.


----------



## Linwood

FatherLandDescendant said:


> ...I say most because I really don’t know if those who use exclusively RODI water deal with such outbreaks, from my understanding they shouldn’t, but one of those posters will have to chime in and clarify this point.


I was chatting with someone the other night about this. I have a new 220G tank and it had a pretty heavy bloom, heavy enough you could see no green on the Anubis leaves at all, just brown, until the cleanup crew started. I was told "you can't have diatoms with RODI water". I did.

I used 100% RODI water, with only Equilibrium, Acid and Alkaline buffer added (none of which that I see contain silica). 

I did however use blasting sand (Black diamond). How much available silica it has I don't know. What they say is: 

> That’s because Black Diamond Granules contain less than 0.1% 
>free silica and are low dusting and chemically inert.

That's aimed at inhalation. I'm not even sure if "free silica" is applicable to diatoms. 

But my bloom lasted maybe 2 weeks, seems to be gone now. My main remedy was to clean the canister filters more often; the incredibly dense brown sludge that came out was amazingly heavy, like silt. 

I should note that by coincidence about half way through this bloom I started dosing iron (and other ferts), which may have hastened its completion. Or maybe not.

I've also been told "new glass" in aquariums has available silica. Not sure if that's true either (this was a new tank). 

I would be curious to know where the silica came from, if anyone knows how all this really works (and especially with regard to the sand).


----------



## FatherLandDescendant

Linwood said:


> That's aimed at inhalation. I'm not even sure if "free silica" is applicable to diatoms.


Free silica is the powerded dust that comes off of the product. Blasting sand that easily pulverizes is low grade and has a higher free slica rating. I would think that free silica content could lend to disolved silica content in the water column.




Linwood said:


> I've also been told "new glass" in aquariums has available silica. Not sure if that's true either (this was a new tank).
> 
> I would be curious to know where the silica came from, if anyone knows how all this really works (and especially with regard to the sand).


Glass is silica, the way I understand it is one of the manufacturing methods involves using silica powder as a releasing agent to prevent the new glass pannel from sticking to the molding surface after it cools? 

There is also the theory that the silcon sealers used to seal aquariums leach silica into the water column when new.

I think it's intresting to note that your diatom bloom (at 2 weeks) lasted significantly shorter than my own, which I seem to hopefully be over finally. The last week and a half I haven's seen any new populations of them. Which had mine lasting almost 3 months, and I used gravel not sand. The tank, while the setup is new, the tank is not. It was set up for just over a year before being placed into storage, so leaching from glass manufacturing resins and sealers shouldn't even be a consideration.


----------



## Linwood

FatherLandDescendant said:


> I think it's intresting to note that your diatom bloom (at 2 weeks) lasted significantly shorter than my own, which I seem to hopefully be over finally.


The RODI water?


----------



## Okedokey

We have to be careful here. Diatoms are represented from many species. The ones that remain suspended in the aquarium will be different to those that form conjoined growth etc etc. 

Generally though, the are actually very particular around the water chemistry that they exist within, particularly pH and salinity. They're also very responsive to other environmental variables such as suspended solids, water flow, elevation, nutrient loading and human disturbance.

In the field of environmental science, they're what is considered an 'indicator species'. That is they tell us about the past and present environment.

One thing that I haven't seen anyone mention, is that the silica based cell walls do not decompose. In fact they're often seen in lake beds from many thousands of years ago. 

In nature, even in a very healthy stream or pond, diatoms can grow to such a level that plants appear to have a brown mud coating.

I would suggest, that with diatoms, there are too many variables in such a small ecotype such as an aquarium to really understand the variable that is more or less a cause of a bloom. The best course of action is to simply let it run its course. If anything is likely to be a factor it is pH where if acidic, you'll tend to favour diatom growth over bacteria.


----------



## Linwood

Okedokey said:


> One thing that I haven't seen anyone mention, is that the silica based cell walls do not decompose. In fact they're often seen in lake beds from many thousands of years ago.
> 
> In nature, even in a very healthy stream or pond, diatoms can grow to such a level that plants appear to have a brown mud coating.


Yeah, been there, had that. Here's day one of starting to clean up.

So as to the "do not decompose", I have heard that once eaten and excreted, this puts silica back into the water and so makes it available for more bloom. But your comment might be taken to say that is not true, and indeed once bloomed and relegated even without consumption to the substrate it won't return as more bloom.

Is that correct -- once incorporated in a diatom, done, gone from availability?


----------



## Okedokey

Its a good questions that I think isn't properly understood. I work that it becomes boom then bust. Remember, I think we have to think along the lines of succession. The climax community we want is the perfect planted tank. We regulate the levers we know and can detect but in between the organisms will succeed each other. I am thinking in a new aquarium you either get bacteria or diatoms but not both at first.

My view is in slightly lower pH water you'll get diatoms, these capture and store silica dioxide and by doing water changes we are effectively limiting silica (i.e. physically removing). I would suggest if you left it alone, it would do the same thing by sequestrating the silica dioxide naturally (albeit unsightly).


----------



## 691175002

SkepticalAquarist has some interesting information on diatoms:
http://www.skepticalaquarist.com/diatoms
http://www.skepticalaquarist.com/diatom-control

I don't think you can ever trace algae back to one single nutrient, things are just too complex for that. The prevalence of diatoms in newly setup tanks suggests that they may be unable to compete with other forms of algae or are inhibited by normal biofilm in an established aquarium.


----------



## happi

according to Nualgi Aquarium and their product you suppose to get diatom algae by using their product which somehow suppose to inhibit any other algae growth.


----------



## steeltkb

Thanks for the writeup!


----------



## lauraleellbp

Okedokey said:


> I am thinking in a new aquarium you either get bacteria or diatoms but not both at first.


I'm not following you... which bacteria are you referring to?


----------



## FatherLandDescendant

Linwood said:


> The RODI water?


Not sure what your asking here, if your asking if I use RODI then no. Anything else please clarify



Okedokey said:


> Generally though, the are actually very particular around the water chemistry that they exist within, particularly pH and salinity. They're also very responsive to other environmental variables such as suspended solids, water flow, elevation, nutrient loading and human disturbance.


True to a degree, more acurately a given nutrient load, salinty and PH of the given enviroment they exist within will determine the species of diatom able to grow. The last numbers I saw were either 20,000 or 200,000 species cataloged of an estimated 2million:icon_eek: 

I also thought about putting in a piece in my OP inreguards to shearing factors (water flow) but saw people blasting their tanks trying to break them up:icon_roll 



Okedokey said:


> In the field of environmental science, they're what is considered an 'indicator species'. That is they tell us about the past and present environment.
> 
> One thing that I haven't seen anyone mention, is that the silica based cell walls do not decompose. In fact they're often seen in lake beds from many thousands of years ago.


True when the cell dies the organic compounds of the cell decompose leaving behind the cell walls. This is where reintroduction comes into play with subsequent blooms in our tanks and seasonal blooms in the ocean and lakes and rivers. It the ocean they call it upwelling, when nutriants from the ocean floor including silicas are drawn to upper layers, the resting diatom cells come out of their resting stage to a vegitative state and begin using the silicas that were upwelled from the ocean floor as well as other nutrients and silicic-acids introduced from runoff of inland streams and rivers. Diatom blooms are noticably larger around estuaries where agracultural run off adds nutrients to the oceanic waters.




Okedokey said:


> If anything is likely to be a factor it is pH where if acidic, you'll tend to favour diatom growth over bacteria.


I disagree with you here, PH is only going to play into factor if your trying to grow diatom species from say a pond in North Dakota in Amazon river water or water from the Nile River, you can not grow diatoms from the ocean in a fresh water aquarium. You even posted yourself that "Diatoms are represented from many species". A given species will have oh so slightly diffrent nutrient requirements and enviromental ques. Those variants are measured in .002 or .004 micron measurements, negliable but significant.



Linwood said:


> Yeah, been there, had that. Here's day one of starting to clean up.
> 
> So as to the "do not decompose", I have heard that once eaten and excreted, this puts silica back into the water and so makes it available for more bloom. But your comment might be taken to say that is not true, and indeed once bloomed and relegated even without consumption to the substrate it won't return as more bloom.
> 
> Is that correct -- once incorporated in a diatom, done, gone from availability?


Linwood you hear a lot about established aquariums experencing subsquent diatom blooms 1, 2, even 3 years mature. The conditions in the tank have to set the stage for the bloom. I'm of the mind set that most often (not always) some change has taken place in the tank affecting the substrate in some way shape or form. 

Once diatoms start dieing off, be it from the formation of resting cells, cell death, or from consumption decomp, when these cells enter the substrate they stay there until some pinpoint event reintroduces them into the water column. This is the equilvent of nutriant upwelling that takes place in the ocean as the result of tempature change and water influx and inter mixing.

A light change to a higher PAR value reaching the substrate, new filter install/placement where the flow sweeps the sub allowing the detritus to reenter the water column, or and most likely culprit, plant/uprooting/digging in the sub stirring the detritus up and allowing reintroduction into the water column. Now couple these events with a higher nitrate load and phosphate injection or iron limiting and the stage is set for a subsequent bloom. Keep in mind though these things have to be in a given proportion to interact in the right way, what are those proportions is anybodies guess as the values are dependent on the species one is dealing with:icon_eek: 

Also of note subsequent blooms in mature tanks last significantly shorter than initial blooms 



Okedokey said:


> I am thinking in a new aquarium you either get bacteria or diatoms but not both at first.


Bacteria first, nitrates are one nutrient diatoms need for growth, unless you start dosing NO3 right away. But from the papers I've read reguarding diatom blooms it's *elevated* nitrate levels that are part of the processes start



Okedokey said:


> My view is in slightly lower pH water you'll get diatoms,


Please define slightly lower? Also if this were the case then people with PH values at 8 would never experance diatoms and they do.



Okedokey said:


> these capture and store silica dioxide and by doing water changes we are effectively limiting silica (i.e. physically removing). I would suggest if you left it alone, it would do the same thing by sequestrating the silica dioxide naturally (albeit unsightly).


As a point of note: IMO if diatoms have started to form, and we remove them durring WC some people say we re-introduce silicas back into the tank, I disagree with this. When diatoms depleat the silica content of a tank true we reintroduce silicas back into the tank (except those using RODI) but the levels are limited, we never reintroduce the full amount UNLESS one does a full 100% WC, and not 50% today and 50% tomorrow that doesn't reintroduce 100% but 50% at any given time.

I am starting to think that just as healthy plant growth acts as a deterant against others types of algae it acts the same way on diatoms.


----------



## Okedokey

The availability of silica in the aquatic environment is primarily determined by pH, although in the prescence of inorganic phosphate, the pH for dissolution is very narrow and in the neutral-alkaline pH range.


----------



## FatherLandDescendant

Okedokey said:


> The availability of silica in the aquatic environment is primarily determined by pH, although in the prescence of inorganic phosphate, the pH for dissolution is very narrow and in the neutral-alkaline pH range.


Reference please? 

Like I said people with PH of 8 have diatom issues, some really bad, going bythis line of reasoning they should have none.


----------



## Okedokey

Its not so simple, its not black and white, its very comlex. Look up dissolution of silicates and development of polyamines in regards to diatom development. Secondly you're assuming that the 'people' you refer to have accurately defined that diatoms are the actual organism, and that the pH they refer to is accurate.

Im not going to go and look for references, I spent 5 years at uni studying this, but ill try later if you insist.


----------



## FatherLandDescendant

Okedokey said:


> Its not so simple, its not black and white, its very comlex. Look up dissolution of silicates and development of polyamines in regards to diatom development. Secondly you're assuming that the 'people' you refer to have accurately defined that diatoms are the actual organism, and that the pH they refer to is accurate.
> 
> Im not going to go and look for references, I spent 5 years at uni studying this, but ill try later if you insist.


Wow really, you always get snippy when challenged? If your going to make a statement a little time for referance material shouldn't be to much to ask...

As for the PH they refer to being accurate, all we can do is assume their test methods are up to standard, sure they could skew their results, but when multiple studies say basically the same thing it's pretty much a given... 

I did my DD for the OP, so I'm not afraid to research and link studies for my statements.

Speaking of which your claims had me do some searching of my own and I came across this.



> Our data reveal that (i) a disturbance of environmental pH has pleiotropic effects on _T. weissflogii_ physiology, including impacts on growth rate, silicon metabolism and intracellular pH homeostasis, (ii) the regulation of the intracellular acid-base balance plays a central role in the regulation of silicon metabolism in diatoms. *The putative impacts of the environmental pH are therefore expected to vary among different diatoms species according to their species-specific intrinsic buffering capacity, and adaptation capability*.
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0046722


I'll take your suggestion and look into that. I do relize it is complex, belive it or not, and from what I'm finding thus far your statment is not entirely accurate. Looks to me like optimal growth PH values are better at lower PH values, *BUT* they still grow at values of 7.8 all the way to 8.5 in this study.



> Compared to the Sii quota found at pHe = 7.8, we found that Sii quota increased 1.5- or 1.7-fold in the most acidic (pHe = 6.4) or the most basic (pHe = 8.5) conditions, respectively (Figure 1_B_) (_p_<0.001).
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0046722


Note the links


----------



## Okedokey

This is not a university paper mate, and I don't need you to comment on how I post.

I did notice the links and your reference actually concludes



> ...several higher-level processes are sensitive to the acid-base balance in diatoms, and its regulation is a key factor for the control of pattern formation and silicon metabolism.


Play the ball not the man.


----------



## plantbrain

greaser84 said:


> Do aquatic plants use silicates? I know they absorb just about everything else, does anyone know if they absorb silicates?


Horsetails do, some grasses.


----------



## Linwood

FatherLandDescendant said:


> Not sure what your asking here, if your asking if I use RODI then no. Anything else please clarify


When you commented your bloom was longer than mine, I was speculating that it may be because I had RODI and so less available silica. Pure speculation, but it would be interesting to know if in aggregate people see shorter blooms when using RODI water.


----------



## plantbrain

Fatherlanddescendant,

Most of the references you listed initially are from marine systems. 
Silica is virtually never limiting in freshwater aquatic plant systems.
I would challenge anyone to offer support for the Silica claim, same for Fe for regions where aquatic plants exists.

In natural systems, I've NEVER once found aquatic plants that did not have a wide range of diatoms present on their leaves. The same is also true if you examine any aquarist plant leaves under a scope. Take a look.

Use artificial media if you wish also(glass slides work well).
But they rarely pose an issue for hobbyists, most just cannot see them macroscopically. 

Freshwater diatoms in planted tanks tend to be very tasty and sot after by herbivores. Otto cats/most plecos, snails, a wide host of shrimps and micro invertebrates. Substrates for diatom epiphytes is also wide ranging, but we have glass, rough rock/gravels, driftwood and then the plants themselves.

I just see few issues/problems with diatoms in anyone's planted aquarium other than few folks in the initial 2-3 weeks. And those issues are resolved easily by water changes and correct care. 

I've added 100 ppm of NO3 as KNO3, so have others, no algal impacts observed of any sort by many aquarist over 2 decades, errors are made in dosing(they thought 10 tsps, not 1.0 etc) and nothing happened. 
Same with PO4 etc.

Independent of other factors, these hobbyists' "nutrocentric obsessions" cannot be a "cause". I say this because hobbyists have long held onto myths about ferts and algae. Anyone with common sense can see it's a myth but after 20 years of helping folks, a good myth is hard to kill. 

While you can debate all this stuff, at the end of the day diatoms are NOT an issue for the vast majority of hobbyist and if they are, you need to do some rather basic horticultural and aquarium care. We have ample herbivores that selectively eat epiphytic diatoms.

If you want research:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00650335#page-1

If you want some comparative examples of epiphytic algae control by various shrimp: Ole did this one using artificial media them measured the Chl left after X time. 

http://tropica.com/en/guide/algal-control/test-of-algal-eaters/

Amano shrimp are well known and pretty effective. 
However, that's per unit animal, if you have 10-100 cherry shrimp which breed like roaches............and only 1-2 Amanos, well, the cherry shrimp will certainly out do the Amano shrimp which are tough for hobbyists to breed and get brood from. Shrimp also are effective shredders breaking down detritus and allowing bacteria and cycling to occur at a faster rate. And you can sell the brood/livestock from the shrimp culls. 

It's just good agricultural. Herbivores eat the weeds(algae), aquarist harvest the crops(plants), keep the farm clean and running well. The problem is that aquarist often do not take care of the plants and the aquarium. Light and CO2 are the main issues, ferts, not so much.

Put another way, aquatic plants define and control these systems, not the nutrients. If plants are absent, then nutrients generally do define things. 

http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/LWTEAMFOLDER/CanfieldPubs/macrophyte.pdf

These are good specific references. 

Hope this helps.


----------



## FatherLandDescendant

Okedokey said:


> This is not a university paper mate, and I don't need you to comment on how I post.
> 
> I did notice the links and your reference actually concludes
> 
> 
> 
> Play the ball not the man.


The idea is to help further understanding, links to substantiate claims facilitate that, it enlightens everyone. I'm all about furthering my understanding, very open to it, however I don't take just one persons word on it just because they SAID they attended university, especially when one makes statements such as yours on the internet, which suggested that at higher ph values people won't get diatoms. Now if you were published as Mr. Barr is, and your methods and analyses have shown to be observed across multiple queries on the subject....



Okedokey said:


> My view is in slightly lower pH water you'll get diatoms


And the excerpt you took from my link only says that PH affects structure and how silica is metabolized. There is nothing that says that PH is a limiting factor, or control factor, only that PH affects HOW silica is used.



> ...several higher-level processes are sensitive to the acid-base balance in diatoms, and its regulation is a key factor for the control of *pattern formation and silicon metabolism*.


Growth rates in that paper for that species are shown to accelerate across a wide range of PH values, optimal range being 7.8, thus again concluding that your statement is inaccurate.

However there is evidence to show that at certain lower PH values (6.4specifficaly) that silica quotas increase, meaning that Si uptake increases. But these quota uptakes are as you stated earlier in very narrow windows, and thus far evidence indicates that impacts on silica uptake are different from PH 6.4 to 7.0 to 7.8, different but still there.

I would be interested to look at input on the subject if you could provide some links targeting specifically what your referring to would be great, that is one thing this thread is about. So please enlighten us. 




Linwood said:


> When you commented your bloom was longer than mine, I was speculating that it may be because I had RODI and so less available silica.


That would be my conclusion. My diatom bloom lasted about 3 months, giving consideration to the discussion with Okedokey, I wonder if my PH value may have contributed to the longevity of my bloom period. There does seem to be some validity to how PH affects diatom blooms. My PH was 6.4 to 6.6 during the bloom and now it's back up to 7.0, still trying to puzzel that one out.



Linwood said:


> Pure speculation, but it would be interesting to know if in aggregate people see shorter blooms when using RODI water.


Agreed.



plantbrain said:


> Fatherlanddescendant,
> 
> Most of the references you listed initially are from marine systems.


True and I have said that there will be minute differences towards nutrient requirements, Si uptake rates and triggering factors. But the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association had this to say on their site.



> Just like many other aquatic organisms, phytoplankton species distributions are controlled by salinity. So far, this discussion has centered on marine phytoplankton. Freshwater primary producers include members from the same divisions and are affected by the same limiting factors as marine phytoplankton (i.e. light, temperature, circulation, and nutrients).http://nerrs.noaa.gov/doc/siteprofile/acebasin/html/biores/phyto/pytext.htm





plantbrain said:


> In natural systems, I've NEVER once found aquatic plants that did not have a wide range of diatoms present on their leaves. The same is also true if you examine any aquarist plant leaves under a scope. Take a look.
> 
> Use artificial media if you wish also(glass slides work well).
> But they rarely pose an issue for hobbyists, most just cannot see them macroscopically.
> 
> Freshwater diatoms in planted tanks tend to be very tasty and sot after by herbivores. Otto cats/most plecos, snails, a wide host of shrimps and micro invertebrates. Substrates for diatom epiphytes is also wide ranging, but we have glass, rough rock/gravels, driftwood and then the plants themselves.


Wish I had access to a microscope, alas this poor ole country boy is bereft.




plantbrain said:


> I just see few issues/problems with diatoms in anyone's planted aquarium other than few folks in the initial 2-3 weeks. And those issues are resolved easily by water changes and correct care.


This has been my experience over the last 20 years personally, however what I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around is my current setup which sustained a bloom phase for 3 months. 

I know several factors are involved, however it is the worst manifestation I have ever had in all my years of aquarium keeping. 



plantbrain said:


> I've added 100 ppm of NO3 as KNO3, so have others, no algal impacts observed of any sort by many aquarist over 2 decades, errors are made in dosing(they thought 10 tsps, not 1.0 etc) and nothing happened.
> Same with PO4 etc.


So I guess my 80ppm NO3 at weeks end is nothing to worry about? I wonder because general consensus is optimal range to maintain NO3 at is 10-15ppm.



plantbrain said:


> Independent of other factors, these hobbyists' "nutrocentric obsessions" cannot be a "cause". I say this because hobbyists have long held onto myths about ferts and algae. Anyone with common sense can see it's a myth but after 20 years of helping folks, a good myth is hard to kill.
> 
> While you can debate all this stuff, at the end of the day diatoms are NOT an issue for the vast majority of hobbyist and if they are, you need to do some rather basic horticultural and aquarium care. We have ample herbivores that selectively eat epiphytic diatoms.


I put up this thread to mostly address the constant diatom thread posts, though there are some few on here with their pet theories on the how, what, why of maintenance so it also generated a good platform for these things to be debated, and as it is showing it's much more complex than any one given posters pet theory. 

As I have stated multiple times in this thread and others, just as you have here, time, patience and good tank hygiene are what is going to bring the unsightly diatom issue in the home aquarium to a resolution.


plantbrain said:


> If you want research:


I do:hihi:



plantbrain said:


> http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00650335#page-1
> 
> If you want some comparative examples of epiphytic algae control by various shrimp: Ole did this one using artificial media them measured the Chl left after X time.
> 
> http://tropica.com/en/guide/algal-control/test-of-algal-eaters/
> 
> Amano shrimp are well known and pretty effective.
> However, that's per unit animal, if you have 10-100 cherry shrimp which breed like roaches............and only 1-2 Amanos, well, the cherry shrimp will certainly out do the Amano shrimp which are tough for hobbyists to breed and get brood from. Shrimp also are effective shredders breaking down detritus and allowing bacteria and cycling to occur at a faster rate. And you can sell the brood/livestock from the shrimp culls.
> 
> It's just good agricultural. Herbivores eat the weeds(algae), aquarist harvest the crops(plants), keep the farm clean and running well. The problem is that aquarist often do not take care of the plants and the aquarium. Light and CO2 are the main issues, ferts, not so much.


I've been considering shrimp in my tank but don't know if it is suitable for which kinds, something I'm on the threshold of looking into. Looks like tonight at work I have some reading to do, thanks for the links:biggrin:



plantbrain said:


> Put another way, aquatic plants define and control these systems, not the nutrients. If plants are absent, then nutrients generally do define things.
> 
> http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/LWTEAMFOLDER/CanfieldPubs/macrophyte.pdf
> 
> These are good specific references.
> 
> Hope this helps.


I'm sure it will help, I have a lot of free time with my job so study and furthering my understanding is a productive time filler that my employer is OK with:hihi:


----------



## Zorfox

First I have to say that a healthy curiosity coupled with doubt is a good thing. I respect the OP's fortitude for questioning the status quo.

Focusing on healthy plant growth and maintaining a healthy tank does not explain the underlying causes of diatom blooms. I realize this is the answer to most, if not all, problems we have. However, that's not the point of this thread in my opinion. Instead, it's directed at the specific causes of diatom blooms.

Earlier in this thread another member asked how they could stimulate and grow diatoms. That's indeed the right direction if we want to understand this issue. Having the ability to consistently reproduce a diatom bloom in an otherwise healthy tank lends merit to the cause(s).

As I've said, I have no doubt the cause is not based on "silicone". The reason I put silicone in quotations is that we seem to be generalizing this term. Silica is actually silicone dioxide (SiO2). From my understanding this is the form that would most likely be present in the manufacturing of glass. My understanding is that diatoms utilize silicic acid (H4SiO4). There are many other forms of silicone. I'm just saying we need to be more clear rather than using general terms. Silica and silicic acid are completely different. As is the hydrated form of silicic acid which is what's contained in the diatoms, AKA opals. Imagine we are tossing opals in the trash when we clean our tanks lol. 

Diatoms are also very important in terms of fixating organic carbon. We all seem to ignore that important aspect. High organics could potentially be more of a trigger than silicone. Stir the substrate and what are we putting into the water column?


----------



## FatherLandDescendant

Zorfox said:


> First I have to say that a healthy curiosity coupled with doubt is a good thing. I respect the OP's fortitude for questioning the status quo.


Thank You.



Zorfox said:


> Focusing on healthy plant growth and maintaining a healthy tank does not explain the underlying causes of diatom blooms. I realize this is the answer to most, if not all, problems we have. However, that's not the point of this thread in my opinion. Instead, it's directed at the specific causes of diatom blooms.


Specific causes and resolutions, debunking the myths of pet theory and/or established lore.

I'm of the mindset that by understanding the mechanics of it, the how, what, and why, one can maintain an environment that minimizes their emergence and manifestation and reduces the time they notability present in the home environment, most hobbyist find them unsightly and unwanted. With understanding one can develop management and maintenance practices to employ that give people tangible methodology to find resolution instead of exercising a theory that may or may not help depending on the species a given individual may be dealing with. 



Zorfox said:


> Earlier in this thread another member asked how they could stimulate and grow diatoms. That's indeed the right direction if we want to understand this issue. Having the ability to consistently reproduce a diatom bloom in an otherwise healthy tank lends merit to the cause(s).


I'd be interested to know what it takes to sustain a bloom, but I'm not going to dedicate my 1 tank to the experiment. I might have a different mindset if I had more than a display tank, and the ability (space, equipment, ect...) to peruse such queries.



Zorfox said:


> As I've said, I have no doubt the cause is not based on "silicone". The reason I put silicone in quotations is that we seem to be generalizing this term. Silica is actually silicone dioxide (SiO2). From my understanding this is the form that would most likely be present in the manufacturing of glass. My understanding is that diatoms utilize silicic acid (H4SiO4). There are many other forms of silicone. I'm just saying we need to be more clear rather than using general terms. Silica and silicic acid are completely different. As is the hydrated form of silicic acid which is what's contained in the diatoms, AKA opals. Imagine we are tossing opals in the trash when we clean our tanks lol.


We use the general terminology, me thinks, to help the general readership. Those that understand, even somewhat, the mechanics of the subject understand that there are more specific molecular chemistry involved under the hood. 



Zorfox said:


> Diatoms are also very important in terms of fixating organic carbon. We all seem to ignore that important aspect. High organics could potentially be more of a trigger than silicone. Stir the substrate and what are we putting into the water column?


Everything that is in the substrate, carbon, nutrients, silicics.....


----------



## CrypticLifeStyle

http://www.cal-water.com/pdf/Silica_scaling_Remediation.pdf

This was sort of informative


----------



## Regelian

Interesting discussion, regardless. Something that come to mind, some 45 years ago, as I had my first freshwater tank, we did not have the various options for substrate and general husbandry as today. Diatoms were never an issue, as I recall. We, also, didn't fertilize our tanks, as today, the substrate was sand/gravel (silica!) and, yes, the tanks were not nearly as sophisticated as today. What changed. Well, certainly we play much more with water chemistry as ever before and this probably plays a major role in diatom/algae blooms among other nusance situations. The total equation is more complex.

In marine systems there are more takers for silica, such a sponges and many bivalves, worms, probably certain algae, as well. Still, diatoms are a common occurance and the key factor is not silica availability, rather nutrient availability. Yes, there needs to be a source for the silicaceous skeleton, but this is generally available in any closed system containing glass and sand. Omnipresent, just not always in the best form for assimilation. Here various bacteria play a role, allowing silicaceous acid to be formed. Porbably not the only mechanism.

What I'm getting at is the complexity of silica availability in water, marine or fresh, which cannot be uncoupled from other products such as phosphates, carbon and nitrates (nutrients). Indeed, in marine systems, the addition of silicacous solutions do not create diatom blooms! Clearly, it is not key, rather a part of the equation.

As to plants using silica, there are quite a few with the bamboos being one of the most studied. They are capable of assimilating it directly from the soil, although the full mechanism is still not unravelled. Are acids involved, micro-organisms, etc.? Although we do not have many studies on truly aquatic plants and silica, we probably still don't know the exceptions, generally, aquatics do not require silica as far as we know.

As you have probably guessed, I do not subscribe to silicates being bad and causing diatoms. They are simply part of a reciprocal equation. It is easier to control the nutrient parameters than the silcate levels.


----------



## mattcham

Most of my tanks are bare bottom fish only with 20 PAR at bottom glass and they are all loaded with brown diatoms. All you need for diatoms is tap water and organics from fish waste...

Even when biofilter is fully functional the diatoms never stop coming. In my planted tank I notice glut/excel slows down their accumulation. In my fish only tanks the diatoms reach some kind of steady state. That is, they come back quickly after a week if I just scrape them, but if I leave them alone their population stabilizes and they stop expanding. 

The locations (on the glass) that they choose to colonize is also quite interesting. I don't know what's special about those areas that makes them conducive to diatom colonization. Its the same general location on every one of my tanks which also happen to have the same filter model and same light. Some areas are immune to diatoms but I don't know why.


----------



## StrangeDejavu

Figured I would contribute my experience to this discussion.

Stock: 2x German Blue Rams, 12x Neon Tetras
Light: Current USA LED+ 36" model (had to go smaller because of wooden canopy)
Photoperiod: 8 hours of 6500k and 4 hours of moonlights
PAR: Since I bought the light intended for 20 gallons and it's 24 inches high, my par is something like 19. Yes I regret it, yes I plan to buy a new light soon. 
Filtration: 2x Eheim 2213's
Substrate: Petco sand
Water changes: weekly 20% or 50% every other week.
Nitrates: Always at 0 now that I have a decent amount of plants with such a light stock.
Silicates: I'm going to assume we have none in our water as my Dad has 3 tanks of his own and doesn't battle brown diatoms. Fake plants an inch from the surface have a very fine dusting, but that's it. He uses pool filter sand.

I set up my 55 gallon on 06/29/2014. It was originally intended to be a standard fish tank, artificial plants only, black Petco sand, etc. A month later (08/02), it's still 100% algae and diatom free. That night, I buy wisteria in those plastic tubes from PetSmart and plant my first live plants in this tank. Three days later (08/05), brown diatoms start forming on river rocks and decorations. Over the next few days, it's slowly expanding. By 08/24, it's now building up on the leaves of my artificial plants. On 08/31 I buy a few Otos and quarantine them for 4 weeks. By the end of quarantine, 2 of the 3 have died. Skip ahead to 09/10/2014, where it is now on the back glass of my 55g and spreading steadily. Around this time, I begin dosing this tank with Seachem Flourish to help some of the live plants in here. Call it coincidence, call it what you want, but after dosing Flourish it ignited the diatoms and they covered everything in a matter of days. Layers on leaves and surfaces so thick they are rolling up into strings and waving in the current. It's on every inch of the dirftwood, every leaf of every plant, on the sand and stringy clumps are waving from the spraybars of my 2213's. Oto does what he can but he is overwhelmed by how fast it's taking over. Skip ahead to 10/13, i've finally had enough and I spend the day hopping fish stores until I finally found one with loads of nerite snails. They weren't labeled and I really don't think they knew what they were, so they sold them to me $0.90 a piece! I bought 6 and threw them in that night. Here are the results from the snails in only three days:

*Before:*

















*After:*









There's still lots of work to be done, but these snails have been going at it tirelessly. I finally feel like i'm starting to get control of my tank now. Will keep everyone updated if anyone's interested.


----------



## mattcham

My amano shrimp cleared all the diatoms on the substrate and plant leaves within 48 hours. Like your tank, the diatoms were so thick that they were rolled up and waving in the breezy current. I put 9 amano shrimp in my 125 gallon planted tank.

However the shrimp could not clean the glass. I guess they do not have spiderman sticky legs so could not clean the glass. I have 6 otos who have been in quarantine for 8 weeks, purchased from LFS months ago. Time to release those hungry hounds this weekend!


----------



## StrangeDejavu

I really wish I could keep amano shrimp in this tank but i'm afraid my GBRs would try to make a snack of them. Even if they left them alone, I think they would give them a hard time during molting.

Good luck with your Otos, mine has turned into a lazy bum. He spends the majority of his day clinging to crypt leaves or the glass, so I don't know if he's even contributing anymore.


----------



## plantbrain

I question the basic management problem from the OP. 

Diatoms are extremely rare to be an issue after the 2-3 week stage and if you are decent and have done this awhile, it's not an issue even there, you do 3x a week large water changes for the 1st one or two months. Cures most all new algae issues.

Diatoms are always present in every planted tank, I do not care how clean etc you think things are, they are there, but they are not a nuisance for most hobbyists.

Herbivores are extremely preferential towards diatoms, everything from a wide range of small plecos and Otto cats to shrimp love them. Biocontrol methods are easy and widely used. 

If you have algae, you generally are not taking good care of the plants. 
Algae are a test kit that shows you are doing something wrong/incorrect with management. 

Inducing algae on purpose can confirm some causes for the blooms. But as the OP stated, they are unwilling to do that

So those with the most interest and that stand to gain are lacking the control and willingness to study diatoms? There's a problem with that approach obviously. 

Rather than approaching algae from that view, perhaps it's better to approach your original goal to begin with? I'm quite certain there's no one that got into the hobby to learn more about Diatoms and what causes them to bloom in a planted tank. 

The general goal was to grow and garden with nice aquatic plants. So focus on their needs. You do that, then algae are minor issues. I think many lose sight of their original intent and get side tracked.


----------



## FatherLandDescendant

With all due respect Tom, the reason I'm unwilling to study the issue ATM is that I only have the one tank, that sits in my livingroom, and is on display. I belive I did cover that in my OP


----------



## roadmaster

Ten gallon tanks are cheap, and one could set up several to study if one wishes.
It's like folks who claim "I can't quarantine cause I don't have another tank".
I am with Tom,,I have not /do not see Diatoms much at all after the first several weeks and although it is a theory of mine,,, I think there is some form of bacterial process, bacterium species,microfauna,that need time to appear in newly established tanks with sand,gravel,dirt, before the diatoms begin to recede.
The more mature tanks become, the less issues with diatoms most experience.
That seem's to be more the norm for most, and Is why I still ponder about what it is that is present in mature tanks ,that seem's to be or may be lacking in newly established tanks.
Have set up new tanks ,with sand/gravel kept outdoors in five gal buckets exposed to all kind's of weather for month's or longer, and seldom see diatoms appear.
I do not take pain's in washing/boiling the afore mentioned susbtrate's and believe much of the bacterium needed to establish these tanks is there from being outdoors through rain,snow,summer,fall.
Sometimes have to pour water out of the buckets to keep mosquitos from spawning in them, but the content of the bucket's is well seasoned ,and perhaps something present helps prevent the diatoms from appearing or if they should to quickly recede.
Just some thinking out loud from me.


----------



## FatherLandDescendant

When one works 32 hours a week for $8 an hour even 10 gallon tank setup can become expensive.

Don't judge a person until you've dealt with life as they do.


----------



## roadmaster

FatherLandDescendant said:


> When one works 32 hours a week for $8 an hour even 10 gallon tank setup can become expensive.
> 
> Don't judge a person until you've dealt with life as they do.


 I ain't judging, just sayin.
Hell I'm able to scare up a few bucks by lookin around at the junk I have collected and sellin it ,or making up jug lines,limb lines for folks,sellin fresh caught fish,chicken egg's, animal pelts, cutting fire wood,etc.
I'm just an old country boy as well, and times are so tough that I must do the afore mentioned just to keep treadin water.


----------



## FatherLandDescendant

roadmaster said:


> I ain't judging, just sayin.
> Hell I'm able to scare up a few bucks by lookin around at the junk I have collected and sellin it ,or making up jug lines,limb lines for folks,sellin fresh caught fish,chicken egg's, animal pelts, cutting fire wood,etc.
> I'm just an old country boy as well, and times are so tough that I must do the afore mentioned just to keep treadin water.


Yea even scratching stuff up to sell around here isn't working, pay $225 for something last year offer to sell it for $75 and get offered $25.

It hasn't been easy getting my 40b to where it is now, and I started with most of that equipment. Setting up even 1 ten gallon tank would take me $100+- from start to finish, for some people it just ain't that easy...


----------



## mattcham

StrangeDejavu said:


> I really wish I could keep amano shrimp in this tank but i'm afraid my GBRs would try to make a snack of them.


Amano shrimp are quite large (2 inches). I plan to buy rams next summer to join my Amanos. If the shrimp have space and hiding places, the Rams will leave them alone. They are not tiny edible morsels like red cherry shrimp.


----------



## StrangeDejavu

mattcham said:


> Amano shrimp are quite large (2 inches). I plan to buy rams next summer to join my Amanos. If the shrimp have space and hiding places, the Rams will leave them alone. They are not tiny edible morsels like red cherry shrimp.


I'll have to pick some up this weekend and try, i'd love to put them to work.


----------



## mattcham

Sometimes Petco sells them. I have five Petco's within an hour from where I live and only 1 of them ever sells them. The others sell ghost shrimp or bamboo shrimp.

The Amano are officially called "Japanese algae eating shrimp" at Petco. They have one of those photo price tags on them. $2.49 each with usual 14 day live guarantee. I bought 10 and one was already dead in the bag 5 minutes later before I even got home.


----------



## StrangeDejavu

mattcham said:


> Sometimes Petco sells them. I have five Petco's within an hour from where I live and only 1 of them ever sells them. The others sell ghost shrimp or bamboo shrimp.


Last weekend, I went to every pet store in the Tampa Bay area and not one single place carried them. There's one store a county over that regularly has them, i'm going by there tomorrow so i'll be getting a batch to try. I'm hoping my bettas will allow one in each of their tanks too but i'm not so sure they'll put up with it. Last time I tried ghost shrimp the one betta terrorized them night and day, wouldn't even stop to eat. Fingers crossed.


----------



## mattcham

Don't put shrimp with betta. Bad idea.


----------



## StrangeDejavu

Bah, got back from the pet store a little while ago and I passed on the Amanos. They had 10+ in the tank, but it was riddled with cladophora algae and BBA. Not just that, there were two dead fish in there that were being eaten by all the Siamese Algae Eaters and one of them had a parasite. Really poor fish store, only reason I go is for their insane selection of driftwood. Oh well, guess it's Msjinkzd or Aquabid for me.


----------



## StrangeDejavu

2 weeks with Nerite Snails: I officially have my tank back. They've done such a fantastic job in such a short amount of time. The diatoms are so few now I actually have to search the tank to find small patches of brown. The amount of poo was unbelievable, lol. I gravel vacced all of it out and gave my canisters a thorough cleaning and everything is back on track. So you guys can appreciate the change, i'll include a before shot as well as an after.



















Now I just have to decide if all these nerite eggs everywhere are worth keeping them around, lol.


----------



## mattcham

Update on my Amanos. I bought 9 of them 3 months ago. They ate all the diatoms except for the ones on the vertical glass. I put in 6 otocinclus. The oto ate all the diatoms and I have no more diatoms for the past 2 months.

Unfortunately, the shrimp started to turn white and die. I'm down to 4 shrimp. My high nitrates are killing them I think. My nitrates are at 40ppm. Tried keeping nitrates at 20ppm to save the shrimp but my plants did not like it at all.


----------

