# Alternanthera Reineckii - How Much CO2 Does It Need??



## aclaar877 (Feb 19, 2014)

I feel like I've tried just about everything with this plant and it simply doesn't grow. Nothing else in the tank shows any obvious kind of deficiency - ludwigia repens & glandulosa, bacopa, crypts, swords, narrow leaf ludwigia, vals. 

Parameters:
155 gallon with fluorite substrate, 24" deep
Lighting: BML Dutch XB, T8 single, T5 normal output on bowfront
GH: 7
KH: 4
PO4: 3-5 ppm
NO3: Very high - deep red on two different API nitrate test kits, even though I haven't dosed KNO3 in over three weeks (wonder if my K2SO4 is mis-labeled??)
K: Dose 20 ppm per week
Traces: 1/4 tsp CSM+B 3x per week - used to do 1/2 tsp each time but noticed more GDA on glass and plants when I did that 
50% water changes each week

CO2: I get a pH drop of 1.4-1.5 on multiple de-gas tests I've done. CO2 goes thru two PVC reactors with mist blowing right on plants. This "should" indicate enough CO2, right? pH is 6.0 for whole photo period.

I've tried running BML lights at 50%, 80%, tried 1-2 hour bursts at 100%; I've tried planting this thing under each type of light, I've shaded it, I've put Jobes root sticks under them, I've tried lower temps (72 deg, I have it at 76-77 now), I've tried 10,000 bulbs, 6700K PC, redder bulbs, colormax bulbs, I've tried strict EI method for two weeks with no improvement at all. 

Basically tried everything but nitrate-limiting. I really don't know why nitrates still read so high--maybe there was some farm runoff but right now tap water is almost nitrate-free. I also haven't tried going cold-turkey on ferts - I've read others have thrown it in neglected tanks and it turns around somehow. Photo period used to be 9 hours and this week I'm dropping it to seven. Maybe I've been driving everything too hard.

Anyway, I've had private conversations with people here and on Barr Report, but here are photos so the wider community can have at it (paging Zapins!) There is simply no vertical growth to speak of - maybe an inch over several months. I would ditch the plant but I've tried to solve this riddle for a year now and it's driving me nuts. I can't give up!!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

I think they don't like being moved around, and mine responds very well to high lighting(120-200 Par) and rich ferts, so i don't buy the idea of driving them too hard. If anything, higher lighting seems to produce a denser, fuller form. As far as measurable ferts wise my tank is very close to yours. But overall they are slower growers and their leaves can be vulnerable to algae, so a clean tank may be beneficial. On the other hand, i do see it growing in low tech dirt tanks, especially the default AR seems to do okay, so hmm...

Maybe its a substrate thing (soil redox??) or intra species competition when a certain combination is used.


----------



## Okedokey (Sep 2, 2014)

Substrate seems very deep to me. Anoxic conditions potentially, making nutrient uptake zero in the roots.
What about iron?
pH is too low, consider adding some calcium carbonate
Add root tabs


----------



## Raymond S. (Dec 29, 2012)

I would like to see a close up of one of them, but not so close that you can't see most or all of it. From the pctures that I do see it looks in excelent health while just a bit on the thin side. These are slow growers and need lots of other fast growing plants around them to provide whatever t is that stops the algae from forming on the leaves.
I ave two piecs of it in different tanks. Both 10g and one has T8 x 2 bulbs and the other has T5 x 2 bulbs(yes at 12" from the sub) but they have Excel in this tank and Cladophora. I am in the process of trying to eliminate the Cladophora but that's another story.
I can see better red color in the one in the T8 tank than the T5 tank. The one in the T8 tank has a lot of iron in the sub by way of Laterite. Both tanks get light firts(the same)
so only Excel and light are different.
Mine get about two levels of red leaves and whatever is below there has been in there for long enough to have GSA on the leaves mostly due to lack of other plants in there.
I think this may be part of the problem. The smaller they are the slower they grow for lack of surface aria to take in light. So they will speed up later but for now an inch in two months is actually good for those at that size.
I also saw this..."I've tried strict EI method for two weeks with no improvement at all."
If you had said...for two months...I would say it's odd that they didn't show any difference. It takes a couple of weeks to get any reaction out of a slow growing plant.
It takes about 6 weeks from the time a new leaf starts to pop out on mine till that leaf is full grown.


----------



## Zapins (Jan 7, 2006)

Raymond S. said:


> I would like to see a close up of one of them, but not so close that you can't see most or all of it. From the pctures that I do see it looks in excelent health while just a bit on the thin side. These are slow growers and need lots of other fast growing plants around them to provide whatever t is that stops the algae from forming on the leaves.


I agree. Close up pics are needed I can't see them well enough to tell what the problem is from the photos.

How long have you had them for?



Xiaozhuang said:


> I think they don't like being moved around, and mine responds very well to high lighting(120-200 Par) and rich ferts, so i don't buy the idea of driving them too hard. If anything, higher lighting seems to produce a denser, fuller form.


I agree with this as well.


----------



## aclaar877 (Feb 19, 2014)

Thanks everyone. The substrate is 4" deep - the 24" above was meant for the tank depth. I've had the cardinalis variety for about 4-5 months, the tiny ones in gel packs and another taller one for a year now. Good to know the painfully slow growth in small plants is common. When I hear people "growing it like a weed" with modest lighting and CO2 I wonder what I could be doing wrong. 

I'll try some root tabs, and past few weeks I've focused hard on cleanliness and GSA/GDA has improved some. Overall the tank looks really good.

Only other question here is the ridiculously high nitrate readings. Even though I used two kits they both could be off, but I didn't think they would read 80+ ppm when levels are actually low. Guess I can add 10-15ppm per week to be safe. If I really have 80ppm then another 10 shouldn't hurt anything, and if I'm actually low then things should improve a little.


----------



## fablau (Feb 7, 2009)

Hi Andrew, here I am.. I wouldn't worry too much about having high nitrates, those shouldn't be an issue.

I also agree: better closeup pictures would help.

Thanks for the posting, this interests me a big deal. I am having the exact same issue in my hi-tech tank!

Curious to see what other people here comes up with.

Best,
Fab.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

aclaar877 said:


> I would ditch the plant but I've tried to solve this riddle for a year now and it's driving me nuts. I can't give up!!
> 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/


Which variety is this? the mini or the normal?
there's some 3-5 different similar plants. 

The mini seems the best IME.

I have some emergent that transition well if you want to try and see. 
Soil sediment seem to do better IME. 

Mine grow more fatter and with more side shoot than height, but they might grow up about 1-2" a month. 

Yours look okay on the top, the top 3-4 sets of leaves.
If you have a lot of other weeds in the tank, trim them and keep them trimmed down lower and as mentioned, do not move them around, plant and leave them, they might get a little algae on older leaves. Those can be pinched and new side shoots should develop to fill those gaps. 
As the tops get too tall, pinch those and replant. 

the journal for my 120 has had this plant going strong for a about a year now.


----------



## NJAquaBarren (Sep 16, 2009)

Maybe light? I have had a couple forms of this plant and all have grown very well. 

Co2 never above 15ppm
2 t5ho bulbs 
Fert with root tabs and Pfertz, but far less than recommended.


----------



## aclaar877 (Feb 19, 2014)

This is the Cardinalis variety, not the mini. Thanks Tom, for responding here and on the thread on your forum. I like the look of taller AR in the tank, especially since I have large tank, but I may get some mini later on if this plant doesn't work out. 

Fablau and I have been writing each other regarding this, and he thinks tank stability plays a role here. My tank has not been stable at all - this year I upgraded CO2 and lights, tweaked both, got light-happy and got some algae, did large water changes, moved plants around, changed tank flow pattern, tried full EI, modified EI (no KNO3). I also uprooted and moved AR more than I should, putting it in better spots for CO2 and flow. I think I need to let those root better and just pinch off dead leaves. I had been pulling them out to pull off the dead leaves and bare lower stem. Also good to know high light shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## aclaar877 (Feb 19, 2014)

OK, here are some additional pics - hope they can tell us something. I have a recent tank pic here as well to show the overall plant mass, and this is down a bit from trimming a few days ago. Ignore the first three photos - they are for a separate Ludwigia question. Not much change in the past month - some new shoots here and there, but more ratty old leaves. The best plant a month ago is looking terrible. I got a UV sterilizer last week to clear up some light green water. I'll add that AR stems are very brittle, and so are many vallisneria leaves. Last week I also decided to completely ignore nitrate test kit and dose it again as it won't hurt anything. The vals have "messed up" my aquascape so to speak - they used to stay around 8" and now some have hit the surface...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/with/15462302835/


----------



## NJAquaBarren (Sep 16, 2009)

Not much. Mine was always very colorful and healthy and my co2 never exceeded 15ppm per my drop checker. Most shoot for 30ppm.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

aclaar877 said:


> This is the Cardinalis variety, not the mini. Thanks Tom, for responding here and on the thread on your forum. I like the look of taller AR in the tank, especially since I have large tank, but I may get some mini later on if this plant doesn't work out.
> 
> Fablau and I have been writing each other regarding this, and he thinks tank stability plays a role here. My tank has not been stable at all - this year I upgraded CO2 and lights, tweaked both, got light-happy and got some algae, did large water changes, moved plants around, changed tank flow pattern, tried full EI, modified EI (no KNO3). I also uprooted and moved AR more than I should, putting it in better spots for CO2 and flow. I think I need to let those root better and just pinch off dead leaves. I had been pulling them out to pull off the dead leaves and bare lower stem. Also good to know high light shouldn't be an issue.


Tell you what, shoot me a PM with your ship address etc, I'll send some of the mini and you can see. 

I have a fair amount of the stuff outside emergent, it's green but quickly converts to red in about 2-5 days or so. After I trim, I just plant it in trays outside and it does very well till I sell or need it for a client etc. 

I've highlighted the basics on how to care for the plant. 
I also grew it pretty well in a non CO2 tank, but it was mostly hair grass and a java fern. Not a bunch of Hygro or something. Seems to do better generally for folks using FL tubes and less light. But...........exception abound. 

My tanks are pretty high, at 120-175 range at the tops of mine. I just replanted and the nice new growth is filling in, I'll remove the ratty leaves here and there and the nice new side shoots come out and you have a great looking plant. 

I would suggest some deep Vacuuming of the sediment if it's a year old or more. Then replant those sections. Do say 1/4 of the tank each time. Keep up on larger water changes, say 50-70%, and add some more plant biomass, the 155 has very little biomass. 

CO2 and O2 might be an issue. Too much of the CO2 and not enough of the O2. Adding lots of CO2 without much biomass is not a good idea. You do not get that 8-9 ppm ranges due to plant growth and O2 production, so adding it is sort of a waste and likely messed with the tank's cycling. I'd add a lot more stems etc, then see how things respond. 

Basically more a set of gardening issues: add more plants, try a different type and then care for the sediment and then trim off the ugly lower leaves. If you have good conditions and the right variety, you should not have any issues after awhile. Takes some patience, but after 1 month you'll know, and after say 3 months you should end up with a real nice stand that's pretty robust and has no issues. 

NJAquaBarren does not add a lot, and have relatively moderate light, leaves it be. If you pick at things, and do not have patience, some species will give you troubles. Those are gardening and human issues. 

Everyone has those at some point.


----------



## the_Chad (Mar 11, 2014)

Hi aclaar877, 
I have a deep tank too. At 24" I've learned it's tough to get a lot of lighting to the substrate. Before I switched to my current lighting I used to grow out stem plants in my 30 gallon. This allowed me to get the plant at lest half way to the light where there was enough to pull the plant through. Even with all the lighting I am currently using many types of plants still need that boost. 

With that being said I believe you may also have this problem. By your pictures your AR looks about 4" tall. At that depth it may not be getting the light to grow. High nitrates is just food for plants. I bet if you could double your current lighting your plants would explode and nitrate levels would lower.


----------



## aclaar877 (Feb 19, 2014)

Thanks, I've considered that too - I also wondered if AR got enough light, especially with slight green water. The plant has always been red, and I've heard that it gets green if it doesn't get enough light and/or iron. So, did my red color indicate enough light, or sufficient iron but not enough light? I tried floating some stems to see if they recovered, and nothing happened. Anyway, I got a UV sterilizer last week and the water is super-clear, so if lighting was an issue the clearer water should help. I'm seeing a few more tiny leaves/shoots, we'll see if they continue or stall out as before. Even if I end up having trouble with some plants at least I want clear water to enjoy the tank with what I can actually grow. Now I'm running the BML Dutch XB at close to 100% without aggravating the GW.

Tom made an interesting point about high CO2 and lower O2. In the photo the planting does look sparse - in real life it doesn't really seem that way, but good to know what I have is not close to being heavily planted. I admit I don't have lots of surface movement - I never had surface film but wouldn't say I had a ripple, either. I moved a powerhead up to the surface to get more movement and O2 mixed in.


----------



## Okedokey (Sep 2, 2014)

I would take up Tom's nice offer too


----------



## samee (Oct 14, 2011)

Okedokey said:


> Substrate seems very deep to me. Anoxic conditions potentially, making nutrient uptake zero in the roots.
> What about iron?
> pH is too low, consider adding some calcium carbonate
> Add root tabs


ph too low? My tank goes up to 7.8 and when the co2 is on, it stays at 6.4. Ive had it down to 5.8 which is the absolute limit that my fishes could take. I dont think 6 is low enough to disrupt nutrient/co2 intake. Unless Im wrong.

Tom said there needs to be a co2/o2 balance. Im doing co2 as well as a very good ripple at the surface, is that good enough, looking at my ph, that its a healthy balance? Ive felt like having a high ppm of co2 can contirbute to limiting factors, but I thought you needed some seriously high co2 level to do that.


----------



## mlongpre dxYh (May 24, 2014)

I think he is referring to the bacteria in the filter. It stops being effective at ph 6. 

I've got the same problem. I've felt like I've had to push co2 up very high to similar ph of 5.9-5.8 in order to get my plants not to stunt and curl with kh of 5 and par about 70-80. Dropped par down to around 40-50 and I'm needing less co2 and can get away with less rippling. Seems more safe for the fish too. 

I was basically trying to replicate the amount of degassing a wet/dry would have with my canister and power head setup so I could work with high levels of O2. This allowed me to get the co2 very high but still couldn't really push it past 5.85 without them hanging at the surface. Even at this ph I had a few stems stunting even the moneywort, skinny tiny leaves. My AR would stunt and produce curled dark brittle growth that was brittle. 

I see many people with higher par than 50 and are able to use less co2 it seems. But maybe I'm wrong and they are indeed using more co2. Oh well, less light for now and we will see how it goes for the next month or so. 




samee said:


> ph too low? My tank goes up to 7.8 and when the co2 is on, it stays at 6.4. Ive had it down to 5.8 which is the absolute limit that my fishes could take. I dont think 6 is low enough to disrupt nutrient/co2 intake. Unless Im wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Tom said there needs to be a co2/o2 balance. Im doing co2 as well as a very good ripple at the surface, is that good enough, looking at my ph, that its a healthy balance? Ive felt like having a high ppm of co2 can contirbute to limiting factors, but I thought you needed some seriously high co2 level to do that.


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

I've been growing the AR cardinalis varietal in a low tech dirt tank for close to a month now; the leaf top surface is a nice orange and the plant grows slowly but steadily. I see some sprouting of side shoots, and the lower leaves are intact. Quite compact compared to the lilacina varietal. At least in this case, CO2 or lack of doesn't seem to make much of an impact.


----------



## Okedokey (Sep 2, 2014)

samee said:


> ph too low? My tank goes up to 7.8 and when the co2 is on, it stays at 6.4. Ive had it down to 5.8 which is the absolute limit that my fishes could take. I dont think 6 is low enough to disrupt nutrient/co2 intake. Unless Im wrong.


A fluctuation of over 1 pH magnitude is imho too much.


----------



## fablau (Feb 7, 2009)

I feel that the PH value could be of interest on this specific AR issue. I have a wet/dry filter, as well as pretty good surface ripple, therefore I should be ok with O2, whereas when I add co2, I have a big PH drop, well over 1.2. As I said before, my AR has been through a similar path, and while it used to be great in the past, it begun getting bad when I did these changes to my setup:

1. Moved into EI from a pretty low fert regime (Seachem based)

2. Increased Co2 a big deal (therefore, lower PH)

3. Started messing around, testing, changing variables, etc.

I have been trying to keep variables stable for the past 6 weeks, and my AR got better, but still it grows very slowly, in my opinion too slow compared to other plants. I think I will try to lower co2 a little to reduce the PH drop and see where it takes me to. I should have some room of lowering co2 since looks like I am always over 30ppm, so I can try to lower co2 a little without risking to don't have it enough.

I'd be curious to know, from folks growing AR well, what PH absolute value and drop have, for comparison.

Thanks for keeping this thread alive!

Fab.


----------



## fablau (Feb 7, 2009)

Can someone growing AR well telling us what's the lowest reached PH as well as PH at the time Co2 injection starts?


----------



## fablau (Feb 7, 2009)

I have finally solved the problem with my AR. Lack of micros was probably the cause. I doubled the amount of given micros as well as adding a little bit of Fe DTPA, and they started to grow back again!


----------



## aclaar877 (Feb 19, 2014)

Fab, thanks for sharing this finding. Since I wrote the original post I have also increased traces, added more surface movement for O2, and added some Osmocote+ tabs in the past couple weeks. A few stems have the biggest red leaves I have seen yet, so hopefully these turn the corner for me and actually grow. I was almost ready to give what I had away during my next plant sale, but for now I'll see if it gets some momentum. If it does I'll share before/after pics.


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

On the CO2 part;
Both the AR mini and the common rosaefolia grows well in low tech non-CO2 tanks. The mini (in my case) elongates a bit, but is otherwise healthy. Having a good substrate may have a big impact.

AR mini on the left corner, rosaefolia on the right corner


----------



## fablau (Feb 7, 2009)

aclaar877 said:


> Fab, thanks for sharing this finding. Since I wrote the original post I have also increased traces, added more surface movement for O2, and added some Osmocote+ tabs in the past couple weeks. A few stems have the biggest red leaves I have seen yet, so hopefully these turn the corner for me and actually grow. I was almost ready to give what I had away during my next plant sale, but for now I'll see if it gets some momentum. If it does I'll share before/after pics.



Great! Yes, I was going to trash them away, I assure you! Now they are getting back. As soon as I have nice foliage, I will post some pictures. They are slow growers, as you know...


----------



## fablau (Feb 7, 2009)

Xiaozhuang said:


> On the CO2 part;
> Both the AR mini and the common rosaefolia grows well in low tech non-CO2 tanks. The mini (in my case) elongates a bit, but is otherwise healthy. Having a good substrate may have a big impact.
> 
> AR mini on the left corner, rosaefolia on the right corner



Very nice tank! And thank you for posting this, I have a couple of low tech tanks and I can confirm what you wrote.


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

fablau said:


> Very nice tank! And thank you for posting this, I have a couple of low tech tanks and I can confirm what you wrote.


Thanks! I wanted to add on that "grows well" is relative though. The coloration of my minis in the low tech setup is less red than in high-tech CO2 tanks. The tops are orange-red in the low tech, but in the high tech tanks it gets very red. So there is still a significant difference in using CO2. 

In the high-tech tank:


----------



## fablau (Feb 7, 2009)

Wow, they are gorgeous! Yes, I see the difference and I see that difference in my tanks also. What variety of AR is the one in the high tech tank?


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

The ones in the middle are AR minis, the ones at the top of the pic are varigated ARs 'Rosenavig'


----------



## fablau (Feb 7, 2009)

Beautiful plants. And beautiful tank! Congrats!


----------



## anchal (Dec 14, 2021)

aclaar877 said:


> I feel like I've tried just about everything with this plant and it simply doesn't grow. Nothing else in the tank shows any obvious kind of deficiency - ludwigia repens & glandulosa, bacopa, crypts, swords, narrow leaf ludwigia, vals.
> 
> Parameters:
> 155 gallon with fluorite substrate, 24" deep
> ...


From the photos it does not look like a 24" deep substrate


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

anchal said:


> From the photos it does not look like a 24" deep substrate


You do know you are replying to a post from 2014?......Right????


----------

