# Plant deficiency diagram



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

It is either the one Zapins drew over at APC or the one in Peter Hiscock's Encyclopedia of Planted Aquariums.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

I'm _thinking_ it's in Peter Hiscock's book, but my copy is buried somewhere ATM...


----------



## Nymsley (Mar 24, 2009)

I think this is the original thread (unless Zapins posted it elsewhere):

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/fertilizing/62876-plant-deficiency-picture-diagram.html


----------



## Centromochlus (May 19, 2008)

Great diagram!

Now i know what's wrong with my sunset hygro.  Potassium deficiency.


----------



## itrack4u (Nov 16, 2009)

Can someone please explain the meaning of "reabsorbed" used within this diagram? 
Thanks for the post. It should be quite helpful...


----------



## JDowns (Mar 6, 2008)

For our application thats pretty darn useless without including Carbon. You can search the net and see handfulls of the same charts drawn and redrawn focusing on terrestrial plants (and more often then not dealing with horticulture), but you are ignoring one very large essential backbone of growth that while terrestrially would not normally become limited (exceptions can be greenhouses, sealed terrariums/vivariums, etc) but most certainly can be aquatically.

If we break this down a little further I'll note why I think this is extremely misleading and useless.

As a generalization for terrestrial purposes Carbon, Oxygen, and Hydrogen are considered non-mineral nutrients, and make up the largest percentage. Terrestrial plants are free to take these up via the air and from water. With elevated lighting aquatically Carbon can and does become a limiting factor, and will mimic the above deficiencies. Deformed and/or gradually smaller new growth is a good example. Ignoring an element that is responsible for nearly half a plants mass and an initial building block is IMHO a vital mistake. We see far to many examples of folks chasing nutrient deficiencies and blatently ignoring Carbon when in most instances is the root problem. 

Here is a decent breakdown and you may also recognize another chart on this site that is involved in another recent thread.

I would think something that constitutes at least 45 times more mass in a plant would get a little more thought than it usually does. Also most deficiencies tables out there are quick to note that not all plants exhibit the same characteristics, note the importance of what a healthy plant looks like, and are careful to illustrate that many nutrients work together so a lack of one may cause a deficiency in another.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

itrack4u said:


> Can someone please explain the meaning of "reabsorbed" used within this diagram?
> Thanks for the post. It should be quite helpful...


I think it means the leaf starts to 'melt' away from the tip back. However, I am not sure. I'll send Zapins a quick note and ask him to stop by and help with the terminology.


----------



## itrack4u (Nov 16, 2009)

sewingalot said:


> I think it means the leaf starts to 'melt' away from the tip back. However, I am not sure. I'll send Zapins a quick note and ask him to stop by and help with the terminology.


Your answer makes sense to me. Thanks for your help.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

JDowns said:


> For our application thats pretty darn useless without including Carbon. You can search the net and see handfulls of the same charts drawn and redrawn focusing on terrestrial plants (and more often then not dealing with horticulture), but you are ignoring one very large essential backbone of growth that while terrestrially would not normally become limited (exceptions can be greenhouses, sealed terrariums/vivariums, etc) but most certainly can be aquatically.
> 
> If we break this down a little further I'll note why I think this is extremely misleading and useless.
> 
> ...


Bravo!! roud:roud:roud:

Another problem with seeking which particular nutrient deficiency causes which particular plant problem is that it implies that you need to carefully supply just what each plant needs and no more. That just isn't true. If you provide non-limiting concentrations of all of the nutrients you will never have a nutrient deficiency plant problem, so you won't need the chart at all. And, don't we all know by now that there are no consequences for providing non-limiting nutrient concentrations?

Let's focus on getting good CO2 concentration and distribution in the tank, providing non-limiting amounts of all of the mineral nutrients, and providing the appropriate light intensity.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

Hoppy said:


> Another problem with seeking which particular nutrient deficiency causes which particular plant problem is that it implies that you need to carefully supply just what each plant needs and no more. That just isn't true. If you provide non-limiting concentrations of all of the nutrients you will never have a nutrient deficiency plant problem, so you won't need the chart at all. And, don't we all know by now that there are no consequences for providing non-limiting nutrient concentrations?
> 
> Let's focus on getting good CO2 concentration and distribution in the tank, providing non-limiting amounts of all of the mineral nutrients, and providing the appropriate light intensity.


Got to give a well said to Hoppy on this one. His post is dead on.


----------



## Zapins (Jan 7, 2006)

Yes, I did draw this a few months ago. It is meant as a rough guide to what happens when all nutrients are kept at the same concentration (non limiting) and then one is decreased to the point of deficiency. This diagram assumes good CO2, O2, light, etc... are all there except for the indicated nutrient which results in the deficiency shown. I made it by combing literature on terrestrial plants, aquatic plant observations from hobbyists, and personal experience. 

Reabsorbed means the plant either destroys certain cells (or structures inside cells) and absorbs the nutrients and components that make up those cells back into the plant for use in new growth.


----------



## Franzi (Dec 7, 2009)

I saw that pic in the Encyclopedia of Plants book mentioned above.


----------



## elihanover (May 15, 2008)

This should be a sticky.


----------



## slowride (Jan 20, 2012)

lauraleellbp said:


> Anyone know the original source of this diagram?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 thanks for this


----------



## HD Blazingwolf (May 12, 2011)

as zapin said

any of these symptoms can be created by low c02 in a variety of plants
be aware of that when using this chart


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

I've tried to induce some of these deficiencies. They are actually fairly tough and each plant species(we kept about 400) responds differently, this adds to the over generalization used from terrestrial Crop diagrams. You run the risk of being way too general to get much use from these diagrams. That is certainly the case in every case I've seen, but what do I know

I spend a fair amount of time nagging folks on CO2 or light.
But new folks and the intermediate often wallow on nutrients as some key trick to "magically make their tank's blossom". I have some nice planted tanks, I can tell you, I do not fuss or worry much with ferts, I add them 2-4x a week and that is it. I sell maybe 200$ a month + out of the tanks in cuttings. 












I'll not lie about it, getting good CO2 is the hardest trick in the hobby.
I got burnt recently on my 70 Gal tank, HC started to look like garbage, I knew it wa sCO2, so I checked a few times, thought it was one part, thought it was another, 4 empty gas tanks I found the leak, it was the 2" MTP that connected into the regulator, I did not soapy water that part and never saw the leak. I'd torqued the pipe too strongly into the reg and the pipe frigging broke.

Now the CO2 is fine, but I had to entirely break the CO2 system down and go part by part.

Now if I'm getting burnt every so often on my 5 tanks at home, what are the odds that 1 in 5 people do something just as bone headed as me? Pretty high.


----------

