# Biofilm Impact Upon Algae & Plant Health



## Immortal1 (Feb 18, 2015)

Lots of learning likely to follow - subscribed! 
FWIW, I have a rather large amount of Eheim Substrat Pro, and Eheim BioMech in my AquaTop CF500 canister filter, along with a "heavy fish load" - basically the opposite of your setup.
Will be interesting to see where this thread goes


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

Deanna said:


> Lots of questions and some more:
> - if we try to kill the biofilm in our tank (while protecting our biomedia), will algae struggle to develop?
> - will leaves absorb nutrients better when not covered with biofilm?
> - will biomedia, if sufficient in quantity, prevent any significant development of biofilm in our tanks?
> - is there an allelopathic response from plants againts the bacteria?


Using Poret foam as a corner filter and that's it.
I sterlize the foam @ every swap out.
Small phish load and heavily planted.
When the swap is made I never detect ammonia.
Been ignoring the "cycle" idea for years with heavy planting.
If a heavy phish load was present a different song would be sung.

Fact: Leaves absorb nutrients better when not covered in anything.
Just went through this with last algae attack.

Biofilm: None that is noticeable and extremely clean glass.

Allelopathy: Has this really been proven in submerged plants?
I am unknown on this one, but if my healthy plants are sending death vibes to algae I'm good with it.

Just some thought from my 80G tank.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Maryland Guppy said:


> Fact: Leaves absorb nutrients better when not covered in anything.
> Just went through this with last algae attack.


I would think so as well, but do we know for sure?



Maryland Guppy said:


> Biofilm: None that is noticeable and extremely clean glass.


Another problem: can we tell if and how much biofilm might be on the leaves? We can sometimes see it on glass and, as @Edward said, accumulating in our tubing.



Maryland Guppy said:


> Allelopathy: Has this really been proven in submerged plants?
> I am unknown on this one, but if my healthy plants are sending death vibes to algae I'm good with it.


Not that I have been able to find. Diana Walstad claims it's everywhere and I have encountered a lot of 'confirmations' from hobbyists that Egeria/Anacharis does it.


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

I'm subscribed, hoping to see more info/viewpoints on this subject.


----------



## Grobbins48 (Oct 16, 2017)

Looks to be an interesting topic. I have been one to load up my canisters with bio media, and do have a heavy fish load. That said, things are relatively balanced in my tank.

I'll be following along!


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

I’ll offer a suggestion for a process to look at this, although I don’t have the tools. I think we’d be looking at two tests.

The first test is to see if we can stop or, at least dramatically reduce, the formation of biofilm anywhere but on the biomedia in our filter, ignoring the algae issue until this is accomplished (although it would undoubtedly also kill all algae short term):

1) Kill all of the bacteria that comprise the biofilm without permanent damage to any other life in our tanks …no small feat. What would it take to do that: H2O2, glut, antibiotics, etc, and how much for how long? We'd have to wait for new plant growth to replace the old, biofilm covered, leaves. The filter, of course, can be removed/shut off during treatment. Would just adding increasing amounts of biomedia eventually starve all tank-based biofilm? How long would that take? I would expect that a microscope, in the right hands, would easily show if any bacteria existed on surfaces.

2) Find the right amount of biomedia, if such a sweet spot exists, to develop a biofilm large enough to grab a sufficient amount of the organics, via trial and error.

3) Repeat the testing until we see that no/arrested-at-low-levels biofilm ever develops. How long a period of time is enough to say that the biomedia is doing this?

If this sustained knockdown of the biofilm can’t be verified, there may not be any point in going to the second test. However, if it’s tried by enough people and positive results are seen , then maybe that’s a win.

The second test, of course, is to watch to see if any algae develop once we can verify that the biofilm is either gone or greatly reduced. We will also want to watch our plants for changes and look for nutrient demand changes that might occur if there is no/little biofilm on the leaves.

Now, we wait to see if some better ideas appear. Maybe more importantly, if anyone is aware of this having being tested before.


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

For what it's worth I was Phishless for quite some time.
A density of plants that many would want for their own.
Daily dosing urea in large amounts only to see no NH3/4 present within a couple hours and never register NO2.
NO3 dosing was dropped in order to not accumulate nitrates.
I later kept 10ppm NO3 in the water column @ all times with KNO3 dosing.
Was not happy with this parameter NO3 @ zero.

So during this time was any beneficial bacteria formed, I doubt it.
But over a large amount of time, say 3 months maybe some was formed.
But then I sterilize the Poret foam again and back to zero BB.

The problems would arise from the varied phish load that many keep.
Also heavily on the feeding schedule and many overfeed their phish.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Maryland Guppy said:


> For what it's worth I was Phishless for quite some time.
> A density of plants that many would want for their own.
> Daily dosing urea in large amounts only to see no NH3/4 present within a couple hours and never register NO2.
> NO3 dosing was dropped in order to not accumulate nitrates.
> ...


During the period where you are guessing that no biofilm was formed, did you see any difference in algae formation than at other times? IMO, the focus is on the slow-forming GSA on the older leaves that even higher PO4 dosing doesn’t prevent.

Nitrifying bacteria are, literally, in the air, just waiting to fall into some water and start eating organics. So, you must have had BB in your water. The question is: how much organics were in the water to eat? Wouldn’t you think you would have had enough organics from the large biomass to get a biofilm going?

I, too, was dosing urea, but at 1ppm NO3 equivalent (now at .5 equivalent NO3), no NO3 dosing and with a heavy fish load and intentionally overfeeding. NO3 holds at around 5-10 and no NH3/NH4 is noticed (may be some spikes when I’m not looking). When I’m not disrupting the balance, I rarely get hair algae (including BBA) or GDA. It’s the GSA that forms on the elderly leaves that makes me think this is a biofilm issue, otherwise why would the leaves let algae grow on them if they have all of the mobile nutrients they need?


----------



## DaveKS (Apr 2, 2019)

These are 2 good reads on AOA, 2nd study delves into how they differ in regards to how they respond to environmental factors including ammonium levels, light, PH and oxygen levels. Apparently AOA don’t like light where AOB doesn’t care and would explain why the 1st study showed that AOA dominated inside most aquarium filters. Increasing/decreasing oxygen levels had little effect on AOA populations while AOB showed a direct correlation to oxygen levels.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/k82xqkku1tjoo38/AOA_pone.0023281.pdf?dl=0

https://aem.asm.org/content/78/16/5773


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Deanna said:


> I’ll offer a suggestion for a process to look at this, although I don’t have the tools. I think we’d be looking at two tests.
> 
> The first test is to see if we can stop or, at least dramatically reduce, the formation of biofilm anywhere but on the biomedia in our filter, ignoring the algae issue until this is accomplished (although it would undoubtedly also kill all algae short term):
> 
> 1) Kill all of the bacteria that comprise the biofilm without permanent damage to any other life in our tanks …no small feat. What would it take to do that: H2O2, glut, antibiotics, etc, and how much for how long? We'd have to wait for new plant growth to replace the old, biofilm covered, leaves. The filter, of course, can be removed/shut off during treatment. Would just adding increasing amounts of biomedia eventually starve all tank-based biofilm? How long would that take? I would expect that a microscope, in the right hands, would easily show if any bacteria existed on surfaces.



biofilms are everywhere and it's sort of a 2 edged sword.. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3759889/

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13201-016-0415-2




> Microbial assemblage as biofilm around the aquatic plant forms a firm association that largely depends upon the mutual supplies of nutrients, e.g., microbes interact with plants in an aquatic system most likely for organic carbon and oxygen, whereas plants receive defensive immunity and mineral exchange.



https://www.int-res.com/articles/ame_oa/a058p079.pdf


> ABSTRACT: We compared the heterotrophic community composition of bacterial biofilms on the sub-merged macrophytes Myriophyllum spicatumand Potamogeton perfoliatusand on an artificial sur-face in Lower Lake Constance (Germany) on spatial (plant age) and temporal scales using denatur-ing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) and fluorescence in situhybridization (FISH). M. spicatumcontains polyphenolic allelochemicals that inhibit algae, cyanobacteria, and heterotrophic bacteria,and possibly influence the community composition, whereas P. perfoliatusdoes not. In 2005, the com-munity composition of bacterial biofilms on apices and leaves of M. spicatumdiffered significantly. In2006, the biofilm communities on the apices or leaves of M. spicatumand P. perfoliatusand the arti-ficial surface did not differ significantly, although all except one apex sample of M. spicatumformeda distinct cluster based on DGGE banding patterns. On all surfaces, members of the Cytophaga-Flavobacter-Bacteroidetes (CFB)group (16 to 22%), Alphaproteobacteria(19%), and Betaproteo-bacteria(7 to 31%) were abundant; Actinobacteriaand Planctomycetesoccurred less frequently


https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Stream_biofilm

not sure of autotrophic bactr .on leaves though..


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

DaveKS said:


> These are 2 good reads on AOA, 2nd study delves into how they differ in regards to how they respond to environmental factors including ammonium levels, light, PH and oxygen levels. Apparently AOA don’t like light where AOB doesn’t care and would explain why the 1st study showed that AOA dominated inside most aquarium filters. Increasing/decreasing oxygen levels had little effect on AOA populations while AOB showed a direct correlation to oxygen levels.
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/k82xqkku1tjoo38/AOA_pone.0023281.pdf?dl=0
> 
> https://aem.asm.org/content/78/16/5773


I took a little different read on this:

Very interesting. So, very little, if any, bacteria (esp. Nitrosomonas) involved in freshwater nitrogen cycle after all …but only where NH3 dominates. an NH4 abundance means that bacteria, and not archaea, dominate. I guess we have to now focus on BA (Beneficial Archaea) where NH3 is involved.

Generally, then: AOA above pH of ~7 and AOB below pH ~7. Could an implication from this be that, if we are going to run tanks below pH 7, it is important to cycle them that way to develop AOB vs. AOA? If we keep pH above 8, which is commonly recommended for cycling, we may not have the necessary AOB when we drop pH below 7?

Also, does this mean that anaerobic reduction of nitrates is better suited to NH4 conditions if bacteria, in fact, aren’t found in NH3 environments?

Great find @DaveKS!

We still have the issue of the biofilm question but, it seems that flooding an aquarium with near-UV may kill the biofilm in an NH4 environment (probably near-visible is even deadlier), but NH3 environments may not respond to this energy region.

Also: the archaea weren't mentioned as having anything to do with NO2, or did I miss it? So, in an NH3 environment, bacteria that consume nitrites must still exist.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

jeffkrol said:


> biofilms are everywhere and it's sort of a 2 edged sword..


More good stuff. It indicates that biofilm formation can be impeded by a lack of organics. Maybe there is a blunt edge on the beneficial side of that sword if we supply the traces as well as the biofilm colony does.

Questions (probably rhetorical): 

- How much benefit does the symbiosis of the biofilm provide to a plant through the leaves? Maybe the plant can still thrive without the biofilm.
- Will BB struggle to develop well enough as biofilm on plants if organics are rapidly provided to the biomedia in the filter?
- If the biofilm, itself, acts to protect the bacteria from things such as UV, will a dose of something such as H2O2, glut, antibiotic, etc., disrupt this protection enough to allow near-UV or just into the UVA-A range to destroy the formerly-protected bacteria in the biofilm?

Looking elsewhere for a connection between “stream biofilm” and algae, it seems that algae actually becomes a part of the biofilm. So, it seems increasingly likely that destroying the biofilm will eliminate an important operational base for algae.


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

Here is another read and newer than some of the others.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113515

While this is all quite interesting material and some occasionally gets forwarded to me by scholarly scientific hobbyists (link provided) my search for knowledge is not in this direction so much.
I certainly cannot sample this bacteria let alone perform DNA analysis on it.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Maryland Guppy said:


> Here is another read and newer than some of the others.
> https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113515
> 
> While this is all quite interesting material and some occasionally gets forwarded to me by scholarly scientific hobbyists (link provided) my search for knowledge is not in this direction so much.
> I certainly cannot sample this bacteria let alone perform DNA analysis on it.


No, I can't analyze for live bacteria either and I doubt that any of us can.

I'm thinking that the way I'm going to try this is to first build the biofilm in my filter (have some Biohome Ultimate on the way). Then after a month or so, do a heavy dose of Excel (it does kill bacteria - I'll remove the biomedia) at about 3 ml / gal, which I know to be safe on a one-time basis. Finally, I'll place this open sterilizer: https://smile.amazon.com/Coospider-Aquarium-Clean-Submersible-Waterproof/dp/B07RDK29VS/ref=sr_1_6?crid=2RURUP878JV72&keywords=uv+sterilizer+aquarium&qid=1575348925&sprefix=uvc+sterilizer+aqu%2Caps%2C148&sr=8-6, in close proximity to the plants (within 8-10 inches), which will require placement adjustment about 6 times throughout the tank. It only takes about 10 seconds for UV-C to kill bacteria so, I figure a minute in each placement should do the job thoroughly without harm to other life. Then, we'll see how the plants do and whether the good 'ole GSA returns to the old leaves.

I'll have plenty of time before implementing and may make some course corrections depending upon what further develops in this thread.


----------



## Surf (Jun 13, 2017)

> biofilms are everywhere and it's sort of a 2 edged sword..


I agree with this. Some bacteria are good and some or bad. In addition the biofilm is not just bacteria. Algae and fungus is also part of any biofilm. Some plants host certain bacteria that can help the plant to grow. Legumes for example host nitrogen fixing bacteria in there roots. The bacteria provide the nitrogen the plant needs and the plant feeds the bacteria. Legumes can grow in soil with no nitrates while most other plants cannot. I have read that other plants ned a fungus or bacteria in the soil to help the seeds to germinate. How this works in a aquatic environment I cannot say for sure but in general I would expect some to be beneficial and some biofilm to be harmful. 

As to your experiment idea I don't think it is practical to do. there is always some bacteria, algae and fungus floating in the air. So as soon as you stop sterilizing microorganisms will move back in. So as soon as you stop the sterilization process new bacteria and organisms will move back in. The only way to permanently elliminate biofilm would be to completely and permanently seal the tank. During the sterilization process the plants will suffer some damage from either the sterilization agent or by changes in nutrient levels caused by the sterilizing agent reacting with minerals. That damage could favor a harmful biofilm over a beneficial biofilm. I can't think of any way to kill off a biofilm without doing some, even a small amount, of damage to plants. Also while Glut or H2O2 are affective against many organisms there will always be some organisms that will resistant or immune to the Glut or H2O2.


----------



## DaveKS (Apr 2, 2019)

Deanna said:


> I took a little different read on this:
> 
> Very interesting. So, very little, if any, bacteria (esp. Nitrosomonas) involved in freshwater nitrogen cycle after all …but only where NH3 dominates. an NH4 abundance means that bacteria, and not archaea, dominate. I guess we have to now focus on BA (Beneficial Archaea) where NH3 is involved.
> 
> ...


My reasons for posting those were more in response to your stated idea of adding more biomedia to filter. Basic is that most biomedia added to filters is not colonized by what you think it is and may actually not react nor have properties in the way us aquarists have been trained to think for decades. Much of this research has not even started to trickle down to hobbyists mindset. It’s a intricate little web that involves way more than the 2 bacteria we’re trained to respect. 

Coenzyme production by Archaeon around root zone, which has been shown to be predominant there (in terrestrial soils below PH 5.5 you won’t hardly find anything but archaea you here, have no idea if same holds true for aquatic soils), it is theorized to be one of the major influencers of allopathic chemicals produced by plants to fight off unwanted organisms from its leaves. 

And yes, all plants and even biofilm itself on rocks etc have ways of preventing Algae/Cyanobacteria from forming there. That is a discussion that isn’t even open for debate with me. But the intricacies of what causes us to make that system fail in our little closed loop/restricted slices of ecosystem is fair game.

Anyway I’ve been rambling to long, I’m going to go drink my Breckinridge Christmas Ale. :grin2:


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Surf said:


> I agree with this. Some bacteria are good and some or bad. In addition the biofilm is not just bacteria. Algae and fungus is also part of any biofilm. I would expect some to be beneficial and some biofilm to be harmful.


Agreed. There does seem to be some symbiosis, but to what extent and how valuable it actually is, is half the reason why I would like to eliminate it in the tank, so that it all resides in the filter. The only harmful aspect, that seems to be the most obvious, is that biofilm also harbors algae, which is the main point of interest.



Surf said:


> As to your experiment idea I don't think it is practical to do. there is always some bacteria, algae and fungus floating in the air. So as soon as you stop sterilizing microorganisms will move back in. So as soon as you stop the sterilization process new bacteria and organisms will move back in. The only way to permanently elliminate biofilm would be to completely and permanently seal the tank. During the sterilization process the plants will suffer some damage from either the sterilization agent or by changes in nutrient levels caused by the sterilizing agent reacting with minerals. That damage could favor a harmful biofilm over a beneficial biofilm. I can't think of any way to kill off a biofilm without doing some, even a small amount, of damage to plants. Also while Glut or H2O2 are affective against many organisms there will always be some organisms that will resistant or immune to the Glut or H2O2.


Well, I’ll find out how practical it is as I’m willing to risk damaging the good (with a very brief sterilization) to see if it results in a long-term reduction of the slow accumulation of algae on older leaves. I’m hoping that the glut will simply degrade the biofilm to help the UVS complete the job. I know that bacteria/archaea cannot be eliminated from the environment. The question is: once their biofilm cities are removed from the plant leaves, will their biofilm cities in a filter consume so much food that they all have to pack up and move there. 



DaveKS said:


> My reasons for posting those were more in response to your stated idea of adding more biomedia to filter.


In my case, I’m adding biomedia where none now exists. Regardless of your reasons for posting, it was a fascinating and eye-opening read. I do plan to test the possibility that cycling in pH above 7 will prevent AoB from forming and will actually require re-cycling when pH drops below 7 to create the AoB that exists only in NH4 environments (according to the studies you provided). I’m thinking of cycling at pH 8-9, developing only AoA, then dropping pH to 6.5 to see if total ammonia appears, indicating that the AoB aren’t there. Of course, one question is: will the AoA survive long enough to allow the AoB to replace it without a total ammonia spike?



DaveKS said:


> And yes, all plants and even biofilm itself on rocks etc have ways of preventing Algae/Cyanobacteria from forming there. That is a discussion that isn’t even open for debate with me. But the intricacies of what causes us to make that system fail in our little closed loop/restricted slices of ecosystem is fair game.


I’m beginning to think that biofilm does not prevent algae from forming and, in fact, does the opposite. The articles provided by @jeffkrol (and other articles I found after pursuing this line) indicate that algae actually become part of the biofilm (another one of the intricacies that you mentioned). Perhaps this is the long-term problem with algae formation on older leaves. Perhaps, too, the biofilm prevents allelopathic response by the plants (if they exist) from working.

I'm also starting to think that this entire thread is really getting out on the fringe of reality.


----------



## FlatfishTanker (Sep 17, 2019)

Dang, I have been researching and learning about planted tanks for at least 6 months now, and still haven't jumped in myself and set up a tank. When I read threads like this, I get overwhelmed and feel kind of out of my element. Then I go to Aquatic Warehouse, or Pet Kingdom here in San Diego and see the beautiful plants and fish, and I want my own planted tank! Then I read another thread like this filled with science and chemicals and bio films and NH4 and AoA and Glut and H202 and I get another headache... Maybe I should just get another cat!

Wayne


----------



## Grobbins48 (Oct 16, 2017)

FlatfishTanker said:


> Dang, I have been researching and learning about planted tanks for at least 6 months now, and still haven't jumped in myself and set up a tank. When I read threads like this, I get overwhelmed and feel kind of out of my element. Then I go to Aquatic Warehouse, or Pet Kingdom here in San Diego and see the beautiful plants and fish, and I want my own planted tank! Then I read another thread like this filled with science and chemicals and bio films and NH4 and AoA and Glut and H202 and I get another headache... Maybe I should just get another cat!
> 
> 
> 
> Wayne


First let me say please don't let threads like this scare you away from a planted aquarium!

We have had conversations in a few threads over the past couple of days about the hobbyist who has an aquarium with plants, and then others who really enjoy getting into the weeds (pun intended!) and try to dissect more aspects of the hobby.

By no means do you need to get this deep to have a successful and enjoyable tank. Sure it will be a journey with its leanings, ups, and downs, but overall I have been so pleased with the planted aquariums. 

If you want to try your hand at a planted aquarium I do hope you get the opportunity to do so, and are able to enjoy it!


----------



## Streetwise (May 24, 2019)

I have had biofilm on wood several times, and it was never a problem. At this point, I expect it on new wood.


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

FlatfishTanker said:


> Dang, I have been researching and learning about planted tanks for at least 6 months now, and still haven't jumped in myself and set up a tank. When I read threads like this, I get overwhelmed and feel kind of out of my element. Then I go to Aquatic Warehouse, or Pet Kingdom here in San Diego and see the beautiful plants and fish, and I want my own planted tank! Then I read another thread like this filled with science and chemicals and bio films and NH4 and AoA and Glut and H202 and I get another headache... Maybe I should just get another cat!
> 
> Wayne


This thread most likely pertains to less than 3% of online aquarists.
Most would not be interested in types of nitrifying bacteria etc...


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Streetwise said:


> I have had biofilm on wood several times, and it was never a problem. At this point, I expect it on new wood.


Biofilm is on everything, even when we have filters. The questions, in this thread, are: is it greatly reduced with varying levels of biomedia in our filters (corollary: can it be further reduced in the tank by other means) and does it provide a platform for algae development/protection?


----------



## Streetwise (May 24, 2019)

Interesting. I would say that when I have had cloudy biofilm, nothing else grew on it. The snails grazed it, but I think it just consumed whatever came from the wood and then just went away.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Streetwise said:


> Interesting. I would say that when I have had cloudy biofilm, nothing else grew on it. The snails grazed it, but I think it just consumed whatever came from the wood and then just went away.


Although it was film and biological, I think it was probably the typical, and usually temporary, fungal or non-AoB/AoA bacteria that will form on untreated driftwood when first placed in a tank.


----------



## Streetwise (May 24, 2019)

Ah, ok.


----------



## FlatfishTanker (Sep 17, 2019)

Grobbins48 said:


> First let me say please don't let threads like this scare you away from a planted aquarium!
> 
> We have had conversations in a few threads over the past couple of days about the hobbyist who has an aquarium with plants, and then others who really enjoy getting into the weeds (pun intended!) and try to dissect more aspects of the hobby.
> 
> ...


Thanks Grobbins 48, I will eventually. I tend to over-analyze things to the point of paralysis. Like many things, it seems like the more you learn, the more questions you have.


----------



## Grobbins48 (Oct 16, 2017)

FlatfishTanker said:


> Like many things, it seems like the more you learn, the more questions you have.


Isn't this the absolute truth!


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Grobbins48 said:


> First let me say please don't let threads like this scare you away from a planted aquarium!
> 
> We have had conversations in a few threads over the past couple of days about the hobbyist who has an aquarium with plants, and then others who really enjoy getting into the weeds (pun intended!) and try to dissect more aspects of the hobby.
> 
> ...


+1 and well said.

I have to admit, this thread is even a bit deep into the weeds for me. It's interesting, but in the bigger picture is not something that I ever consider. I've just always subscribed to the more is better theory of filtration. Has served me well, and whether right or wrong, have always used bio media.

A planted tank requires a good balance of light/CO2/Ferts/maintenance. Sounds easy, right? Well, that all depends on your ambitions. If you are going with low/medium light plants, it is fairly easy. But what usually happens is over time we redefine our ambitions. If one decides to add more fast growing colorful flowery stems, it does require a deeper dive into each area. 

So you can make it as simple or complicated as you want. 

IMO, the best advice for beginners is the same thing I have said over and over again. Find some journals of successful tanks that have similar size/ambitions to your own. Study their methods. It will give you an idea of what it takes to succeed in that style. And don't be afraid to reach out to folks here, as most are very generous with their time and are happy to share their thoughts.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Between this thread and the “Burying plant cuttings?” thread (and many others on TPT), we seem to find the need to warn members to go elsewhere for fear of scaring them out of the hobby.

Maybe the criteria under the "FORUMS” choices for postings should first be presented as three choices: “Beginner”, “Intermediate” and “Advanced” so that beginners wandering into “Algae 303” know that they may encounter things that aren’t necessary to consider in their effort to just get a tank going. It would also, possibly, prevent posters from introducing advanced topics in, e.g.; “Beginner” threads.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Deanna said:


> Between this thread and the “Burying plant cuttings?” thread (and many others on TPT), we seem to find the need to warn members to go elsewhere for fear of scaring them out of the hobby.
> 
> Maybe the criteria under the "FORUMS” choices for postings should first be presented as three choices: “Beginner”, “Intermediate” and “Advanced” so that beginners wandering into “Algae 303” know that they may encounter things that aren’t necessary to consider in their effort to just get a tank going. It would also, possibly, prevent posters from introducing advanced topics in, e.g.; “Beginner” threads.


I've been thinking that in my head for a long-time now and they're have been a lot of discussion in threads that I know have beginners running for the exits thinking it's over their heads. A disclaimer of sorts stating that the following threads in this section are for discussion only and they are either not proven and/or not necessary to understand to have a successful planted tank.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Deanna said:


> However, I am now considering adding biomedia back in to my filter. While cruising, I stumbled upon this comment by @Edward a few years ago:


_Biological filtration is more important than people think. Have you experienced slimy leaves, glass or other submersed hardware or yellow gunk in outlet hoses? Then you don’t have enough biological filtration capacity. Most companies make filter size recommendations of 2% or less per aquarium size. Ada Takashi Amano recommends 5% – 10%. The reasoning behind this is to have enough surfaces for beneficial bacterial to convert waste sludge to nitrate. When there is not enough filtration then the aquarium becomes the filter. Surfaces become covered in slime and algae starts growing on it. _ 

This serves as a backup strategy. However, once we have it fully planted and actively growing plants this strategy becomes counterproductive. The filter media BB becomes competing with plants for NH4, for the best nitrogen form for plants. Plants will be left with less available NH4 and more NO3. The NO3 will start accumulating instead of being used by plants. Plants will suffer and become stressed. Then we start dosing more NO3 to overcome the deficiency, stressing the plants to the point where they won’t be able to use NH4 and other nutrients properly. 

Biofilm or periphyton will form everywhere if we want it or not. It’s negative aspect is it insulates plant surface from having access to CO2 and nutrients. It will suffocate plants. I have dedicated few aquariums to a project where I have spent years trying to find the easiest method to start planted aquarium without having to deal with algae sequences and dead bottom leaves. We see this often where people are repetitively replanting tops due to deteriorating bottoms. We blame light, flow and everything else, but nothing is helping. After I have tried everything I could, I added few Ramshorn snails and in few weeks everything was crystal clean and plants had healthy leaves from top to bottom. I cannot think of anything other than biofilm or periphyton being responsible. 



Deanna said:


> Now, I’m wondering if some of the algae (mostly GSA) that we accept that develops on older, well-hidden, leaves may be a result of having this biofilm on the leaf surface.





Deanna said:


> It’s the GSA that forms on the elderly leaves that makes me think this is a biofilm issue, otherwise why would the leaves let algae grow on them if they have all of the mobile nutrients they need?


 Have you had the GSA before you changed your LED fixture two weeks ago?



Deanna said:


> Perhaps this is the long-term problem with algae formation on older leaves. Perhaps, too, the biofilm prevents allelopathic response by the plants (if they exist) from working.


 Exactly. The periphyton forms all the time and algae spores stick to it. When snails remove the periphyton, plants start taking nutrients and become healthy enough to produce allelochemicals to keep algae away.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Edward said:


> However, once we have it fully planted and actively growing plants this strategy becomes counterproductive. The filter media BB becomes competing with plants for NH4, for the best nitrogen form for plants. Plants will be left with less available NH4 and more NO3.


Yes, this was my thinking when I removed my biomedia years ago. I appreciate the expansion on your original post. I think I’ll stay with the program because my plants do very well without the filter biomedia and my nitrates are consistently in the 5-10 area (occasionally dropping further when I get a growth surge now and then). I feed my way-too-many-fish-for-a-29 gal about 1.5 grams of food per day. They never eat it all within even ten minutes, and I do this intentionally and, still, nitrates don’t budge.



Edward said:


> Have you had the GSA before you changed your LED fixture two weeks ago?


Yes, have always had some on the lower, older, leaves. In fact, I’m not sure yet, but I think that the old-leaf algae may even be diminished a little in the newer old-leaves under the new light, but the new light is giving higher rates of growth. It’s not a bad problem, but who wouldn’t want a permanently algae-free tank?



Edward said:


> Biofilm or periphyton will form everywhere if we want it or not. It’s negative aspect is it insulates plant surface from having access to CO2 and nutrients.


This is what I was starting to suspect. Thus, the pursuit of removing tank-based biofilm as much as possible. Have you - or any readers - ever tried dosing the leaves directly with UV-C in an attempt to disrupt this periphyton layer? Problem is, to my way of thinking, if it worked it would only be a short-term solution. So, if having sufficient biomedia in a filter cannot reduce periphyton formation, there wouldn’t be much point (but, I’ll try it anyway).

I came to the periphyton suspicion because none of the older leaves ever show signs of mobile nutrient deficiencies, so why would GSA form there if the leaves are healthy, if not for something else that it might stick to and feed from? I get virtually no GSA on the hardscape.



Edward said:


> After I have tried everything I could, I added few Ramshorn snails and in few weeks everything was crystal clean and plants had healthy leaves from top to bottom. I cannot think of anything other than biofilm or periphyton being responsible.


Tried that, too, but I can’t keep the damn things alive (not enough food, despite the heavy feeding mentioned above). I’ve had pond snail hitchhikers and even bought some nicely colored ramshorns. They have brief moment of flourishing and then fade away. If I didn’t want them, it’s a dream that most aquarists would beg for. Hmmmm …maybe that means that there isn’t much periphyton as I thought.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Deanna said:


> This is what I was starting to suspect. Thus, the pursuit of removing tank-based biofilm as much as possible. Have you - or any readers - ever tried dosing the leaves directly with UV-C in an attempt to disrupt this periphyton layer? Problem is, to my way of thinking, if it worked it would only be a short-term solution. So, if having sufficient biomedia in a filter cannot reduce periphyton formation, there wouldn’t be much point (but, I’ll try it anyway).


 The only thing you will get is sore eyes, blind fish and possibly burned holes in plants. 


> I came to the periphyton suspicion because none of the older leaves ever show signs of mobile nutrient deficiencies, so why would GSA form there if the leaves are healthy, if not for something else that it might stick to and feed from? I get virtually no GSA on the hardscape.


 Could it have something to do with your oxidized trace element dust fall? Or what if higher K is needed to keep the older leaves in better condition? Do you have a macro shot of the algae on older leaf?


> … and even bought some nicely colored ramshorns. They have brief moment of flourishing and then fade away.


 They will do well if you feed them frozen raw spinach. They need it especially in low KH water and with CO2. I still have the same Ramshorn snails I got accidently with plants 20 years ago. They came gray and by selection they are all beautiful red now. I couldn’t be without them.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

The UV-C won’t be left on for more than about a minute. It’s used in entryways to medical device manufacturing facilities where the exposure of about 20 seconds is enough to kill most bacteria on a person. So, if the bacteria are susceptible in the biofilm, the brief exposure will do it.

I don’t think that oxidized traces can be involved. My dosing is similar to most here, at the lower ppm levels. However, traces are dosed 4 times a day, so the amount in the water column is very low at any given time. I could try higher K, but there are no K deficiency symptoms and I maintain K in the 25 ppm area.

I don’t want to focus, too much, on this as though it is a big problem. It’s a low-level issue and more of an exercise to see if it can be wiped clean now that all of the other planted tank issues are behind me. If you feed the snails, why would they bother eating the biofilm? Have you ever done a before-and-after type thing where you could see this old-leaf algae reduced by snail activity (I never could see it, but they would only live for a month or so).


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Having 25 ppm K in the water is fine. Well, if you don’t have some fish, shrimps or snails cleaning then everything is getting covered by periphyton, more and more. The snails will not miss a spot, they work all day and night. The spinach they don’t have all the time, maybe once a week. They love to eat what they find, but it’s not enough to keep them alive. When we look at ADA aquariums, there are tons of shrimps and snails. 

If you kill the organisms on top of plants it will still stick to the surface. It is invisible slimy cover. After snails clean it, it becomes rough and bumpy looking under microscope. 

Periphyton 1 & 2


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Good reading. So, it’s no longer BB for our bio-filtration colonies, having switched to AoA and AoB. Now, for our algae base, it’s aufwuchs, which is the top most layer of the Periphyton (bio-film being the initial layer). Stop/destroy the bio-film and the aufwuchs algae base can’t form. Am I reading that right?



Edward said:


> The spinach they don’t have all the time, maybe once a week. They love to eat what they find, but it’s not enough to keep them alive.


Once a week I can handle. It will only add 30 seconds to my half-hour weekly regimen. I’ll try them again once I prove, to myself, whether or not UV-C can impact the formation of algae on those old leaves (presumably by preventing that first bio-film layer from sufficiently supplying the aufwuchs).

Now, is dark matter required to support string theory?


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Did you read part 1 and part 2? 


Deanna said:


> Now, for our algae base, it’s aufwuchs, which is the top most layer of the Periphyton (bio-film being the initial layer). Stop/destroy the bio-film and the aufwuchs algae base can’t form. Am I reading that right?


 Maybe, but it doesn’t matter because it is impossible to do. It starts growing back the moment you turn the UV light off. And the first layer is sticky polymer created by bacteria attached to the surface dead or alive. Maybe you can help building a thicker multilayer periphyton with the UV killing previous layers and letting new colonization on top.

The snail condition is easy to tell by the look of the shell. Watch the mantle edge, when it crumbles you need to feed more. Now you’ve got to learn snail anatomy!


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Edward said:


> Maybe, but it doesn’t matter because it is impossible to do. It starts growing back the moment you turn the UV light off. And the first layer is sticky polymer created by bacteria attached to the surface dead or alive.



Heterotrophic bacteria are EXTREMELY fast reproducers..unlike the autotrophic kind..

Anyone that experienced a bacterial bloom can attest to that..



worst thing.. Lowering the population only speeds up replacement..





> The changes in bacterial abundance
> and incorporation rates were much smaller in
> unaltered water samples than in samples in
> which the particles were diluted 10-fold. This
> ...


https://aem.asm.org/content/aem/44/6/1296.full.pdf


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Edward said:


> Did you read part 1 and part 2?
> 
> Maybe, but it doesn’t matter because it is impossible to do. It starts growing back the moment you turn the UV light off. And the first layer is sticky polymer created by bacteria attached to the surface dead or alive. Maybe you can help building a thicker multilayer periphyton with the UV killing previous layers and letting new colonization on top.
> 
> The snail condition is easy to tell by the look of the shell. Watch the mantle edge, when it crumbles you need to feed more. Now you’ve got to learn snail anatomy!


Yes: read both of them. Both that and the articles that @DaveKS found have been real eye-openers for me. 

I am now concerned that, if it is possible to kill a layer with every UV-C dose and I do get that dead-layer build-up, the plant leaves may not get the nutrients. It looks like the many tunnels might be the route to the plants, as well. Still, it will be an interesting test ...hopefully.

I'll use that mantle edge tip.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

jeffkrol said:


> Heterotrophic bacteria are EXTREMELY fast reproducers..unlike the autotrophic kind..
> 
> Anyone that experienced a bacterial bloom can attest to that..
> 
> ...


I'll have to read through that this weekend, but it seems to make sense that, given a void, supply would be quick to capitalize on it. I was hoping that, by constantly pounding it down in the tank, the capitalization would occur in the filter biomedia and that would grow to the point that it would be difficult for tank AoA to get going. However, I'm now concerned about the NH3/NH4 balancing act where I do prefer to let the plants have it over biomedia, if at all possible. I think that biomedia have the potential to grow larger colonies than the tank, simply because of the heavy flow through them. This would put the plants in second place.


----------



## DaveKS (Apr 2, 2019)

A healthy plant will secrete allopathic chemicals that inhibit growth of periphyton and algae from its leaves. 

By the same token, periphyton being a symbiotic colony that contains plant/algae, fungi and other microorganisms, it also has defensive capabilities to prevent unwanted algae from forming on it. It’s embedded algae and other residents don’t want anything in between it and its food and energy source (nutrients/light). 

BBA forming only around aggressive water jets and on high powered heaters is prime example of conditions that will strip away the biofilm colony or compounds it’s excreting to inhibit that algae’s growth. Excess heat will completely destroy biofilm colony. Strong currents carry away compounds their excreting before they have a chance to work on the algae. Seeing that algae growing under those influences is not unusual, actually the norm.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

DaveKS said:


> A healthy plant will secrete allopathic chemicals that inhibit growth of periphyton and algae from its leaves.


 +1


> By the same token, periphyton being a symbiotic colony that contains plant/algae, fungi and other microorganisms, it also has defensive capabilities to prevent unwanted algae from forming on it. It’s embedded algae and other residents don’t want anything in between it and its food and energy source (nutrients/light).


 +1 and “…it also has defensive capabilities to prevent unwanted algae from forming on it.” And prevent unwanted plants.


> BBA forming only around aggressive water jets and on high powered heaters is prime example of conditions that will strip away the biofilm colony or compounds it’s excreting to inhibit that algae’s growth. Excess heat will completely destroy biofilm colony. Strong currents carry away compounds their excreting before they have a chance to work on the algae. Seeing that algae growing under those influences is not unusual, actually the norm.


 Here I disagree. 
There are infinite periphyton organism combinations. I expect various forms throughout every aquarium depending on light, temperature, water flow, nutrients, season and many other properties. The periphyton is growing everywhere on all surfaces. On high flow piping, inside filters, on high speed pump shafts and propellers and also in low flow and stagnant corners. They are all different. I expect some types inhibit BBA more than others. BBA seems to be bizarre because it is growing on high flow piping and also in stagnant corners. It seems to be bizarre because we are missing the link, the reason why it is growing right there and not elsewhere. And I am more and more convinced that the link is the right kind of periphyton. 

I have mentioned this before, in an aquarium where we see predominantly green types of algae, we usually don’t see BBA. And opposite is very common, when green algae disappears BBA starts growing. I blame varying stages of developing periphyton. 

And for the plants to periphyton relationship, I believe the periphyton growing on them is suffocating them, blocking light CO2 O2 and other gases exchange and inhibiting nutrients uptake, and also chemically constraining them.


----------



## Streetwise (May 24, 2019)

Do you think some plants are more susceptible to BBA in high flow, and other species in min flow?


----------



## DaveKS (Apr 2, 2019)

Edward said:


> +1
> +1 and “…it also has defensive capabilities to prevent unwanted algae from forming on it.” And prevent unwanted plants.
> Here I disagree.
> There are infinite periphyton organism combinations. I expect various forms throughout every aquarium depending on light, temperature, water flow, nutrients, season and many other properties. The periphyton is growing everywhere on all surfaces. On high flow piping, inside filters, on high speed pump shafts and propellers and also in low flow and stagnant corners. They are all different. I expect some types inhibit BBA more than others. BBA seems to be bizarre because it is growing on high flow piping and also in stagnant corners. It seems to be bizarre because we are missing the link, the reason why it is growing right there and not elsewhere. And I am more and more convinced that the link is the right kind of periphyton.
> ...


Correct, nature has a little helper for most scenarios. Even hot, shallow, stagnant pools that reach absurd temps during day. But one scenario that doesn’t exist in nature is the rapid hot/cool fluctuations that occur on bigger heaters in our aquarium. There is no colony of anything that can live in those conditions. Those shallow pools warm up gradually over the coarse of hours, not in 15min on/cycles.

Sure you can find a colony of them that exist in hot springs/thermal vents but you also have to provide them with the low oxygen, sulfur laden water they’ve spent eons evolving to live in. Both those conditions are not present in our aquarium. Nor do they have any defense mechanism against most the plants and algae in our aquarium ecosystem because no plant or algae we see is present in the environment they evolved in.

All plants/bacteria/algae and periphyton in our tanks are engaged in constant warfare trying to get he upper hand. In our little closed ecosystem most the time it’s completely up to us which one thrives and which one perishes.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Quick update: as mentioned, above, I decided to try testing a UV-C bath to preclude biofilm development (used this: amazon.com/gp/product/B07RDK29VS/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1).

However, I had eight, 1-minute, lights-on events scheduled on the timer, but accidentally missed a PM setting, which resulted in a 2-hour UV-C bath one day. This single 2-hour bath did destroy the biofilm on the plants and glass surface (I could see it was gone by the haze comparison to adjacent sections) within a roughly 5" radius, as well as the algae on the lower bacopa leaves. I say this because it also completely melted all the plants as well, within this radius, so nothing was left standing. It was like using a phaser, but took 3-4 days to notice. Not to worry, some of the tops survived for re-planting.

Well, the test will continue, but with the one-minute events, once the bacopa is re-established. At least I know the UV-C is potent. Fish are fine.


----------



## Immortal1 (Feb 18, 2015)

Oh wow - that is a pretty serious result! Good to hear you still have some health parts of the various plants. 
Will continue to follow your results...


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

Deanna said:


> At least I know the UV-C is potent. Fish are fine.


What on earth would make you think a UVC germicidal lamp was not potent?
BTW sorry you melted all of your plants. :frown2:


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Maryland Guppy said:


> What on earth would make you think a UVC germicidal lamp was not potent?
> BTW sorry you melted all of your plants. :frown2:


I knew it was potent (a relative term), but only against pathogens. It just surprised me how it vaporized the plants so completely. It is, of course, ideally positioned to destroy bacteria, which is why I am interested in the first place.


----------



## Immortal1 (Feb 18, 2015)

Immortal1 said:


> *Lots of learning likely to follow* - subscribed!
> FWIW, I have a rather large amount of Eheim Substrat Pro, and Eheim BioMech in my AquaTop CF500 canister filter, along with a "heavy fish load" - basically the opposite of your setup.
> Will be interesting to see where this thread goes



Did not realize how "to the point" this statement was. Note, UV-C can melt your plants! 

Sorry, just made me laugh when I looked back to the beginning of this thread


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

Some thoughts from Live Science



> However, too much exposure to UV radiation is *damaging to living tissue*.


Plants are living tissue.



> UVA, or near UV (315–400 nm)
> UVB, or middle UV (280–315 nm)
> UVC, or far UV (180–280 nm)





> UV photons can cause ionization, a process in which electrons break away from atoms. The resulting vacancy affects the chemical properties of the atoms and causes them to form or break chemical bonds that they otherwise would not. This can be useful for chemical processing, or it *can be damaging to materials and living tissues*.





> Most of the natural UV light people encounter comes from the sun.* However, only about 10 percent of sunlight is UV, and only about one-third of this penetrates the atmosphere to reach the ground*


So I would reckon the plants we grow would never be exposed to UVC in real life.



> Sometimes the cells with DNA mutated by the sun's rays turn into problem cells that don't die but keep proliferating as cancers.


Maybe we can grow plant mutations in our tanks!


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Being the OP, I am making a final update to this old thread (experiment is now ended), as promised. Much more happened, as a result of the two-hour accidental UV-C exposure than initially noticed in post #46.

NOTE: I recommend against using these type of unprotected UV-C lamps in our tanks! They are dangerous.

The UV sterilizers that we use in out tanks are generally UV-C, but they are encased for protection of our animal and plant inhabitants - and us. Well, there are also aquarium UV-C sterilizers for sale that have no protection and this is what I used. The intent, if you read through the posts, was to destroy the periphyton without killing anything else. I suspected that, with the right amount of exposure, this can be done. However, my timer failed during this experiment and I discovered that the UV-C had been on for about two hours (I had intended several exposures of 1 minute each). The result was a Chernobyl-type event. All plants within ~one foot radius of the light gradually died down to about an inch above the substrate. Recovery was extremely slow (DNA damage?), taking about two months just to reach a height of several inches and fullness did not return for about three months. They are fully recovered now. 

All sensitive fish, such as neons were wiped out (as well as all the CS and Amano’s). On a Kissing Gourami, I could see blistering on it’s body, like a bad sunburn, and it wallowed on the substrate for a week before gradually recovering - a similar pattern with the other survivors.

Initially, my interest was in seeing if I could reduce GSA and some BBA that formed on lower, older, leaves and, occasionally on some apparatus in high flow areas (as BBA is accustomed to doing). PO4 dosing at high levels (5-10) didn’t help the nagging GSA. Note that all algae was very subdued, it was just here and there and very controllable, but I was striving for zero observable algae. Of course, I killed all life with this UV-C, including algae. Following the disaster, and thanks to @Edward’s recommendation, I added some ramshorns. Without any other changes to my setup and water parameters, no algae ever returned. I don’t believe that the ramshorns eat GSA or BBA, but I am convinced (see below) that, at least ramshorns, are capable of either preventing biofilm development or those biofilm aspects that support algae.

I didn’t give up on the UV-C experiment, though. I set up a 2.5-gal tank I use for QT and recreated the environment of my display tank sufficiently to grow healthy plants and GSA and BBA (as well as other algae varieties). In this case, I do have biomedia in my filter, unlike the display tank. I then placed the UV-C fixture into this tank and ran it for 2 minutes every 4 hours. It did kill the algae and the algae did not return. However, the interesting thing was that it was like moss on the north side of a tree in the northern hemisphere: where the UV-C hit the surface of things, there was no algae. About two months ago, I removed the UV-C and added a lot of ramshorns. The algae did not return to the area burned away by the UV-C and only now is the algae on the dark side gone. 

One experiment probably tells us nothing but, to my way of thinking, the coincidences of what the snails seem to be doing in both tanks is enough for me to suggest that this is a good superstition: add snails, at least ramshorns, and biofilm will be controlled/eliminated and this does affect algae.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Deanna said:


> The result was a Chernobyl-type event.


 Thank you for the update.


----------



## Deanna (Feb 15, 2017)

Edward said:


> Thank you for the update.


Good to see you're still here.


----------

