# The Myth of Low Nitrates and Red



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

enough said


----------



## Noahma (Oct 18, 2009)

I am with tom on this one. I cut my nitrates in half and my stelata is turning VERY bright red, over the greenish yellow it was before with full EI nitrates (40ppm)


----------



## audioaficionado (Apr 19, 2011)

The OP says he got great reds without cutting nitrogen. I didn't see Tom disagreeing if I correctly understood his example picture and response.


----------



## Noahma (Oct 18, 2009)

audioaficionado said:


> The OP says he got great reds without cutting nitrogen. I didn't see Tom disagreeing if I correctly understood his example picture and response.


in his title he stated "The Myth of Low Nitrates and Red"

in which Tom showed a picture of a plant he has grown with lower light, and low nitrates. So low nitrates bringing out Reds is not a myth.


----------



## HolyAngel (Oct 18, 2010)

I doubt thats what he meant.

I have the same plants that red if not more so with 80ppm nitrate, is that low too?


----------



## zavikan (Jan 5, 2009)

I think that sometimes people (Tom included..though maybe I sell him short) attempt to over simplify cause and effect here....

The theory that has been followed is to eliminate uncontrolled variables and only change one at a time to see which has the desired effect. To date, we haven't exactly nailed down which variable this is.

What has not been addressed is that it is then highly likely that it is not a single variable that is the cause, but the complex combination of 2 or more that result in the desired outcome (more red in this case).

EX: Its like a combination lock. If the code is 34, and you try 31, you can not say 'well, I know the first digit isnt a 3!'.

What has ALSO not been addressed is that there is a good possibility that there are different combinations of these complex variables that result in the same end. More then one way to skin a cat?

EX: If you are hungry, you eat a burger. You are full. You get hungry again, and you eat a salad. You can not conclude "oh, I guess the burger wasn't what filled me up the first time, because I didnt eat a burger this time, and I got full" 

Nor can you eliminate a piece of the burger at a time until you are still hungry and say it was that piece that was the cause...

EX: Controlled burger experiment..
Remove bun and eat. Full. = Bun does not contribute to fullness
Remove bun and onion. Full. = Neither bun nor onion contribute to fullness
Remove bun onion and pickle. Hungry. = Pickles are what fill you up.


----------



## Jeffww (Aug 6, 2010)

Noahma said:


> in his title he stated "The Myth of Low Nitrates and Red"
> 
> in which Tom showed a picture of a plant he has grown with lower light, and low nitrates. So low nitrates bringing out Reds is not a myth.


Actually I was following Tom Barr's suggestions of using higher CO2 and lower light and more of everything else. He has repeatedly said that you DON'T need low nitrates to get red, just healthy plants. And it really is seeing is believing.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

I had once setup two identical tanks. Both new setups with Aquasoil. The only difference between the two was the height of the tank. Same water, same ferts (high-end EI). I had L. Aromatica in both tanks. In the taller tank I could only get the tops of the Aromatica to turn red. In the shorter tank the red continued down most of the stem. 

Not saying some plants can't turn more red based on water parameters, but many of these stems that are typical greenish like Rotala, Limnophila turn red due to stress from high light. If it was a chemical thing with these plants why are the tops that are closer to the light red in marginal light situations.


----------



## ukamikazu (Jun 4, 2010)

Seeing as how the production of carotenoids to make those reds is a function of dealing with the stress of higher light, I would also posit, as illustrated in some extraordinary examples of ordinary green plants like Blyxa sp. turning blood red, that the myth of going lean on nitrogen, and in some other misguided cases phosphorous, most likely contributes to the stress which may help the red along.

My reasoning for this is that nitrogen is especially important for all chlorophylls (chlorophyll A being universal to all plants) because thats what really binds the massive hydrocarbon chain to magnesium. Reduce the ability to create more chlorophyll with lower nitrogen while at the same time the plant is bronzing to protect its organelles and tissues may be the key to really getting some of those reds that you swear must be photoshopped. In short putting stress upon stress to get them to redden. Not being a professional like Tom, I can only hypothesize. In fact, Tom if you're out there still, I'd like to hear you discourse on this statement, however brief it may end up being :wink:. The root of the mechanism is light, though. That we can all agree on, I think. 

My personal statement, is yes, absolutely correct that you can get reds with everything in balance but in generous proportions, light, CO2 and ferts. My other personal statement is be happy with healthy plants. If they color up, great! Just don't go chasing the dragon and setting yourself up for mass deficiencies and an algae explosion for a cheap wow factor or for the sake of keeping up with the Joneses.


----------



## Dave-H (Jul 29, 2010)

Well said, but I'm chasing that dragon anyways. I am set on getting some nice reddish plants as a background in my tank. I just put some nice L. Aromatica and 80% of the red/pink faded away in the first few days (EI, CO2, med light). The plants look super healthy and happy, and appear to already be growing a bit after only 5 or 6 days which I'm happy about.

But I am wanting that red color bad


----------



## ukamikazu (Jun 4, 2010)

Dave-H said:


> Well said, but I'm chasing that dragon anyways. I am set on getting some nice reddish plants as a background in my tank. I just put some nice L. Aromatica and 80% of the red/pink faded away in the first few days (EI, CO2, med light). The plants look super healthy and happy, and appear to already be growing a bit after only 5 or 6 days which I'm happy about.
> 
> But I am wanting that red color bad


You're not wrong for that. It is the tempting apple of the hobby.


----------



## Dave-H (Jul 29, 2010)

Thanks for understanding 

But, there is only one plant in my tank that is consistently red and I can't remember which one it is  I think it's a ludwiga perunsis (sp?) that was left over after I removed my ludwigas because they were excessively 'rooty'. 

My tank is 18+ inches from the substrate to the rim, so I'm trying to find plants that will be both tall and red AND will do well in my tank. Still looking!


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

ukamikazu said:


> You're not wrong for that. It is the tempting apple of the hobby.


Well yes, same with pearling. Some aren't happy unless their plants are super happy by pearling. I actually don't think the plant really cares, but people have setups for all sorts of reasons, some want reds so you can't judge them on that. I believe the most direct way to red is stronger light and a shallow tank will make it that much easier to get there regardless of your other parameters.


----------



## ukamikazu (Jun 4, 2010)

houseofcards said:


> Well yes, same with pearling. Some aren't happy unless their plants are super happy by pearling. I actually don't think the plant really cares, but people have setups for all sorts of reasons, some want reds so you can't judge them on that. I believe the most direct way to red is stronger light and a shallow tank will make it that much easier to get there regardless of your other parameters.


Agreed.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Noahma said:


> in his title he stated "The Myth of Low Nitrates and Red"
> 
> in which Tom showed a picture of a plant he has grown with lower light, and low nitrates. So low nitrates bringing out Reds is not a myth.


No, the pic is with high NO3 and rich N in the soil, and higher light. 

The issue is specifically NO3.

In which case, I agree with the OP.


----------



## ukamikazu (Jun 4, 2010)

Dave-H said:


> Thanks for understanding
> 
> But, there is only one plant in my tank that is consistently red and I can't remember which one it is  I think it's a ludwiga perunsis (sp?) that was left over after I removed my ludwigas because they were excessively 'rooty'.
> 
> My tank is 18+ inches from the substrate to the rim, so I'm trying to find plants that will be both tall and red AND will do well in my tank. Still looking!


Being a Hoppyite (PAR vs. Distance) here is what I have noticed is consistently red, yellowish or pinkish for me and my practices (I do use PPS PRO, though.). Maybe this brief list will help you find that best, easiest red for your set-up. I have direct experience with these.

All _Ludwigias_ seem work out nicely and are consistently, naturally somewhat reddish anyway. My personal favorites are _perennis_ (sometimes _peruensis_) and _senegalensis_. _Ovalis_ is more pinkish and orange but very pretty indeed.

Quite a few Roatalas like _macrandra_ (the Cadillac of red plants!), _wallichii_ (metallic pink), _hippuris_ (strawberry blondish?) and _rotundifolia_ (orange!). 

_Ammania gracilis_ (hot pink) and _Nesaea pedicellata_ (goldish,orangish, pinkish) are very easy.

And let's not forget our oldest, best friends from time immemorial, Alternanthera reineckii (Scarlet & Crimson!) and _Cabombas_, especially _pulcherrima_ (purplish).

If you really want some bombast, there are many Echinodorus varieties and hybrids like Aflame, Rubin and India Red.

I hope this helps with your selection.

*EDIT:* There are also some newer, rarer species that are nice hues of red/burgundy like _Hygrophila pinnatifida_, _Cryptocoryne albida_, _C. cordata_ and _nurii_. My _Lagenandra meeboldii_ is a lovely pink and it sits in deep shade and is becoming more and more available in the S&S. Again, just more ideas to toss out there.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Jeffww said:


> Actually I was following Tom Barr's suggestions of using higher CO2 and lower light and more of everything else. He has repeatedly said that you DON'T need low nitrates to get red, just healthy plants. And it really is seeing is believing.


Ah, but "less light" is a hard pill to swallow.

I'm far from the only one stating this, 15 years ago, George Booth made this same argument. Ole Peterson and Troel Anderson. I dunno.......some folks just do not wanna try things but then tell others it must be bad or produces bad results.

That's the part that is irritating, they tell others based on their belief and ignorance. That does not do the hobby any good, does not teach folks basic logic and stifles aquatic horticulture. Blame nutrients for all that ails thee, never high light or CO2.

If you cannot measure light comparatively, and we really have a huge knowledge gap regarding CO2........then sure, many will say it does not work.
But that's not the ferts' fault, that's the hobbyist.

Few confirm the CO2(no, a drop checker is no able to do this with any degree of accuracy), or the light, but more are measuring light these days at least.

But getting folks to drop the intensity is tough. They just do not want to do it.


----------



## Noahma (Oct 18, 2009)

plantbrain said:


> No, the pic is with high NO3 and rich N in the soil, and higher light.
> 
> The issue is specifically NO3.
> 
> In which case, I agree with the OP.


 I stand corrected.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Carotenoids are produced via the terpenoid pathway, I'm privy to this pathway as Fluridone is an aquatic herbicide I work with and is commonly used with the weeds I deal with in the professional side. Same with the endogenous plant growth regulators, many are made via this same pathway.

A 5 carbon structure called IPP is required to make all of these pigments/ PGR's etc.

This is a reduced CARBON compound. That means without ample CO2........the plant will be very limited to fully develop pigments. Light will play a role, but only if the CO2 is adequate also. The faster rates of growth produced by higher light mean the time it takes to develop Chl a and b and place it into the new growth regions will not mask the Carotenoids, which are always placed there first. 

Fluridone blocks carotenoid synthesis at Phytoene desaturase.

Under high light, and fluridone, plants will die faster than at lower light due to a lack of carotenoids and lots of reactive oxygen species from PSII. Plants do not die from light directly(but UV is the exception case where this might occur).

They have a bleached look when fluridone has been applied.

It is a little bit hard to undo light, CO2 and nutrients as whole, but most hobbyist have not mastered and have few ways of confirming good CO2 status for their test.

The best way is simply having it right, nice healthy tank, excellent colors etc......... and falsifying the other claims one by one.

This may seem like a backwards way of testing, but it rules out other factors. You may speculate about other possible reasons etc, but nice coloration and deep reds are and can be produced without high light, and I'll say low light is 40 micromol evenly along the bottom of the tank.

If the tank is shallow...........well, you will have higher light intensity vs a deep tank with the same light obviously, but.....if the plants are allowed to hit the surface, what gas do they now have plenty of?

Is it easier to add CO2 to a lower light tank or a higher light tank?

I think most will agree nutrients have little to do it, we can find cases where you get good reds regardless of NO3. But...........if you drop the N to very limiting levels, the Chl a and b will take a hit and no longer mask the carotenoids. This will make the plants appear redder, but you stress them and they do not grow as well, as large(this leaf area is easy to measure and see on a N deficient plant).

I know some good hobbyist who run N deficient tanks, their same plants are pale and 1/2 the size as mine. Their reds are decent and nice. Their plants are at the surface as well. Mine have 2-3x less light submersed.

People have messed with this for the last 15 or more years with more success during this time. I o no worry about it, I just grow the plants generally rather than playing these games. Myths come and go, and there's little end in sight on this one.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

ukamikazu said:


> Seeing as how the production of carotenoids to make those reds is a function of dealing with the stress of higher light, I would also posit, as illustrated in some extraordinary examples of ordinary green plants like Blyxa sp. turning blood red, that the myth of going lean on nitrogen, and in some other misguided cases phosphorous, most likely contributes to the stress which may help the red along.
> 
> My reasoning for this is that nitrogen is especially important for all chlorophylls (chlorophyll A being universal to all plants) because thats what really binds the massive hydrocarbon chain to magnesium. Reduce the ability to create more chlorophyll with lower nitrogen while at the same time the plant is bronzing to protect its organelles and tissues may be the key to really getting some of those reds that you swear must be photoshopped. In short putting stress upon stress to get them to redden. Not being a professional like Tom, I can only hypothesize. In fact, Tom if you're out there still, I'd like to hear you discourse on this statement, however brief it may end up being :wink:. The root of the mechanism is light, though. That we can all agree on, I think.
> 
> My personal statement, is yes, absolutely correct that you can get reds with everything in balance but in generous proportions, light, CO2 and ferts. My other personal statement is be happy with healthy plants. If they color up, great! Just don't go chasing the dragon and setting yourself up for mass deficiencies and an algae explosion for a cheap wow factor or for the sake of keeping up with the Joneses.


Yep, I agree here.........now for something you have not heard about red plants..........


...........along your same reasoning and rational, wouldn't limiting Mg also produce intense reds without the expense of N limitation??? Since it required for Chl a etc.........

What does this appear like?

What does Mg limitation look like? Got any pics of aquatic plants that lack Mg??

How about red plants that lack this?

We cannot limit Carbon obviously since carotenoids are made of mostly reduced carbon and many of the enzymes that make reduced carbon require a lot of N, but not much Mg..........

Chew on that cattail.
I've done this, but not critically or assayed it well.

But it is something to think about. Mg is poorly tested and measured in this hobby.(Something else to ponder)


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Here's a red plant tank with several classics and a gradation of light:










A. reineckii is on the bottom, L. cuba is near the top, wallichii is at the top on the other side.

You'll note deep rich red color in the reineckii.
It does very well shaded and at lower light, but good CO2 is critical.

In lower light tanks, the cuba got larger and yellow, which was interesting and pleasing I thought. As it approached the surface..........what occurs with respect to light if you are a Hoppyite?

Light increases exponentially to the square right? So more light = what exactly?

Well.........faster rates of growth.
Faster rates of growth = less time for chl a to develop and be planted in the new tip region of the shoot. So this is function of the rate of growth and less to do with the carotenoid production at higher light really per unit area of leaf. It's both factors in other words, not just high light. 

If you limit N, but not bottom it out, then you get along fine with coloration.
If you use less light and do not limit nutrients, then you make up for it with faster rates of growth, results in a similar coloration if not deeper and redder.
Fert limitations often produce a lighter color, less intense reds etc. Some plants are okay with this, others less so.

FYI, PPS pro is exactly what Paul Sears and Kevin Conlin called PMDD 15 years ago, it's stealing other peoples published work and calling your own. 

Paul never said to bottom out of not add PO4, only to keep it low in the 0.1ppm and 0.2ppm range. While the reasoning for doing this was falsified for algae, the method is no different than what Ed calls PPS pro, no credit was and or ever has been given or acknowledged. And that is plain steer manure.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Noahma said:


> I stand corrected.


Don't ya go fretting none about it
It's good you thought about it.


----------



## ukamikazu (Jun 4, 2010)

plantbrain said:


> Yep, I agree here.........now for something you have not heard about red plants..........
> 
> 
> ...........along your same reasoning and rational, wouldn't limiting Mg also produce intense reds without the expense of N limitation??? Since it required for Chl a etc.........
> ...


I think I can do this :icon_cool.

Mg is preferred as a mobile cation and is important as an enzyme cofactor besides being a major component of chlorophyll. It must be in balance with K and Ca. In toxic levels, it can interfere with the uptake of other cations like Ca, K and NH4. Reduced growth rate is a symptom of deficiency and toxicity of Mg. 

Deficiency is seen first in older leaves as chlorosis, necrosis in severe cases, and new leaves are severely puckered. 

So, Mg is merely a cofactor in carotenoid production but only when it is mobile, so the Mg in chlorophyll is locked away so instead when we see a Mg deficient plant we are looking at the affects of low mobile Mg+ which would not effect existing chlorophyl... ...so we would expect a Mg deficient red plant to still be red but with ugly twisted little new leaves because what Mg is in chlorophyll is fixed.

Therefore, excess Mg might facilitate chlorophyll production and enzymatic actions but would have a negligible at best affect on carotenoid production though it would cause other problems by inhibiting the efficient uptake of Ca, K and ammonium, which would lead to other problems. 

Is that where I should be thinking? Am I even on the map :icon_conf? C-/D+ for effort at least ?


----------



## ukamikazu (Jun 4, 2010)

plantbrain said:


> FYI, PPS pro is exactly what Paul Sears and Kevin Conlin called PMDD 15 years ago, it's stealing other peoples published work and calling your own.
> 
> Paul never said to bottom out of not add PO4, only to keep it low in the 0.1ppm and 0.2ppm range. While the reasoning for doing this was falsified for algae, the method is no different than what Ed calls PPS pro, no credit was and or ever has been given or acknowledged. And that is plain steer manure.


I did not know that and I do value and enjoy uncensored, unvarnished history.


----------



## hydrophyte (Mar 1, 2009)

I have had these _Cryptocoryne pontederiifolia_ going here for a while and I definitely see more of the pink coloration on the undersides of the leaves when the water is cleaners and when the temperature is lower.


----------



## tharsis (Oct 9, 2009)

This is perfect timing for this thread to appear as I am in the process of trying to tease reds from my plants. I have a bunch of questions and ramblings...

I currently have Alt. Rein., Rotala Rot., L. Aromatica, Rotala Wallichii, Ludwigia repens, sunset hygro. The only plant that is showing red from the new growth at the moment is my Alt. Rein.

Would it be safe to assume that some plants will redden more easily than others based on their ability to take in reduced carbon? Could this be why I am seeing red from just one of my plants?

Also will simply increasing CO2 increase the likely hood of the other plants showing reds? I realize it is difficult to know exactly what the CO2 conc. is with just a drop checker but if you are close to 30 ppm and you still don't have red in your plants, would you recommend decreasing your light instead? Is decreasing the intensity more important than just decreasing the photoperiod or does it amount to the same thing?

Is it possible to get reds from plants in a non CO2 tank? The growth is much slower so I would assume that the plants would not be able to grow faster than chlorophyll can be produced.

This thread has already been a huge help! 

There should be a mythbuster section on this site with just a bunch of stickies related to debunked myths.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Some plants are simply red, have red in them under many conditions regardless, other's not so. If I have L. Aromatica in two identical setups and the only difference is the light intensity the one with the more intense light has more red even if they are the same distance from the surface. Why would that be? I think the principal of Occam's razor applies here and the plant is simply reacting to intense light and turns red.

Low, med, high light what does that really mean? For me high light is whatever makes your tank non-limiting in terms of species and correct growth. I am a big fine of the midday burst. I have found keeping your tank low/med most of the day and than given them even just 2 hours of intense light creates a non-limiting tank without adverse algae issues. I'm not a big fan of all these T5HO lights that only have one switch. Many are afraid to run both all day (don't blame them) for fear of algae issues and end up going too low and have a limited setup. The burst for me has always brought out the best with little downside.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

ukamikazu said:


> I think I can do this :icon_cool.
> 
> Mg is preferred as a mobile cation and is important as an enzyme cofactor besides being a major component of chlorophyll. It must be in balance with K and Ca. In toxic levels, it can interfere with the uptake of other cations like Ca, K and NH4. Reduced growth rate is a symptom of deficiency and toxicity of Mg.


No one in this hobby has ever once seen toxicity, that much I assure you.
Regarding Ca and K, these references are from terrestrial soils where salts can increase due to irrigation 10-2000X more than we might EVER see.

In otherword, all the mumbo myths on aquatic plants sites are grossly misapplied. There is no factual support over the concentration levels we see in aquariums.

I tested this a lot, and have not found any evidence to support it with a wide range of suspected sensitive plants.

Edward made a bunch of claims as to Mg being toxic above 10 ppm, see the pic of the pantanal? 25ppm with nothing but hard to grow weeds looking might nice. This clearly falsifies such this myth, ignorance is no excuse.
You no do, you no say.
It's that simple.

I am not certain at what upper range we will see toxicity, but it's a lot more than 20-25ppm. I have not dosed that high and few folks will ever experience Mg in that range. So there's little point to go farther.
See what the ppm's level are for hydroponic solutions for N, K, and P:
210ppm, 235 ppm, and 31ppm for most modified hoagland's solutions.
About 5x more than EI would ever get close to.

Mg levels are 52ppm............pretty juicy.

What does Tropica and Oriental use for their nutrient solutions for growth?
I'll let you guess.



> Deficiency is seen first in older leaves as chlorosis, necrosis in severe cases, and new leaves are severely puckered.
> 
> So, Mg is merely a cofactor in carotenoid production but only when it is mobile, so the Mg in chlorophyll is locked away so instead when we see a Mg deficient plant we are looking at the affects of low mobile Mg+ which would not effect existing chlorophyl... ...so we would expect a Mg deficient red plant to still be red but with ugly twisted little new leaves because what Mg is in chlorophyll is fixed.


Why would it be twisted? There's little reason for stunted tip growth, mostly just a lack of pigment color from Chl a.

New growth is where the N limitation occurs, likewise, since the old Mg is locked in Chl a, and the new growth is limited........not much will translocate to new growth which would result in redder leaves.

Recovery from Mg deficiency is rapid also.

The older leaves can easily supply the reduced carbon to the region of new growth, so carotenoid production is not affected much here. 



> Therefore, excess Mg might facilitate chlorophyll production and enzymatic actions but would have a negligible at best affect on carotenoid production though it would cause other problems by inhibiting the efficient uptake of Ca, K and ammonium, which would lead to other problems.


And N limitation does not do this or have much effect on enzymes.....??
Comparatively speaking, Mg would offer a far better candiate if you go with the pigment method of nutrient limitation.

For Ca, K and NH4, the transportors can simply use H+ and ATPase's, Mg is required for some things, but a limited range should be similar to a N limitation.



> Is that where I should be thinking? Am I even on the map :icon_conf? C-/D+ for effort at least ?


Naw, I'd give you an A- hehe

I'm hard teach, but grade easy. If you survive the first few weeks:redface:
Got to put the fear of poor grades(the great motivator) in new students. They are there to learn and make mistakes, not suffer grade wise if they work hard. 

The co factor aspect and mobility are good ideas and relevant, all the Mg is not in the Chl a, but the same can be said for N. I'm not aware of anyone that has writtren abiout Mg limitation or tried this critically.

That is interestinjg in and of itself.

I managed to induce Mg limitation but it was long ago, I have been interested in toxic and inhibiting levels at the other end mostly.
NPK, Fe etc.........I've done those nice and low..........but not Ca++ and Mg++ at the low end limiting. 

These tend to be tough without some RO and serious modified dosing and decent controls prior. Even my DI/RO like tap has too much to run strong limitations. We did some in SF in the 1990's. But not individual nutrients.

So it's a knowledge gap.

No one really knows if the red can be popped out using Mg limitation.
Might be easy.


----------



## tharsis (Oct 9, 2009)

Here is where I test my understanding of the theory. The higher light increases the growth rate of the plant, and the chlorophyll cannot keep up with rapid growth therefore the red pigment comes through. The reason that plants near the top of the tank turn red is because the increased light leads to increased growth rates. 

BUT it is not the light per se that is making the plants red, it is the rapid growth with sufficient CO2 to produce the red pigment. In a healthy low light set-up with high amounts of CO2, the plant is growing fast enough to reproduce the same results. So high light is not necessarily the requirement, healthy fast growing plants are.


----------



## ukamikazu (Jun 4, 2010)

plantbrain said:


> Naw, I'd give you an A- hehe
> 
> I'm hard teach, but grade easy. If you survive the first few weeks:redface:
> Got to put the fear of poor grades(the great motivator) in new students. They are there to learn and make mistakes, not suffer grade wise if they work hard.
> ...


Thank you, Sir! Getting an A- in your course has left my brain awash in dopamine and serotonin. As with the ending of many Zen koans, "...and so the young man was enlightened." I will count this moment as the first completed footstep in my journey.

I'll have to think about an experiment and do more reading. I may pop up again about this. It may not be soon, but the seed has been planted. If someone beats me to it, well it's not a competition.

I did just have a thought about Mg toxicity. Maybe we're unlikely to see it in our tanks because the amount you'd need to be toxic would put you closer to full strength seawater which no one would add to their tanks intentionally? Brackish, perhaps? Again, this will require more long term noodling. Just a thought. I don't know why the toxicity angle fascinates me so. Must be the novelty of the thought itself or at least in my noggin anyway :icon_smil.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Well, toxicity testing in general is interesting to me.

Given I was/am one of the few stupid enough to test such stuff without fear.........I am able to learn more than the fear and myth crowd.

This applied to algae.
This applied to plants
This applied to fish
This applied more recently to Cherry shrimp, and then CRS mid/low grades, then high grades.
This applied to less light, how low can you go?

I am honest in my abject ignorance, and then going about trying to answer some of these questions. Many seem to think they know a lot....but really just repeat.

Seek questions, not answers.

We really do not know a whole lot about color, we know a few things based on some observations, but they seem conflicting to me. Still, we can hypothesize and try and rule things out, and narrow our choices down.
I do not think there is strong evidence that low NO3 alone, has much impact on nice red color.

I do not think L aromatica is a good test case though. A reineckii, L pantanal, R macrandra, a few of the Rotala's, Ammannia etc.

These seem better.

I think you'd really have to dose a lot of MgSO4 to get to the toxicity ranges.
We just do not commonly see it. Someone sees a little correlation and thinks there is something to it maybe.........perhaps......and says it's just speculation and 3-4 people later it's become fact
K+ upper ranges and some of these other nutrients are going to behave more like Salt stress models rather than "toxicity" like with something like metals like Copper or Zinc, K+ and PO4 will fall into this group.


----------



## snausage (Mar 8, 2010)

Come on, all these pics show easy cheesy sorts of red plants. Some plants naturally red or have a reddish hue. It doesn't necessarily mean they're deficient in any particular nutrient.

Try some of these out (rotala macrandra 'Japan' and rotala 'sunset') with 40 ppm nitrate and post pictures:


----------



## ukamikazu (Jun 4, 2010)

Ooh! What's the one in the last photo?

Also, yes, you're right. Just happy, healthy red plants responding to light, as it should be.


----------



## snausage (Mar 8, 2010)

ukamikazu said:


> Ooh! What's the one in the last photo?
> 
> Also, yes, you're right. Just happy, healthy red plants responding to light, as it should be.


rotala "sunset". By far the most PITA plant I've ever owned be it aquarium or terrestrial. You definitely need a low pH and a more or less stable gH to keep it happy. Iron tabs also help a lot.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

Here's some red in a former scape of mine with full on EI dosing and 2x54 T5HO on a 75 gallon.


----------



## wearsbunnyslippers (Dec 6, 2007)

@jeff5614 - awesome color! what bulbs were you using? were you using reflectors?

some of my reds, light was a bit crazy - 8x54w t5's, full ei..


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

wearsbunnyslippers said:


> @jeff5614 - awesome color! what bulbs were you using? were you using reflectors?
> 
> some of my reds, light was a bit crazy - 8x54w t5's, full ei..


Thanks. I was using a 2x54 Hagen Glo fixture with one Giesemann Midday and one Aquaflora.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

How long has the Blyxa been in there under those lights?


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

houseofcards said:


> How long has the Blyxa been in there under those lights?


Gee, hard to say exactly but for months if not a couple of years. Long enough to have been thinned out several times. It's till perking right along under 1x54 in my current scape altough growth is slower.


----------



## Dempsey (Oct 27, 2009)

I will contribute. Full on EI dosing. Actually, dosing a little more with this tank....


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Jeff5614 said:


> Gee, hard to say exactly but for months if not a couple of years. Long enough to have been thinned out several times. It's till perking right along under 1x54 in my current scape altough growth is slower.


So in the pic, with the 2x54 they still weren't getting color?


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

houseofcards said:


> So in the pic, with the 2x54 they still weren't getting color?


The blyxa had a bronze tinge to it that doesn't show up in the pics. They've gotten greener with lower light.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Jeff5614 said:


> The blyxa had a bronze tinge to it that doesn't show up in the pics. They've gotten greener with lower light.


That's what I thought. So the higher light did bring the color.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

houseofcards said:


> That's what I thought. So the higher light did bring the color.


Possibly, could also just be the color from the Aquaflora. The reds are lot more apparent using an Aquaflora in the mix than with two Middays.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Jeff5614 said:


> Possibly, could also just be the color from the Aquaflora. The reds are lot more apparent using an Aquaflora in the mix than with two Middays.


Yes, only marginally, but even in your first pic with the red is much more apparent on top closer to the light.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

houseofcards said:


> Yes, only marginally, but even in your first pic with the red is much more apparent on top closer to the light.


True. I never was very concerned with trying to bring out color or what made them red. I was just happy when it happened.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

snausage said:


> Come on, all these pics show easy cheesy sorts of red plants.


Tell ya what, produce reds like these:

Since it is so easy and all............



















Looks better to me. I've never found Rotala's to be particularly difficult plants. Weedy.......but not hard.

A wide range of red plants, a comparative sampling shows there's little evidence for support. Even if you find for yourself a case where you THINK it's due to lower NO3.........all it takes is for one person to prove you wrong. But it does not imply that you are correct, only that there is some correlation.

To test this hypothesis, that low NO3 = better color, we need to show that for ALL CASES, that this is true, which it clearly is not.

You might keep suggesting that the newest stem plant of the month requires low NHO3 for nice reds..........but that was done with all the species I posted above and those too...came to past and have been falsified.

New fish, shrimp, plants........because they are "new", have not had as much chance to be grown out by many folks and not enough time to test various situations and falsify, so ignorance and myth previals till such time that the myths are falsified. This has come to past for all the other plants, I see little rational logic to see why this does not extent to most all plants, but no one has falsified this statement yet


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

So, if I grow rotala macrandra 'Japan' and rotala 'sunset with 40 ppm nitrate and post pictures, will you eat your words?

I want pictures of you eating your words if so

I can possibly falsify this, even if I do not, I still am not proven wrong, you however, will be........ if one person shows this not to be the case.

Many said similar things about P stellata, "Tonina(S belem and 2-3 others in the genus), Erio's, Ludwigias, many others.


Take the bait........take the bait.........:redface:


----------



## Sharkfood (May 2, 2010)

I grow red Macrandra in an EI tank and it gets extremely red, depending on the light (light moves up and down with the growth of the hydroponic plants next to the aquarium. Often the plants grow over the aquarium and shade it also.). 

If I limit nitrate when the light is low, I end up with the ugliest yellow/brown Macrandra you've ever seen. If I limit light only, I get green Macrandra. If I limit nitrate under high light, it seems to me that it may be more red, but this observation is very subjective, as I only have the one tank under the light. When my snow peas are done, I may tear the hydro down for the summer and set up a few more tanks so I can do a side by side comparison.

Maybe there's something wrong with my logic, but if the red is coming from slow chlorophyl production, wouldn't the red parts of the plant turn green anyways in a few days once enough chlorophyl is produced?

I'm definitely behind the statement that CO2 is important for developing red color. I grew the same plants in a non-co2 tank under the same lights and ended up with orange/ light pink Macrandra.

I tried dosing piles of iron also, which didn't seem to have any affect on coloration. I couldn't completely eliminate all iron as a control, as it's present in the multicote I put under the substrate as well as my tap water. Iron dosing to create red never made any sense to me, but I tried it anyway.


----------



## Uptown193 (Apr 25, 2011)

I have a question. I purchased a API Nitrite and Nitrate test kit yesterday as well as a Seachem Iron test kit and my Nitrites were good at .25 but my Nitrates were at 80ppm (dark red on test card) should I be alarmed or am I ok?
I do have plants some of which are red in color others are green. I have a 10g, with CO2 and a small UV light with 10 fish and a T5HO 24" 2x24 for 7 hours a day (I know too much light). 

Also, my iron was low as well. From the test card is was suppose to be a light purple or between .01 and .02 I think. I did ad some Nutrinfin Plant Gro which contains iron. the booklet from Seachem indicated that if iron is low the water I tested would be a yellowish color, which is what it was. Should I just keep using the Nutrinfin Plant Gro or add something else ?


----------



## BlueJack (Apr 15, 2011)

Accidentally came across this info as I was surfing the web. Thought I might add it to the mix. 

"The effect of light of different wavelengths on the expression of red coloration of leaves, the so-called "red" plants. It is known that the red coloration of leaves is caused by the elaboration of flavonoid. They give red leaves. Developing flavonoid is a defensive reaction from the damaging effects of ultraviolet light, respectively, red color appears only when tubes have a sufficient share of the short-wave blue part of the spectrum close to UV radiation. 4% of UV radiation can be obtained by selecting a lamp with "full spectrum" or with a high color temperature 6500-9000K. Illumination of plants with too much light fraction of red light leads to the opposite effects - as the light begins to miss, the leaves become thinner and the amount of chlorophyll decreases, the stems and leaves are extended, and the plant is greatly lacking in aesthetics. On the coloration of leaves may also affect the proportion of nitrogen: phosphorus ,fertilizer and other factors."


----------



## dafil (Jul 17, 2010)

A friend told me that his aquarium is so "red".He just "forgot" to stop the lights at night 
He promised to take a picture next weekend,when he will repeat that experiment


----------



## musiche (Jan 17, 2012)

Just thought I would add my 2 cents. Red pigments with plants are a reaction of light intensity. Some plants are 'born' red, even in low light, but require high light and will die in low light (i.e. Rotala or Alternanthera). But some plants will react to high light by producing more red pigment, i.e. Cryptocorynes.

Our eye captures the color being reflected back to us by an object/plant. Colors we don't see are absorbed by objects/plants as heat or energy. Different colors are just different intensities of energy waves. Plants love red wavelengths and can use them most efficiently. Overall, plants don't really use green wavelengths so they are reflected off, back to our eyes. A plant will only reflect red back if there is an excess as red wavelengths are most preferred by them. 

Colors in plants other than green is called variegation. For brighter variegation, you must increase light. It is the same with terrestrial plants.


----------



## Rony11 (Jan 21, 2012)

A few pictures from my tank 16 gallons only, RO 100% water changes 50% every weekend, Seachem fertilizers thrice a week, Using T5 2*24W and T8*10w light period 10 hours, CO2 solenoid regulator connected with lighting on a timer, CO2 Atomizer attached to the incoming pipe from External filter. Hailea Chiller temperature fluctuates between 25-26 degrees celcius. The chiller has an external Eheim water pump. I have green dot algae on slow growing plants and aquarium glass but clean the glass every week during water changes. 
Nitrate 20 Phosphate 2 PH 6.4 GH 9 KH 4 TDS 220 ppm
Started this tank in the beginning of 12/2011 happy with the results.

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/ew-ucl1Z_Mh9HPxHRlJpBhsL2QgXlHgQuQ2W1keFXCk

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/jfjxNuOkQIdOr_pHmZOgxRsL2QgXlHgQuQ2W1keFXCk?feat=directlink

Totally agree that Rotala and Alternanthera like to be near a light source otherwise they die.

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/98zrjGkPK2Cb9QI6xEVXpV-an5kHBQQDhFb-iJoNG1U?feat=directlink

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/sGZO1jzFKaMUiMqYk0EkLF-an5kHBQQDhFb-iJoNG1U?feat=directlink


----------

