# staurogyne repens deficiency



## Zapins (Jan 7, 2006)

The colors are difficult to tell but it looks like the newer leaves may be turning pale? If this is the case then try adding more iron as white new leaves with necrotic patches is a sign of a lack of iron.


----------



## Jalopy (Aug 11, 2013)

Thanks Zapins!!! To the rescue! Yeah the leaves on my Limnophilia Aromatica are a bit pale too. I just never thought this substrate would be so deficient. I'll give it a try and tell you what happens.


----------



## Octantis (Jan 9, 2014)

I just pulled a bunch of S Repens out of a tank. They were away from direct light for two days. Within that time all the leaves fell off each stem.

So for what it's worth it may be light. But if they've been good and only recently started losing leaves then it's probably something else.


----------



## Jalopy (Aug 11, 2013)

I reduced the photo period from 6 to 5 hours to get rid of diatoms. But I just bumped it back up to 6 hours since I think the light from the window might be causing it. Hopefully that will help. 

For what it's worth I don't think diatoms are only caused by silica since tasks with sand substrate don't aren't over run with diatoms.


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

Judging from the elongation from the first pic, its likely to be CO2(most likely) or light, combined with adaptation stress to new environment. Frankly there isn't enough growth/time for most nutrient deficiencies to appear, especially if you are already dosing some stuff. Staurogyne reacts more slowly compared to say stem plants, so if you have stem plants, you should look at those for nutrient issues instead. However, staurogyne is a reasonable indicator of good lighting/CO2, with which it grows so dense you don't see stems.

Also diatoms occur during new tank setups and almost always go away by itself after awhile, you don't need to change the lighting schedule to compensate for it. The advantage of doing EI is that because of the sheer amount of nutrients being dosed, you can rule out nutrients as a cause and focus on tweaking light/CO2 levels instead. If you're not sure what is happening, its actually the easiest method to get results.


----------



## Zapins (Jan 7, 2006)

Iron deficiencies are fairly common in aquasoil and aquasoil like substrates, especially when first setting up the tank. It seems it takes a while for the roots to establish themselves. Also, flourish isn't a very concentrated fertilizer at all, so I doubt its adding enough micros. Furthermore, flourish is the brand, not a specific fertilizer so the flourish product the OP is using might not even have iron in it.

Looking at other plant species is a good idea in general. If all plants react similarly then you've got a pretty good case for a deficiency.

It could be stress related, though its been a month now and other plants like the limno are also showing pale new growth (pics of these would be great so we can compare), so if it was an adaptation response you'd expect the plant to have gotten over that now and for the limno not to be showing new growth symptoms as well. Also, adaptation responses usually happen in the older leaves which are emersed grown, not really the newest leaves which were grown in the current tank.

There could be several things that cause the plant to look like this, iron is most likely in my opinion given the current info we have, lighting might be a reason, possibly Staurogyne melt (similar to crypt melt).

More photos of the other plants will help clear it up.


----------



## Jalopy (Aug 11, 2013)

Ok, so here are some additional photos of the limno and banana plant. I really don't think it's the CO2. I've got it cranked as much as I'm comfortable with. My Otos and shrimp don't seem as active as they were before with my current CO2 levels. Bubble count wise, I'm almost back up to where I had it with my 50 gallon although that one had an inline diffuser. I've got an in tank atomic type diffuser right now and my drop checker is lime green even with my Aquaclear 50. 

Zapins, is it possible that the substrate is sucking up all the micros/macros out of the water? Does aqua soil type substrate do that with their high CEC capability? The Azoo package does say water changes are unnecessary because of the high CEC. 

I was changing water everyday until a week ago because my pygmaeous spawned but I always add more ferts afterwards.

EDIT: By Flourish I mean the comprehensive one so it has a little of everything including iron.


----------



## Zapins (Jan 7, 2006)

Jalopy said:


> I really don't think it's the CO2. I've got it cranked as much as I'm comfortable with.


I agree whole heartedly. People assume CO2 deficiencies way too often. They are actually extremely rare and the symptoms are simply no growth at all not deterioration of leaves. Carbon is not mobile within plants and so the plant cannot remove carbon from older leaves to make new leaves, therefore the plant can't make new leaves and stops growing altogether. Research articles support this conclusion as well. 

In a true CO2 deficiency some plant species will remove carbonates from the water which leaves tell-tale calcium deposits on the leaves (white crusty material called biogenic decalcification).



Jalopy said:


> Zapins, is it possible that the substrate is sucking up all the micros/macros out of the water?


It is possible, but I think that new aquasoil like tanks just need to settle in and mature a bit before they provide iron. I have noticed that most of the iron deficiency issues are within the first few weeks/months of setting up a tank. They seem less common later on. Whether that means the soil matures or the aquarist learns to add more iron I don't know.



Jalopy said:


> Does aqua soil type substrate do that with their high CEC capability?


CEC is an interesting idea and there are decent arguments both ways. I personally don't think CEC plays a terribly huge role in our aquariums partially because the density of plants in the tank is so high and partially because the soil is under water which allows a lot more diffusion/leaching of nutrients than terrestrial soils. CEC is important in farm soil and forest soil etc... but these soils tend not to have a lot of water running through them leaching out all the nutrients. I wouldn't consider CEC a significant factor when planning how to run a tank.



Jalopy said:


> EDIT: By Flourish I mean the comprehensive one so it has a little of everything including iron.


Yeah, that one is actually really quite dilute. It does not supply enough iron. You should buy some EDTA chelated iron and dose 0.2 ppm every other day to solve this issue.

The best way to fix this issue is to dose an iron only fertilizer and make that the only change in the tank. Do not change anything else (no extra light, ferts, water changes, etc.) only change the iron addition. This way you can prove it is a lack of iron and then knowing this you will be able to dose appropriately for the future. If you change more than one thing at a time you won't know what fixed the issue and you'll have to rely on doing each of those changes every time the problem comes back.

I love the photos you posted. I'd love to see more of the plants. They are really helpful for everyone to see what iron deficiency looks like in multiple species.

By the way here is another photo of an iron deficient limno. compare it to your plant. From: http://deficiencyfinder.com/?page_id=139


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

Zapins,
That doesn't look like L. aromatica. It looks like a Syngonanthus or Ludwigia inclinata.


----------



## Jalopy (Aug 11, 2013)

Thanks Zapins. I'm going to add 86 mg of CSM+B (enough for 0.1ppm Fe) and 86mg of EDTA (enough for 0.2ppm Fe) daily. I was hoping to avoid this. This tank with the new substrate was going to be low maintenance. Like the dose once a week type. I'll post another update when I see results (good or bad).


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

lol. CO2 is one of the most common deficiencies because its hard to diagnose. You can ask Tom barr or someone that has done much more analysis than me, he said something like 90% of people's issues were CO2 rather than nutrient related. People like to flock to assuming nutrient deficiencies because nutrients are easier to measure or alter.

Besides, iron itself won't stop the elongation in his plants. Light/CO2 may. Nonetheless there is no hurt for him(op) to take your suggestions, dose iron, and if it solves the problem, all is well.








Frankly this is grown with less than 0.1ppm Fe every few days. And the plant load is heavy, staurogyne included. Just saying.


----------



## Jalopy (Aug 11, 2013)

Xiaozhuang said:


> lol. CO2 is one of the most common deficiencies because its hard to diagnose. You can ask Tom barr or someone that has done much more analysis than me, he said something like 90% of people's issues were CO2 rather than nutrient related. People like to flock to assuming nutrient deficiencies because nutrients are easier to measure or alter.
> 
> Besides, iron itself won't stop the elongation in his plants. Light/CO2 may. Nonetheless there is no hurt for him(op) to take your suggestions, dose iron, and if it solves the problem, all is well.
> 
> ...


What substrate are you using? I've never used anything like the aqua soil style substrates. You tank looks great by the way. I'm running an Aquaclear 50 and a Fluval CP2 with a lime green drop checker. I feel like I'm getting plenty of CO2, oxygen and flow. I mean, if I don't see any improvement in a week, I'll up my CO2 but it's definitely dicey since I feel that my Otos don't appreciate the amount of CO2 asis.


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

Thanks for the kind comments~ I'm using something call ANS plant soil over a thicker dirt substrate(fairly neutral dirt/loam, added some peat), its a local brand that tries to replicate ADA soil but I find it not as nutrient rich (will probably switch back to ADA once I used up this batch). If you have not tried EI, perhaps you should. Its methodology removes a lot guesswork on nutrients, and narrows down the factors that we can tweak. Since you're using dry ferts already, the cost is relatively cheap to run EI. On running high CO2 - many people have some surface agitation to increase O2 levels to compensate.


----------



## Zapins (Jan 7, 2006)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Zapins,
> That doesn't look like L. aromatica. It looks like a Syngonanthus or Ludwigia inclinata.


I'll have to double check, plant species IDs were never my favorite thing 



Jalopy said:


> Thanks Zapins. I'm going to add 86 mg of CSM+B (enough for 0.1ppm Fe) and 86mg of EDTA (enough for 0.2ppm Fe) daily. I was hoping to avoid this. This tank with the new substrate was going to be low maintenance. Like the dose once a week type. I'll post another update when I see results (good or bad).


If you've got EDTA chelated iron, then I'd just dose that instead of the CSM+B. Although iron is most likely the nutrient that is missing and CSM+B does contain a lot of iron it also has other micro nutrients in it other than iron.



Xiaozhuang said:


> lol. CO2 is one of the most common deficiencies because its hard to diagnose. You can ask Tom barr or someone that has done much more analysis than me, he said something like 90% of people's issues were CO2 rather than nutrient related. People like to flock to assuming nutrient deficiencies because nutrients are easier to measure or alter.


Unfortunately this is not correct. I have extensively looked into nutrient deficiencies and compiled a website of about 70 aquatic plant deficiencies so far (still looking to add to the database). If you want to look over the database you can go to www.DeficiencyFinder.com and have a look at the entries and photos. The most common deficiencies in our tanks are nitrogen, then potassium and iron. CO2 deficiencies are almost never seen. I do have two examples of CO2 deficiency taken from takes with unusual circumstances and showing the tell-tale signs of calcium build up on the leaves.

Deficiencies are not difficult to diagnose. There is a method to it that you can repeat every single time. Most plants use each nutrient in similar ways and therefore show similar symptoms when they become deficient.

I can't tell you how many times I've looked through old threads where the advise was "add more CO2" and it did nothing for the person and there was no improvement. Or where there was a shotgun approach - add more of everything (not ideal - especially with trace nutrients like CSM+B).



Xiaozhuang said:


> Besides, iron itself won't stop the elongation in his plants. Light/CO2 may. Nonetheless there is no hurt for him(op) to take your suggestions, dose iron, and if it solves the problem, all is well.


True to an extent. Too much iron can damage plants as well.


----------



## Jalopy (Aug 11, 2013)

So quick update. The leaves have stopped falling off and new growth started to appear again. I'm not entirely sure what kind of deficiency it was only that I've been dosing the ferts at the bottom for this last week (I split the total amount into 3 doses of micro and macro). Sorry Zapins, this was not very scientific and I'm not sure how it'll help your database. I do believe it's a micro problem though, just not sure which one exactly. I've got some Flourish root tabs on order to save me from measuring this out every week. 

Thanks Zapin.

nitrate 1.8g
phosphate 0.288g
potassium 4.8g
CSM 0.6g
EDTA Fe 0.6g


----------



## Jalopy (Aug 11, 2013)

Final update for this issue. I'm certain that this was a calcium deficiency. Shortly after my last post I noticed that I had curled and stunted new crypt leaves. I started dosing equilibrium and the stauro leaves completely stopped falling and crypts started to take off. I have really soft water around 3deg gh and kh.


----------



## Zapins (Jan 7, 2006)

Glad your plants are doing better but I personally do not think it was a lack of calcium. As you said in your other post you added several things at the same time so we cannot be sure what caused the issue. The symptoms in the first set of posts match with iron very well and you added CSM and EDTA chelated iron. Also, in later iron deficiency certain species can develop twisted new leaves.

By comparison plants only use 2-5 ppm Ca per week, and 3 degrees translates into roughly 54 ppm Ca.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Zapins said:


> Unfortunately this is not correct. I have extensively looked into nutrient deficiencies and compiled a website of about 70 aquatic plant deficiencies so far (still looking to add to the database). If you want to look over the database you can go to www.DeficiencyFinder.com and have a look at the entries and photos. The most common deficiencies in our tanks are nitrogen, then potassium and iron. CO2 deficiencies are almost never seen. I do have two examples of CO2 deficiency taken from takes with unusual circumstances and showing the tell-tale signs of calcium build up on the leaves.
> 
> Deficiencies are not difficult to diagnose. There is a method to it that you can repeat every single time. Most plants use each nutrient in similar ways and therefore show similar symptoms when they become deficient.
> 
> ...



You can look all you want, but if someone can add those ferts all over the place and not have issues, then it puts a lot of doubt if such claims. 
Light and CO2 are simply put: much larger factors in terms of growth than ferts. Aquarist have a range of light and CO2 that spans no less than 20X growth rate differences. 

That's massive.
You think there's dependence with light and CO2 which are poorly measured by hobbyists? Or do you think all light and CO2 reports are entirely independent?

Which is a good assumption? No, it's not. 


Back to the topic from the OP on Starougyne.
My tanks:





Week later:



2 weeks:


3 weeks:






I've dosed a lot of ferts, I've not dosed for week or two. 
This plant is not picky. CO2 is the key aspect for keeping this tank running well and the Starorugyne growing consistently. 

I can dose a lot of traces or not, will not matter to this plant. 
My tap water is similar to the OP also. Low KH and GH, same sources. 

Curling of new leaves, stunted or smaller growth=> CO2, and CO2 and CO2.

Leaf loss of Starougyne(this has occured 2x in the past with new regrowth after the issue was fixed): CO2, CO2 and CO2.

Gas tank ran out, I did not see it since I put it in the back under the cabinet these days due to a toddler's fingers wandering around the house. You can easily see what a lack of CO2 does when you keep a well run aquarium going(which serves as a control) and then remove the CO2, while keeping light and ferts the same. 

I've had client's for decades, they have the same issue every so often when they overlook the CO2.

In these SAME tanks, I can dose very little, go away on vacation for 2 weeks, come back, no issues. With tanks that have less light, there's no effect at all, at the higher light, the plants might be a bit pale, but no issues with the tip growth. I can also and have dosed 2x more than I typically suggest without issue for several weeks. 
No issues.

Others have made even larger overdosing errors without issue.Light and CO2 management is where it's at. You might not know it today, but in the future if you get better at this, you will.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Zapins said:


> By comparison plants only use 2-5 ppm Ca per week, and 3 degrees translates into roughly 54 ppm Ca.


The latter part is not correct.

The atomic weight of Mg is ~24, that of Ca is ~40, and CaCO3 is ~100
1 GH is 0.179 millimolar Ca++ or Mg ++.
1GH = 10 mg CaO per litre of water.
The molecular weight of CaO is 56, so 10/56 millimolar = 0.179

1 GH is 0.179 x 40 ppm Ca++ = 7.2 ppm Ca++
1 GH is 0.179 x 24 ppm Mg++ = 4.3 ppm Mg++

We do not know how much the Ca++ and Mg++ individual readings are in the OP's tap water(actually we sort of do based on the tap water reports). If they dose GH booster or SeaChem Equilibrium there you can estimate the ppm's.

From Wet's Calculator: The addition of 9.0 tsp/caps Seachem Equilibrium to my 180.0 gal aquarium adds

Element	ppm/degree
Ca	5.68
Fe	0.08
K	13.74
Mg	1.70
Mn	0.04
dGH	1.18

GH is over 1 degree, but only 5.68 ppm as Ca++.
3 degree GH addition from solely Seachem Eq would add: ~14.4 ppm Ca++ and ~4.3 ppm Mg++.

Not 54 ppm as Ca++. 

The OP's tap has some Ca++, likely about 8-10 ppm or so. Little Mg++ maybe 2-3ppm. Same as mine. As you stated, it's not likely a Ca++ issue, that is correct.


----------



## BruceF (Aug 5, 2011)

Tom are you saying that this plant can't be grown with added co2?


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

We seem to have come full circle in this. Just to add; my staurogyne bushes growth changes do match Tom Barr's conclusions with respect to dosing/CO2 changes.

New tank has gone from this









To this in 2 months










And I dose less than half of what you(OP) dose for Fe & traces (ppm wise) on a weekly basis. Dosing macros at same or less rate than you. Its on the lean side of things, but still resulted in 20X ? or more increase in plant mass over 2 months. Having deficiencies when you are already dosing while not having fast growth is just not a likely scenario.


----------



## Zapins (Jan 7, 2006)

plantbrain said:


> The latter part is not correct.
> 
> The atomic weight of Mg is ~24, that of Ca is ~40, and CaCO3 is ~100
> 1 GH is 0.179 millimolar Ca++ or Mg ++.
> ...



The ppm depends on what chemical you are adding. If you add pure CaCl2 (as I do), you do get about 54 ppm Ca when you add 3 degrees of hardness to the water. If you are using other chemicals then it changes based on what is in there. 

According to wet's calc.petalphile.com calculator:

```
Your addition of 7.44 g CaCl2.2H2O to your 10.0 gal aquarium adds
Element 	ppm/degree

[B]Ca 	53.58[/B]
Cl 	94.80
[B]dGH 	3.00[/B]
```
My point when saying roughly 54 ppm:


Zapins said:


> By comparison plants only use 2-5 ppm Ca per week, and 3 degrees translates into *roughly *54 ppm Ca.


Was you get between 0 and 54 ppm Ca in a tank of 3 dGH depending on what fertilizer is used and what is already in the water. Technically it is possible to get 0 ppm Ca and all the rest in Mg, but it is not likely in any water I've seen out of a tap. Whatever you think the Ca concentration in his tank water is, it is likely to be adequate for growth long term, and is therefore not the likely deficient nutrient.




plantbrain said:


> Light and CO2 are simply put: much larger factors in terms of growth than ferts. Aquarist have a range of light and CO2 that spans no less than 20X growth rate differences.
> 
> That's massive.


Of course light and CO2 are larger pieces of the pie, nobody is doubting that. However that does not make guarantee that they will be the limiting factors in plant growth. Simply because CO2 and light are used more does not prevent other lesser used nutrients from running out frequently. Light and CO2 do not account for most of the plant issues seen online. This happens for a number of reasons. First CO2 is constantly entering the tank via surface contact with the atmosphere, via bacterial breakdown of organic wastes, fish respiration, etc. These provide a continual small, but significant, input of CO2 into the tank which make it difficult for CO2 to ever truly run out. While relying only on these small inputs can certainly slow down and *limit* plant growth, they do not often produce a complete absence of CO2 which would result in a deficiency and the halt of all new growth followed by the predictable signs of biogenic decalcification on certain species' leaves.

This highlights the difference between a *nutrient limitation *(a slowing of growth which produces normal healthy tissue) and a *nutrient deficiency *(which produces unhealthy/diseased tissue or no growth at all).

Other nutrients like nitrogen and potassium are often not added in large amounts (yes fish food adds a little), but this is usually the only source of these nutrients that a tank gets unless proper (un-limiting) quantities are added. These additions happen only a few times a week compared to continually every minute with CO2 addition and so the time period where plants have no access to one of these nutrients is greatly increased and allows deficient growth to develop. 

Iron is also frequently deficient because it is oxidized, precipitates, or bonds with other chemicals and substances in the tank and is removed rather quickly after addition. This is why we use chelated iron supplements, to protect and prolong iron's availability in the water.

Therefore, the three most commonly seen deficiencies are nitrogen, potassium and iron which all have highly predictable and noticeable growth abnormalities that look very distinct. These are all easily looked up in deficiency literature and basic plant text books.

To specifically answer your questions:


plantbrain said:


> You think there's dependence with light and CO2 which are poorly measured by hobbyists? Or do you think all light and CO2 reports are entirely independent?
> 
> Which is a good assumption? No, it's not.


For a person to say "Oh this plant issue is actually a CO2 deficiency" you need to have a recognizable set of symptoms (as each of the other nutrient deficiencies does) that are specific for CO2 deficiency. Where are the references you have read that describe a total CO2 deficiency and the symptoms that accompany this condition?

The issue I have with the "add more CO2 - it makes everything better" philosophy is that I have often seen people online lump all plant issues (nitrogen deficiencies, light deficiencies, and even pleco damage) into the "CO2 deficiency" category out of ignorance. Ignorance of the differences that are easily recognizable is harmful not only to the plants but also the hobby in general because it promotes misinformation. 

To summarize:
Each nutrient is capable of becoming depleted and causing a deficiency in plants (even CO2), but we must pay attention to each nutrient's tell-tale symptoms and learn to recognize each issue for what it is rather than what would be easiest to solve or which solution sounds the best. 

The lack of each nutrient produces a specific set of symptoms in each plant. These can be identified by the location, texture, color, timing, etc of the damage. CO2 is an immobile nutrient within plants and a true deficiency (complete absence) results in the halting of all growth. If you have any sort of new growth at all then it is not CO2 deficiency and is instead a lesser nutrient causing the issue.






plantbrain said:


> I've dosed a lot of ferts, I've not dosed for week or two.
> This plant is not picky. CO2 is the key aspect for keeping this tank running well and the Starorugyne growing consistently.
> 
> I can dose a lot of traces or not, will not matter to this plant.
> My tap water is similar to the OP also. Low KH and GH, same sources.


You also use a nutrient rich substrate which acts as a reservoir for the times you do not dose the water column. Your plants do not develop nutrients as often as others who rely solely on water culture techniques (EI method). This grants your tanks more stability than the average hobbyist and is likely the reason why you do not see most of the common nutrient deficiencies that others do.




plantbrain said:


> Others have made even larger overdosing errors without issue.Light and CO2 management is where it's at. You might not know it today, but in the future if you get better at this, you will.


Luckily for the hobby a new company has begun to produce CO2 meters and controllers. The "OCO controller" directly detects the concentration of CO2 gas in a water sample and can control a solenoid to maintain a constant concentration of CO2 without relying on pH measurements. We will soon be able to document CO2 fluctuations and its effect on plants without relying on the "more is better always adage." I expect we will soon have a new set of accurate CO2 measurements much like the PAR readings and charts hoppy has made.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

BruceF said:


> Tom are you saying that this plant can't be grown with added co2?


No, not sure where you got that impression.
Grows very well with CO2. Did you see the 4 pictures of my tanks there?


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Zapins said:


> The ppm depends on what chemical you are adding. If you add pure CaCl2 (as I do), you do get about 54 ppm Ca when you add 3 degrees of hardness to the water. If you are using other chemicals then it changes based on what is in there.


Zapins, this is NOT about what you do, it's about what the OP was doing and using=> SeaChem Equilibrium. The measurement you gave is incorrect. SeaChem Equibrium does not add 54 ppm of Ca++ at 3 degrees GH. 
That is not a debatable issue. 

The OP stated "Azoo" sediment, not quite the same(lacks NH4 mostly), but overall, pretty similar to most of the clay based soils used, like in my tanks. 

OP's Tap water is also similar to mine(I have client's in SF).
Very easy to rule a fert out, much harder to rule out CO2/good O2/Current/good general care(is my filters clogged again? Did I hit the output pressure gauge when I changed my CO2 tank?, is the tank degassing more because I did not add more water for evaporation again? 1001 things)

I've made every one of those mistakes(many times). 

Important thing is not so much the deficiencies, rather, what does really nice growth look like? I got into this hobby, like everyone else, to grow a nice garden full of nice plants. Since ferts are easy to rule out, why mess with them so much?


----------



## Jalopy (Aug 11, 2013)

Xiaozhuang said:


> lol. CO2 is one of the most common deficiencies because its hard to diagnose. You can ask Tom barr or someone that has done much more analysis than me, he said something like 90% of people's issues were CO2 rather than nutrient related. People like to flock to assuming nutrient deficiencies because nutrients are easier to measure or alter.
> 
> Besides, iron itself won't stop the elongation in his plants. Light/CO2 may. Nonetheless there is no hurt for him(op) to take your suggestions, dose iron, and if it solves the problem, all is well.
> 
> ...





Xiaozhuang said:


> We seem to have come full circle in this. Just to add; my staurogyne bushes growth changes do match Tom Barr's conclusions with respect to dosing/CO2 changes.
> 
> New tank has gone from this
> 
> ...


I definitely haven't seen that much growth in about 2 months that I've had the tank up even though I think the fertilizer problem has been solved. I'm hesitant because I saw my pygmaeus cories act weird when I had the CO2 cranked. Also, I have no idea how bright my light is. Kinda regretting not getting a Finnex Plant+. I'll up the CO2 gradually again and see if I get that much growth. How much PPM of CO2 or what color is your drop checker? Rough estimate is ok just so I know where I am relative to you. I've got mine at lime green right now.


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

Hmmm I don't use a drop checker, nor have I measured the pH drop. I use the plants that I'm familiar with as a co2 test by observing how fast they pearl/spread. And slowly raise the CO2 over a couple of days while watching the fish/shrimp. The slow tune also acclamatises sensitive species. To get really high levels, some O2 must be introduced as well, either through surface agitation, or using a sump. I find this the best way to tune, as the plants/fish are the final concerns in any tank; a static figure may work for one setup but not another. The other thing that ties in with ferts/co2 is flow; i find that in my own tanks, plants in the sweet spot of the flow grow 30-40% faster than quiet/slow moving areas of the tank. These factors are often over looked in favor of factors that are more easily measured (ferts), but if you think about it, its the factors that we can't measure well that we should be more concerned about no?


----------



## Jalopy (Aug 11, 2013)

I've got flow covered. I have an Aquaclear 50 and a Fluval CP2 right now. There's definitely a good amount of ripple on the surface of the water. I'll put a video up of my setup tonight for you to see/comment.


----------



## Jalopy (Aug 11, 2013)

Here's a video of my setup. I just turned up the CO2 slightly today and my last cherry shrimp died. Nitrate is 10ppm. Not sure what ammonia is but no reason to suspect that it spiked. Haven't had much success with cherry shrimps so something is going on. Here's the rest of the spec. I'm fighting staghorn and BBA right now. 

Mr. Aqua 60p
7 hour photoperiod (just upped it from 6 hours two days ago)
Archaea Slim Pro light (I feel like this is medium light, not sure though)
1/2 EI dosing (for moss and java fern), Mr. Aqua substrate with Flourish root tabs
Dosing Equilibrium so kH is about 3deg and gH around 6deg.
Drop checker was lime green yesterday, slightly yellow today after I turned up the CO2 a bit.

http://youtu.be/r45aQhhD4Ig


----------



## FatherLandDescendant (Jul 24, 2014)

If your injecting CO2 why are you only dosing 1/2 EI?


----------



## Jalopy (Aug 11, 2013)

I've got root tabs and the Mr. Aqua substrate has nutrients in it already.


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

You have placed your diffuser in the traditional position on the opposite of the tank from the wave maker hoping to achieve this effect :







Credits to ADA 

However, from your video it seems like the wavemake is blowing the CO2 upwards and to the back instead (shown by red arrows):








I think you can shift the wavemaker higher and tilt it at a steeper angle towards the substrate, but put the CO2 directly below it, so that the CO2 mist visible hits the lower levels of the tank near the substrate (green arrows recommendations). I'm not sure if its too strong/noisy. Alternatively, you could try having the wave maker in a more horizontal position to achieve the flow pattern in the first pic instead. (diffuser in first pic seems to be placed a bit high though). The key is to have water flow counter to the diffuser's bubbles rising. Or have the pump suck in the bubbles and spray them across the substrate.

Or you could also put the diffuser below the outflow of your HOB at the back, let the downstream hit it and carry it to the front, and let the wave maker blow it from above. Watch the bubbles and where they float. Also watch the drop checker/livestock if you're changing the method of diffusion because it can change the amount of CO2 in the water quite a bit.


----------



## DennisSingh (Nov 8, 2004)

If co2 was good, then tops should show that nice green new growth sprouting. But I'm not seeing that in the original pictures. co2 always accelerates growth and makes good green. So you would still see the crappy bottom, but the new sprouting will look nice. If your co2 is right, lets not rule out o2 then.

My chime in, keep posting updated pictures and the big dawgs will solve your problem so you can solve the problem.


----------



## Jalopy (Aug 11, 2013)

Ok, I just moved the diffuser and repositioned the circulation pump. I dialed back the CO2 a bit just in case the new setup is more efficient. Just before lights off the drop checker looked like it was lime green, no yellow. Seems to me about the same but we'll know soon if the plants like it better.

http://youtu.be/kAs5V1ppJxs


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

I see a mad amount of CO2 bubbling haa...roud:


----------



## bcarl_10gal (Feb 13, 2014)

Did the OP ever figure out the cause of this issue. I've had a similar issue with worse symptoms. It is not due to an iron deficiency since I was over dosing iron. I had low CO2 and the stems initially looked like Tom's first picture, since correcting that I have seen tons of new growth but the new growth still has holes and transparencies.


----------



## Jalopy (Aug 11, 2013)

You know, I was certain that it was because I did not dose any GH booster but other people have said otherwise. I since I've added the Flourish root tabs and GH booster, I've not had problems with deficiency and that's even with the Mr. Aqua substrate (Aquasoil clone). Hopefully this helps.


----------



## brooksie321 (Jul 19, 2014)

I'm getting the same issues b, i don't know?? I've recently started using seachem equilibrium in hopes of righting the ship so to speak.. doubt it will help but that's where I'm at..


----------



## bcarl_10gal (Feb 13, 2014)

What I find weird is I grew a very dense carpet before this started occurring... After I trimmed it was when I started having issues. I am also on RO water, I was not adding any Mg but I have corrected that. It is not calcium since there was 50ppm of calcium in the water. Could this be a Mg deficiency that took a while to show up? If so why would I still be seeing an issue after dosing a significant amount of Mg per day?


----------



## Jalopy (Aug 11, 2013)

I've had it randomly melt before. It starts with one plant and spreads but if I trim the affected area then it stops. Try some flourish root tabs, doesn't hurt. Sometimes diagnosing these things is a pain in the ass and just not wish the time if a comprehensive root tab can take care of it.


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

For deficiencies, check the other faster growing plants in the tank. If its only the Staurogyne melting, it may be part of the staurogyne melt syndrome.

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=676482&page=2

TL,DR; if its staurogyne melt, and your parameters and tank is healthy, new leaves will eventually generate from bare stems.


----------



## bcarl_10gal (Feb 13, 2014)

Thank you for the link, the ammonia theory is interesting since I only started seeing this after I thinned out the carpet. Its a little more comforting knowing that this hasn't just happened to me! I'll throw a couple of root tabs under it as that can never hurt and see what happens!


----------

