# Holes appearing in rotala rotundifolia



## Tinanti (Aug 25, 2005)

You are short on specifics.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

Not a potassium deficiency. It's a trace toxicity.


----------



## weaselnoze (Dec 22, 2006)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Not a potassium deficiency. It's a trace toxicity.


How might I go about fixing this toxicity?


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

Stop dosing all traces. The leaves that are affected with the necrotic holes are not salvageable. Trim the tops and healthy new growth should appear at the topmost node.


----------



## weaselnoze (Dec 22, 2006)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Stop dosing all traces. The leaves that are affected with the necrotic holes are not salvageable. Trim the tops and healthy new growth should appear at the topmost node.


Thanks but I need it a little more ELI5. Since I'm following the seachem dosing schedule but not dosing Flourish Trace as it is, I'm not sure which chems to back off on. I'm dosing N,P,K,Fe,Excel,Flourish. Which should I scale back?


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

If you're pouring wine into a glass and it overfills and starts spilling to the ground, do you continue to pour?

I'd stop dosing all the traces, which includes the iron. Following Seachem's suggested dosing can lead to toxicity just as easily as dosing EI.


----------



## Zapins (Jan 7, 2006)

Can you post more photos?

What fertilizers are you using, how much of each (in ppm or grams is best) and how often are you dosing?


----------



## weaselnoze (Dec 22, 2006)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> If you're pouring wine into a glass and it overfills and starts spilling to the ground, do you continue to pour?
> 
> I'd stop dosing all the traces, which includes the iron. Following Seachem's suggested dosing can lead to toxicity just as easily as dosing EI.


I appreciate the suggestions. I am a little dense, aside from iron, which others are considered trace elements?



Zapins said:


> Can you post more photos?
> 
> What fertilizers are you using, how much of each (in ppm or grams is best) and how often are you dosing?


I sure can post more! 

I've adjusted the amounts for 3 gallons of water, hence the tiny amounts. I am NOT dosing Flourish Trace. 









Overall growth


















The worst of the rotala









Water wisteria seems to be very hardy but new growth looks very different. Very broad and rounder shape. 









Dwarf sag growing very slow but seems to look pretty good. 









A few necrotic spots here and there but overall not bad. 









S. repens was just planted about a week ago. Some damage on leaves due to the shipment freezing in the mail. It hasn't really grown at all but doesn't seem to be rotting either. I'm not sure if it will survive or not.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

Flourish, Flourish Trace, and Iron are all trace element fertilizers.


----------



## sevendust111 (Jul 15, 2014)

Is this a low tech tank? What is your water change schedule? I am no expert on ferts, but I use that chart adjusted for a 20 long. I dose Comprehensive in place of Trace. The maker of that chart described it as a lean dosing plan, so have a hard time believing it is a toxicity issue. However, my tank has diy co2 and medium light, so that could be the difference.


----------



## Zapins (Jan 7, 2006)

Each week you are adding a total of:

*Fe:*
Flourish Iron = 1.59 ppm Fe
Flourish Comprehensive = 0.11 ppm Fe
*Total = 1.7 ppm iron per week*

*Trace:*
Flourish Trace = 0.004509 ppm Copper

*K:*
Flourish Potassium = 4.24 ppm K
Flourish Nitrogen = 0.58 ppm K
Flourish Phosphate = 0.06 ppm K
Flourish comprehensive = 0.01 ppm K
*Total = 5.29 ppm K*

*NO3:*
Flourish nitrogen = 2.32 ppm NO3, 
Flourish comp = 0.11 ppm 
*Total = 2.43 ppm NO3*

*PO4:*
Fluourish phosphorous = 0.14 ppm
Flourish comp = 0.004 ppm 
*Total = 0.144 ppm PO4*

After adding up all the amounts that you are adding to your 3 gallon tank per week you are adding quite a small amount of potassium and nitrogen. 

Small tanks with lots of plants are very vulnerable to deficiencies. Much more than a large tank with a low or medium amount of plants.

You didn't mention if you are using CO2 or not. If you are then your NPK levels are very low and need to be raised by about 5x more. If you are not then you should be adding at least 3 times more to be on the safe side.

The iron you are adding is a bit on the high side (2 ppm max is usually the limit for iron). You could probably dose half as much iron per dose and do just fine. I do not think the iron or micros are causing a trace toxicity for your plants.

Some of the damage on your plants is very likely snail damage. There are irregular holes and jagged edges around the leaves, chunks missing, etc this is not usually a deficiency issue.

Some of the other holes look too small to be snail damage and might be from a potassium deficiency. Check the H difformis leaves, assuming the plant has been in the tank a few weeks, the old ones should be showing pinholes if it is potassium.

The new leaves of this plant are nothing to worry about. H difformis has highly variable leaves, they frequently change from pinnate to broad for no apparent reason.


----------



## micheljq (Oct 24, 2012)

If the tank is heavily planted and without injected co2. It could as well be lack of CO2, symptoms can look similar as lack of potassium.

Michel.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

It's not snail damage nor is it a carbon deficiency, neither results in those symptoms. Those symptoms are indications of micronutrient toxicity.


----------



## bsantucci (Sep 30, 2013)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> It's not snail damage nor is it a carbon deficiency, neither results in those symptoms. Those symptoms are indications of micronutrient toxicity.


Except he's not dosing anything near toxic levels.....


----------



## micheljq (Oct 24, 2012)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> It's not snail damage nor is it a carbon deficiency, neither results in those symptoms. Those symptoms are indications of micronutrient toxicity.


Than let him do large water changes and stop dosing micros (if he does), if the cause it micronutrients toxicity, the symptoms will disappear, if they don't, then it is another cause.

Michel.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

bsantucci said:


> Except he's not dosing anything near toxic levels.....


Toxicity is not an absolute number. Toxicity is relative to the concentration of the other nutrients. So 0.5ppm of Fe can be safe or toxic depending on the concentration of the other micro, secondary, and primary nutrients. If the others are low, then 0.5ppm of Fe can be very toxic (especially so in an unchelated form.) If the others are high, then the concentration may be optimal or even low. The relative ratio to the others is what's important.


----------



## bsantucci (Sep 30, 2013)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Toxicity is not an absolute number. Toxicity is relative to the concentration of the other nutrients. So 0.5ppm of Fe can be safe or toxic depending on the concentration of the other micro, secondary, and primary nutrients. If the others are low, then 0.5ppm of Fe can be very toxic (especially so in an unchelated form.) If the others are high, then the concentration may be optimal or even low. The relative ratio to the others is what's important.


I don't know. I was/am on board with potential for toxicity, did the detox myself and dose much lower levels now. However, he's lean on potassium and it sure looks like it could be a potassium deficiency. 

I just don't think EVERYTHING is a toxicity like you've been posting about.

My tank for instance, it was an excess of nitrates causing Ca deficiency. My plants certainly don't need a full EI dose of micros and I've lowered it, but that wasn't my issue and I fell victim to the toxicity hysteria. Just don't want every person who is new to this to think their tank is toxic right off the bat.


----------



## PortalMasteryRy (Oct 16, 2012)

I would dose some magnesium too. In fact a straight dose of 10 ppm K, 2 ppm P04, 5 ppm N03 and 5 ppm magnesium should cover the macros to prevent the "borrow" effect. A lot of the macro nutrients are mobile so what could be happening here is you get healthy tops and deteriorating bottom of the plant. 

With an abundant supply of the mobile macro nutrients (N,P,K and Mg) the plants should have a healthy growth throughout the entire stem. 

The plant tops look very healthy so I do not think it is a trace toxicity. The rotala colorata in the pictures will have very small crinkled tops with a trace toxicity but this is not the case.


----------



## Zapins (Jan 7, 2006)

Trace toxicity show symptoms of many different deficiencies because the many individual trace elements in the mix cause different types of damage to the plant. The damage in trace toxicity is also uniformly spread over the entire plant - because the entire plant is exposed to the same toxic nutrients in the water.

The plants in this post are not showing many different symptoms - only one - holes. This suggests a simple deficiency.

The plants in this post are showing holes on old growth only which is not what you would expect to see in a toxicity. The symptoms are only on old growth which matches mobile nutrient deficiencies like a lack of NPK (or Mg). Two of these nutrients are being dosed in very low amounts. And one of these nutrients (potassium ) shows up as holes in old leaves.

On top of this the OP isn't dosing high levels of traces, in fact, he is dosing low levels of these nutrients and only slightly high levels of iron.

All of this taken together strongly argues against a trace toxicity and in fact supports a deficiency as the more likely problem.


----------



## Audionut (Apr 24, 2015)

weaselnoze said:


> I've adjusted the amounts for 3 gallons of water, hence the tiny amounts. I am *NOT* dosing Flourish Trace.


My bold added for emphasis.



Zapins said:


> The plants in this post are showing holes on old growth only which is not what you would expect to see in a toxicity. The symptoms are only on old growth which matches mobile nutrient deficiencies like a lack of NPK (or Mg). Two of these nutrients are being dosed in very low amounts. And one of these nutrients (potassium ) shows up as holes in old leaves.


I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that K is being dosed in low amounts. From the calculations you performed on the previous page, _relative to the other macros_, K is rather high.



Zapins said:


> *Total = 1.7 ppm iron per week*
> *Total = 5.29 ppm K*
> *Total = 2.43 ppm NO3*
> *Total = 0.144 ppm PO4*


My understanding is that excess K will affect N, Ca and Mg.

Personally, the only element I would even be considering adding more of would be P. Combined with a reduction of K and Fe.


----------



## Saxa Tilly (Apr 7, 2015)

The new leaves are so beautifully shaped. Whenever I've had issues with Rotala and POTENTIAL toxicity, the new leaves have been stunted, twisted, tiny, and generally ugly. At least that's my toxicity association with Rotala. I'm not saying this is not a toxicity. If it is, it's reacting very differently than all the Rotalas I've had.


----------



## Zapins (Jan 7, 2006)

K+ is probably one of the least toxic nutrients we dose in our tanks. There is no evidence that K will affect the uptake of other nutrients in any significant way at the levels we use in our aquariums. Perhaps in the hundreds of ppms then we might see issues. On the other hand K+ is one of the most highly used nutrients plants need so limiting its concentration is not a good idea.

5.29 ppm per _week_ is definitely on the lower end of the dosing spectrum. Most medium to heavily planted tanks use between 15-25 ppm every week. So when you dose only 20-33% of that you are much more likely to run into nutrient limitations or deficiencies. 

Ratios mean nothing to plants contrary to some old sources of information. Deficiencies depend on whether the nutrients are present or not for any length of time. If the nutrients are used up the plant can't pause its growth rate and wait for new nutrients before growing again it just grows new tissue without the missing nutrient and eventually the lack shows up as damage. This damage generally happens in distinct ways because nutrients are used for certain similar processes between plants. This is the basis for visual diagnosis based on location, symptom and type of damage. 

As for not using trace. I see he mentioned that now that you bring it up which is a bit confusing since he had it in the dosing schedule. Either way, that still supports this not being a trace toxicity.


----------



## Audionut (Apr 24, 2015)

Apologies in advance for picking apart your post. I merely seek clarity and understanding.



Zapins said:


> K+ is probably one of the least toxic nutrients we dose in our tanks.


Agreed.



Zapins said:


> There is no evidence that K will affect the uptake of other nutrients in any significant way at the levels we use in our aquariums.


I will argue that there is no evidence that K will *not* affect the other nutrients in any significant way at the levels we use in our aquariums.

There is a mountain of supporting evidence that nutrients have an antagonistic relationship with each other.




Zapins said:


> Perhaps in the hundreds of ppms then we might see issues.


Perhaps in lower concentrations also. You seem to be suggesting that the low concentration of the elements totally dismisses the antagonistic relationship that nutrients have. Some supporting evidence would be well received.




Zapins said:


> On the other hand K+ is one of the most highly used nutrients plants need so limiting its concentration is not a good idea.


Limiting is a rather broad term.



Zapins said:


> 5.29 ppm per _week_ is definitely on the lower end of the dosing spectrum.


Compared to higher dosing levels of the other macro nutrients, agreed. But I'm super keen to hear how this level of K is a limiting factor, given that the other macro nutrients are being dosed in low concentrations, and _probably_ have some limiting factor themselves.



Zapins said:


> Most medium to heavily planted tanks use between 15-25 ppm every week. So when you dose only 20-33% of that you are much more likely to run into nutrient limitations or deficiencies.


Another rather broad statement Sir.

Do these same medium to heavily planted tanks also contain some higher levels of the other macro nutrients? Or do these tanks also contain 2.5 ppm of NO3 (0.54 ppm N) and 0.144 ppm PO4 (0.047 ppm P) and still uptake the level of K that you describe?

In either case, I would love to see the data that verifies this claim. I assume you mean that the concentrations you listed are the required levels in the water, and not what the plants are actually uptaking, right?




Zapins said:


> Ratios mean nothing to plants contrary to some old sources of information.


Utter nonsense. If this was true we would all just be dosing 15-25 ppm per week of all of the nutrients. Do you think that 15-25 ppm of Mo is an acceptable level?




Zapins said:


> Deficiencies depend on whether the nutrients are present or not for any length of time. If the nutrients are used up the plant can't pause its growth rate and wait for new nutrients before growing again it just grows new tissue without the missing nutrient and eventually the lack shows up as damage. This damage generally happens in distinct ways because nutrients are used for certain similar processes between plants. This is the basis for visual diagnosis based on location, symptom and type of damage.


Agreed. An excellent summation.



Zapins said:


> Either way, that still supports this not being a trace toxicity.


Agreed. There is one particular member of this forum who seems to think that every single issue with plants these days is a trace toxicity but that's another problem entirely.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

Zapins said:


> The plants in this post are not showing many different symptoms - only one - holes. This suggests a simple deficiency.
> 
> The plants in this post are showing holes on old growth only which is not what you would expect to see in a toxicity.


The holes are both in the old and new growth.



> On top of this the OP isn't dosing high levels of traces, in fact, he is dosing low levels of these nutrients and only slightly high levels of iron.


I know for a fact that it's a toxicity because those were the symptoms I observed after I OD'd traces. The concentration was low and I actually thought it was safe. But then those symptoms resulted. 
http://www.aquascapingworld.com/threads/nature-scape-no-2.9480/page-3#post-104571



> Ratios mean nothing to plants contrary to some old sources of information. Deficiencies depend on whether the nutrients are present or not for any length of time.


This is incorrect. Ratios matter a lot when it comes to trace nutrients probably because the uptake mechanisms lack discrimination. If you refer to the paper I mentioned, corn crops responded best to an Fe:Mn ratio of ~2:1. Large deviations from this ratio resulted in iron deficiency or toxicity, but it wasn't the absolute concentrations that mattered. 1ppm or 0.0050ppm of Fe resulted in healthy growth as long as Mn was 0.5ppm or 0.0025ppm respectively. If Mn were 1ppm or 0.005ppm, then iron deficiency was observed. (This may be the source and reason why Tropica uses an Fe:Mn of ~2:1.)

This same phenomenon probably occurs in aquatic plants. In my own experiments, I was able to cause Boron toxicity by dosing <1/120tsp (closer to 1/150tsp) of Borax, Na2B4O7*10H2O, into 60 gallons of water. Death of new tips was the immediate result in some of the faster growing plants. Since other traces were extremely low, even this low dose of Borax caused toxicity because the ratio of B to other traces was exceptionally high.

Again, to emphasize the article, 1:0.5ppm or 0.005:0.0025ppm of Fe:Mn resulted in the best growth and caused no harm even though the difference between the two is 200 times. Thus, ratios do indeed matter.


----------



## Audionut (Apr 24, 2015)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> The holes are both in the old and new growth.


No, they are not. Look again. The newest growth on all the plant species in that tank does not contain any holes.

Lets revisit mobile and immobile elements.

*Immobile elements* cannot be transferred from already formed growth to the new growing mass of the plants. Fe is an immobile element, and is probably one of the most recognizable deficiencies. Once these immobile elements are no longer available to the plant, at that time, and from that time until the element is again available, the plant simply cannot use the immobile element during growth. All growth from that point in time where the immobile element was no longer available will show signs of the deficiency. If the element is completely removed from availability to the plant, the plant will perish as it's simply unable to form new growth.

*Mobile elements *on the other hand can be transferred in the plant, from already formed growth to the plant mass still growing.  Once these mobile elements are no longer available to the plant, the plant will then begin to transfer excess of these mobile elements from already formed growth to the plant mass being formed. A continued deficiency of these elements will force the plant to continue to draw on the element from the already formed growth. Here, nitrogen is a really good example of a deficient mobile nutrient. Upon severe nitrogen deficiency, the already formed growth will simply begin to almost disappear. The growth will shrink in size and lose color. If the mobile element continues to be unavailable to plants, more of the already formed growth will show signs of the deficiency.

As the deficiency of the mobile element becomes greater, continued amounts of already formed growth will be destroyed by the removal of the mobile element for the new plant mass. Eventually, there will be no formed growth with which the plant can tap from, and the plant will perish. Here, the deficiency will begin with the already formed growth and consume more and more growth including new plant mass until the plant perishes.


So......Now I'll ask you @Solcielo lawrencia, do the plant species in the images shown appear to be immobile element or mobile element related?

If you want to persist in your trace toxicity charade, then please, explain to me how plant mass that has already been formed, and thus, no longer requires, uptakes, consumes, transfers, or otherwise does anything with immobile elements, can suffer any symptoms related to immobile elements?


----------



## micheljq (Oct 24, 2012)

You speak a lot about the ferts, like the others say, i believe K can be overdosed without ill effects. If you have doubts overdose it 2-3 weeks and see the results. That will eliminate K as root cause.

However we forget the most important thing, LIGHT. Rotala rotundifolia can be grown in med light but requires more intense lighting to show all of its glory, and co2 will certainly help. This plant is in my list of "so called easy plants" that are not that easy at all.

Please post details about your light, liquid carbon if any, co2 if any.

Michel.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

From photo's, I doubt that CO2 is staying in the tank long if it is being injected, due in large part to what look's to be use of sponge filter(s). Bubbles in lift tube would work against trying to keep the CO2 that may be available in contact with the plant's as long as might be necessary for them.
May not be primary issue, but it maybe ain't helping very much if the gas is being used.
Might run sponge filter(s) of an evening after light's off for the day and plant's are not using CO2 but rather using Oxygen.
Agree that adding a pinch more of all nutrient's that may be on the light side ,could do no harm and may be all that is needed.
Opinion's vary.


----------



## Burito (Oct 15, 2015)

I had a similar symptoms, described in this thread http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...05-black-dots-new-growth-rotala-colorata.html
Nobody responded, so I planted some more plants and did my own testing.
First I thought Fe deficiency, so continued dosing even higher amounts of Fe (0,5 ppm a day) because I started to see pale new growth on other plants (Pogostemon Erectus and Staurogyne Repens).
After couple weeks things got really ugly with the Rotala with 90% of it melting and almost dead. Other plants stayed about the same - not growing much, but with pale tops. Staurogyne Repens started to have a little twisted leaves, but nothing major.
As I could rule out Fe deficiency at that time, the other option was too much Fe and toxicity.
So I took out all the Rotala, selected and trimmed only the best looking stems and planted them back.
For the next two weeks I was doing large 50+ % water changes every 2-3 days and stopped all micro dosing completely. Dosing only 0.5 ppm of PO4 and 4ppm of K daily every morning before lighs on.
After few days I started to see new growth on Rotala and all other plnats, with the tops turning green.
After a month the Rotala has been growing really nice, without any symptoms of deficiency nor toxicity of any kind.
So to try things out, last week I dosed just a little Fe (0.14 ppm). The next morning, one new leaf on the Rotala had this black/pink dot again and started twisting.
I did two 50% water changes in 3 days and stopped dosing Fe completely. Since then everything grows fine.


----------



## ccar2000 (Sep 3, 2011)

weaselnoze said:


> Thanks but I need it a little more ELI5. Since I'm following the seachem dosing schedule but not dosing Flourish Trace as it is, I'm not sure which chems to back off on. I'm dosing N,P,K,Fe,Excel,Flourish. Which should I scale back?


weaselnose, I am interested to hear what changes you have made to your dosing regiment and how long it takes to see the results of your changes.


----------



## weaselnoze (Dec 22, 2006)

First off I'd like to thank everyone who has opined in this thread. It is quite interesting to see the discussion going back and forth. 

When I first posted, I was hoping this issues was going to be cut and dry, black and white, and that we'd all be on the same page . Unfortunately, this may be a bit more complicated than it seemed on the surface. I feel I have left out some important things that could certainly be in play. 

So here goes... 

6 weeks planted.

Lighting: 13w cfl directly above the bowl running 7.5 hours at first, bumped to 8 in the last few weeks. I really don't think I have too little light. It's bright. 
Carbon: no CO2. Simply dosing excel 0.3mL perday as per schedule in the OP. 1.5ml on Sunday after water change day. 
Water changes: 50% plus on Day 7 of the week. This is going to have to be reduced quite a bit once I stock with shrimp as they can't handle such large W/C. It will be interesting to see how that all comes in to play...
Substrate: MGO soil capped with black diamond blasting media. I left that out of the original post as I figured it wasn't that important when talking about stem plants as they take most nutrients from the water column. I am thinking now that I am wrong. (I will not be dirting the next time around. It is WAY to messy for my liking.)

I've been using Dr. Tim's ammonia to fishless cycle, keeping ammonia about 2-4ppm. As of testing yesterday, I think the cycle is complete. I will continue to add ammonia until I am ready to stock. (I'd like to get the plants more stable first). 

To clear up some of the confusion about where/when the holes are appearing, I've included pictures. The leaves on the top few nodes look great, however it doesn't take long for them to start showing the holes we've been discussing. Again see the pics below to understand what I mean. 

All in all, this has been a fun project so far however I'm learning it can be more complicated than I had originally hoped for. When I started this bowl, I had intentions of doing a walstad bowl with little tech. Oh how that has changed....


Pic from WEEKS ago to see how it all started..









Newest pic









Close up of newest pic









Pic from about 4.5weeks to show lighting setup.


----------



## Zapins (Jan 7, 2006)

Audionut said:


> I will argue that there is no evidence that K will *not* affect the other nutrients in any significant way at the levels we use in our aquariums.


Oh boy, lots of good questions and points audionut, took me a little while to find some references for you which you can read through if you like. Just a heads up there are very few if any references that directly talk about potassium deficiency and excess in aquatic plants so finding an easy answer to your points is difficult. There was one article about toxicity of potassium sorbital in an algae species and then the other two articles are on terrestrial crop plants. Obviously slightly different environments and species so take it for what it is worth.

The algae paper I left at home before going to work, but I will post the info later if you want to read it. They found that the LD50 was around 2700 ppm for Potassium-Sorbital.

On page 100, in the toxicity section of Handbook of Plant Nutrition by Allen Barker & David Pilbeam they talked about potassium excess:



 Plant Nutrition said:


> "Excess K in plants is rare as K uptake is regulated strictly (*64*). The oversupply of K is not characterized by specific symptoms, but it may depress plant growth and yield (*65*)."


*64.* A.D.M. Glass, M.Y. Siddiqi. The control of nutrient uptake in relation to the inorganic composition of plants. In: B.P. Tinker, A. Läuchli, eds. Advances in Plant Nutrition. New York: Praeger, 1984, pp. 103–147. 

*65.* M. Viro. Influence of the K status on the mineral nutrient balance and the distribution of assimilates in tomato plants. Büntehof Abs. 4: 34–36, 1974/75.

On a side note, this book is excellent and if you can get a hold of a copy it really talks about almost everything you'd like to know. Probably my favorite reference. 



Audionut said:


> There is a mountain of supporting evidence that nutrients have an antagonistic relationship with each other.


There is an antagonistic effect (which the plant nutrition book also discusses on page 100), but at extremely high doses. Where Ca++,Mg++ and K+ all compete for the same transporters. If you are searching for articles about it, it is called "ion antagonism" or "cation competition." 

Also, in hydroponics a 4 K: 2 Ca: 1 Mg ratio in the potting media is generally used in many places, which will limit antagonism among these nutrients. So, as you can see potassium is usually the highest proportion in any sort of general ratio used.

If you have a specific paper that discusses the ppm range where the antagonistic effect takes over and damages plants I would love to read it.



Audionut said:


> Limiting is a rather broad term.
> 
> ...
> 
> Compared to higher dosing levels of the other macro nutrients, agreed. But I'm super keen to hear how this level of K is a limiting factor, given that the other macro nutrients are being dosed in low concentrations, and _probably_ have some limiting factor themselves.


Yep, limitations are not deficiencies. In a nutshell a limitation is constantly supplying a nutrient or nutrients at a constant rate but at a concentration below the optimum for plant growth. The plant never truly runs out of nutrients for any length of time but it cannot grow at its max potential. A good example of this is growing plants without CO2, then adding CO2 and seeing them grow several times faster. They were limited before, not deficient.



Audionut said:


> Do these same medium to heavily planted tanks also contain some higher levels of the other macro nutrients? Or do these tanks also contain 2.5 ppm of NO3 (0.54 ppm N) and 0.144 ppm PO4 (0.047 ppm P) and still uptake the level of K that you describe?
> 
> In either case, I would love to see the data that verifies this claim. I assume you mean that the concentrations you listed are the required levels in the water, and not what the plants are actually uptaking, right?
> 
> Utter nonsense. If this was true we would all just be dosing 15-25 ppm per week of all of the nutrients. Do you think that 15-25 ppm of Mo is an acceptable level?


Yes they usually do have more nutrients in the tank. 

There are many different types of nutrient transporters that pull in nutrients from the environment. Some take up a given nutrient in exchange for another ion, some take up two or more nutrients at the same time from the environment and others just 1 at a time in exchange for nothing.

For example, if you take the example of one transporter taking up two different nutrients at a time this type requires a 1:1 ratio between these nutrients to work right? The trouble with this line of thinking is that yes the transporter won't work if you have only 1 nutrient and none of the other, but it will work if you have a huge amount of 1 nutrient and not much of the other one. In other words, as long as the transporter sees 1 of each of the nutrients it doesn't matter what the ratio of the nutrients is in the environment. 

In another way, if you had 10 of one nutrient and and 10 of another, you'll be able to take up all 10 of each of them. If on the other hand you had 10 of one, and 2 of another, then the plant only takes up 2 of each of them and then becomes deficient in the one that is not around. 

As long as neither nutrient runs out it is difficult to argue that there is an ideal ratio that plants absolutely need to do well.

An over simplification, but that is what is going on at the transporter level.

This view is mirrored in various resources and by David Kessler, Horticulturist, at Atlantis Hydroponics who I spoke with about this back in 2013. He also gave me this article to read through, which might be helpful for you http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-05152008-144742/unrestricted/dissertation.pdf. Hmm it isn't working for me but perhaps it will for you.



Audionut said:


> Agreed. There is one particular member of this forum who seems to think that every single issue with plants these days is a trace toxicity but that's another problem entirely.


Identifying deficiencies/toxicities is difficult and requires quite a bit of sleuthing and piecing together information about a particular case so that it makes sense in the end. Identifying a problem simply based on the visual appearance of a plant without any extra information about conditions is not a very reliable way to identify any kind of problem. Many issues look very similar which confuses the subject. 

I like to think of it much like going to the doctors for an infected cut. You wouldn't feel very comfortable with a diagnosis if you walked in the door, the doc looked you up and down and said hey you have a vitamin toxicity 'because I once saw a guy who looked unhappy and he had a toxicity so you must have one too.' You'd certainly want tests run, and the whole picture to be looked into before giving a diagnosis like that. The same applies to plants. 

A while back I wrote a short guide on how to go about diagnosing plant deficiencies. I posted the link here if you want to look through it: http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/3...gnose-plant-deficiencies-step-step-guide.html


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

Burito said:


> I had a similar symptoms, described in this thread http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...05-black-dots-new-growth-rotala-colorata.html
> Nobody responded, so I planted some more plants and did my own testing.
> First I thought Fe deficiency, so continued dosing even higher amounts of Fe (0,5 ppm a day) because I started to see pale new growth on other plants (Pogostemon Erectus and Staurogyne Repens).
> After couple weeks things got really ugly with the Rotala with 90% of it melting and almost dead. Other plants stayed about the same - not growing much, but with pale tops. Staurogyne Repens started to have a little twisted leaves, but nothing major.
> ...


Thank you for sharing your experiences. I suspected that the symptoms in the pictures in this thread, yours, as well as mine are the symptoms of iron toxicity. Iron is the most likely culprit due to its function within the plant and how it interacts with other ions such as manganese and phosphate (and cobalt and possibly others). In my case, the ratio of iron was well above any other trace nutrient which may have caused an imbalance which resulted in toxicity.

Bump:


Zapins said:


> Identifying deficiencies/toxicities is difficult and requires quite a bit of sleuthing and piecing together information about a particular case so that it makes sense in the end. Identifying a problem simply based on the visual appearance of a plant without any extra information about conditions is not a very reliable way to identify any kind of problem. Many issues look very similar which confuses the subject.


It may be very difficult to identify toxicity if people believe it must be a deficiency or caused by some other issue (like CO2). Even when it's pointed out that it's a toxicity, it's dismissed. However, it's quite easy to identify toxicity in most cases just from the pictures. Getting more information just helps with the certainty, but pictures alone are pretty good once you've learned how the symptoms of toxicity look like. Toxicity can be easily confused with deficiency if you're only looking at one thing, but if you look at everything, then the determination is much easier.


----------



## Zapins (Jan 7, 2006)

I reread your post and want to add to something you brought up.



Audionut said:


> Utter nonsense. If this was true we would all just be dosing 15-25 ppm per week of all of the nutrients. Do you think that 15-25 ppm of Mo is an acceptable level?


While 15 ppm Mo seems high and likely to cause issues, this is not the same thing as making the argument for strict ratios being necessary. 15-25 ppm Mo comes down to a matter of having too much where the excess nutrient causes damage to the plant. These are two separate issues. 

Toxicities are definitely possible and I was one of the first hardcore proponents of CSM+B potentially causing toxicities when overdosed, so I need no convincing that there are ranges of nutrients that can be harmful. Rather than specific ratios of one nutrient to another being maintained I feel a better way to view plant requirements is that a general range for each nutrient should be provided that we must stay within to avoid a toxic effect. If you go over that range then you get a toxicity, if you dose below it, a deficiency is much more likely as the plants use up the nutrient.

To restate my point in another way:
As long as you are not above the toxic dose it doesn't matter if you have 20 ppm nitrate, or 40 ppm nitrate, you won't see a toxic effect and you very likely won't see a deficiency either because the plants never run out of it.

The exact ranges for each nutrient and what the minimum toxicity ppm is can and should be discussed and investigated. There are very few easy answers in the research papers since almost no research is done on these issues, and why would there be? Unless there is big money involved in food crops, medicinal, or plant pest issues no research is done. 



Solcielo lawrencia said:


> It may be very difficult to identify toxicity if people believe it must be a deficiency or caused by some other issue (like CO2). Even when it's pointed out that it's a toxicity, it's dismissed. However, it's quite easy to identify toxicity in most cases just from the pictures. Getting more information just helps with the certainty, but pictures alone are pretty good once you've learned how the symptoms of toxicity look like. Toxicity can be easily confused with deficiency if you're only looking at one thing, but if you look at everything, then the determination is much easier.


As with any complicated subject there are certainly going to be many different viewpoints. All anyone can do is simply present evidence for their version of events and then it is up to each of us to draw our own conclusions. For the reasons I have already stated above I feel this issue is very unlikely to be a trace toxicity and much more likely to be a deficiency, probably of Potassium.


----------



## weaselnoze (Dec 22, 2006)

Zapins said:


> ...For the reasons I have already stated above I feel this issue is very unlikely to be a trace toxicity and much more likely to be a deficiency, probably of Potassium.


...which is the direction I am going to explore first in dealing with the issues I'm having. 

I am going to triple the N,P,K, halve the Fe, and keep dosing Flourish and Excel at the same rate. Does that sound like a good start? 

In theory, if that simple adjustment does the trick, should I also see an increase in the speed of growth as well? 

Does anyone have any thoughts on the information I had added today in regards to the soil, ammonia dosing, lighting, or water changes?


----------



## PortalMasteryRy (Oct 16, 2012)

weaselnoze said:


> ...which is the direction I am going to explore first in dealing with the issues I'm having.
> 
> I am going to triple the N,P,K, halve the Fe, and keep dosing Flourish and Excel at the same rate. Does that sound like a good start?
> 
> ...


I would suggest to do a one-time triple dose of N,P,K. Give it 1-2 weeks and if it does not improve then try to add Ca/Mg using GH Booster. I do not encourage increase the dose that much over a constant period because by the time you see good results you may already be dosing too much. 

What you will be looking for is nice clean leaves from the current tips to newest growth after 1-2 weeks. Unfortunately the older leaves cannot be saved and will probably stay that way or completely deteriorate. 

If the one time triple does does help then you can increase the dose to 150-200% of the current level and observe for 1-2 weeks.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

Zapins said:


> As with any complicated subject there are certainly going to be many different viewpoints. All anyone can do is simply present evidence for their version of events and then it is up to each of us to draw our own conclusions. For the reasons I have already stated above I feel this issue is very unlikely to be a trace toxicity and much more likely to be a deficiency, probably of Potassium.


But according to DeficiencyFinder.com, potassium deficiency doesn't look like what's shown in the pictures. 

And I'm 100% certain it's a micro-tox.


----------



## Zapins (Jan 7, 2006)

weaselnoze said:


> ...which is the direction I am going to explore first in dealing with the issues I'm having.
> 
> I am going to triple the N,P,K, halve the Fe, and keep dosing Flourish and Excel at the same rate. Does that sound like a good start?
> 
> ...


Sounds good. Let us know how things turn out in a week or two.

Also, you should be dosing some amount of trace nutrients just to be on the safe side. The 0.8 ppm twice a week is probably enough. When you reduce the iron dose, just reduce the daily dose by 50%, you can still dose it 6 or 7 days a week like you are, just at half the amount.

The growth rate will likely not accelerate much if at all since that mainly depends on CO2 levels. Your plants should be healthier without new holes (old ones will not heal).

I would not dose ammonia at all in a planted tank. Ammonia can actually be quite harmful to plants (and fish) in the 2 - 4 ppm range. It is not suited for use in aquatic tanks, though it can be a decent fertilizer for crop plants.

Also, planted tanks don't really have a proper nitrogen cycle like fishless tanks do. This is because a heavily planted tank absorbs ammonia and removes it before the bacteria has a chance to break it down to nitrates. 

How are you measuring out such tiny amounts by the way? Are you sure you are accurately adding a fraction of a mL?


----------



## Audionut (Apr 24, 2015)

Thanks for taking your time for the detailed reply @Zapins. Appreciated.

I need some time to assimilate your response and research the supporting evidence before commenting significantly further, although one statement you made I feel needs to be clarified.



> There are many different types of nutrient transporters that pull in nutrients from the environment. Some take up a given nutrient in exchange for another ion, some take up two or more nutrients at the same time from the environment and others just 1 at a time in exchange for nothing.


Aqueous solutions must be electrically neutral. You (the plants) cannot take a cation or an anion without maintaining balance of the aqueous solution. It is this property that allows us to determine errors in our water analysis.

http://www.hill-laboratories.com/file/fileid/49066
aqion

From this we see that it is impossible for the plants to take just one element at a time, in exchange for nothing.


The last graph on this page is an interesting one. At low concentrations of N, increased K does virtually nothing until such point that growth is actually reduced by the continued increase in K concentration.

Thanks again for your time. I look forward to continued discussion.


----------



## weaselnoze (Dec 22, 2006)

Zapins said:


> I would not dose ammonia at all in a planted tank. Ammonia can actually be quite harmful to plants (and fish) in the 2 - 4 ppm range. It is not suited for use in aquatic tanks, though it can be a decent fertilizer for crop plants.
> 
> 
> Also, planted tanks don't really have a proper nitrogen cycle like fishless tanks do. This is because a heavily planted tank absorbs ammonia and removes it before the bacteria has a chance to break it down to nitrates.


I've been dosing 2-4ppm ammonia in order to establish bacteria for stocking shrimp and maybe several Boraras brigittae. Not for the plants. I realize that some plants are sensitive and would have cycled before I even planted, but hindsight is 20/20. 


Zapins said:


> How are you measuring out such tiny amounts by the way? Are you sure you are accurately adding a fraction of a mL?


Haha I was waiting for someone to ask me this question! Tiny tanks, tiny measurements! My P200 can measure as small as 20µl.


----------



## Zapins (Jan 7, 2006)

I will read over the links you posted. Thank you. I enjoy discussions like this. 



Audionut said:


> Aqueous solutions must be electrically neutral. You (the plants) cannot take a cation or an anion without maintaining balance of the aqueous solution. It is this property that allows us to determine errors in our water analysis.
> 
> http://www.hill-laboratories.com/file/fileid/49066
> aqion


Yes, if I understand you right I agree. But that does not mean that the counter ion must also come through the same transporter protein as another nutrient. You can absorb a Ca++ from one calcium channel that only lets in Ca++, and two Cl- ions from another dedicated Cl- transporter and that would balance out the charge inside. But this idea still doesn't mean that certain _environmental_ ratios must be maintained to work. As long as neither nutrient runs out the transporters will all work and everything balances out. 



Audionut said:


> From this we see that it is impossible for the plants to take just one element at a time, in exchange for nothing.


Plants and other cells use active transport where ATP is used to pump ions or molecules against their concentration gradient. This can be done with 1 ion at a time or with multiple ions at a time. This is how a lot of the nutrients are concentrated inside living organisms.

Once inside the cell or tissue there are other proteins that bind the ions out of the solution in order to maintain low intra or extracellular concentrations and help bulk movement of nutrients into the cell, or to a specific location inside the organism. 

For example, (in people) there is a similar transport system where calcium ions are allowed to flow into intestinal cells through a calcium channel. Inside the cell a protein called calbindin binds up the caclium out of solution which keeps the intracellular concentration lower than in the gut and then another transporter on the blood side of the cell uses ATP to pump the calcium out of the cell into the blood. This all happens with Calcium and no counter ion being absorbed through the transporter. 

Here are two diagrams showing what I mean:




















weaselnoze said:


> Haha I was waiting for someone to ask me this question! Tiny tanks, tiny measurements! My P200 can measure as small as 20µl.


Haha good on you! I remember those days, endless hours of pipetting in the lab that went on for years and years. It does give you lots of time to think about things though 

Do you work in a lab?


----------



## weaselnoze (Dec 22, 2006)




----------



## PortalMasteryRy (Oct 16, 2012)

Since we are talking about pipettes, is that an Ulster V-3 one? I need one that can do 100-1000 ul for my magnesium tests.


----------



## weaselnoze (Dec 22, 2006)

Zapins said:


> Haha good on you! I remember those days, endless hours of pipetting in the lab that went on for years and years. It does give you lots of time to think about things though
> 
> Do you work in a lab?


Actually....:icon_lol: I sell Subaru's for a living. My father is a recently retired science teacher and hooked me up with some of his equipment. When I told him I needed to measure in graduations of 100µ, I expected him to find me one of those throw away plastic pipettes with the bulb on the end. To my surprise, he shows up with this! Very swanky

We should get a thread going in the Lounge, "What do you do for a living?"



PortalMasteryRy said:


> Since we are talking about pipettes, is that an Ulster V-3 one? I need one that can do 100-1000 ul for my magnesium tests.


Actually this looks like a Gilson PIPETMAN classic p200. 
Gilson, Inc | PIPETMAN Classic?

He also gave me one that can measure 2-20μ though I don't have a use for it.


----------



## Audionut (Apr 24, 2015)

Zapins said:


> Yes, if I understand you right I agree. But that does not mean that the counter ion must also come through the same transporter protein as another nutrient.


Ah indeed. I am very literal. I took your description to mean that plant was taking out some element without doing anything else. Heh.



Zapins said:


> But this idea still doesn't mean that certain _environmental_ ratios must be maintained to work. As long as neither nutrient runs out the transporters will all work and everything balances out.


Honestly, I think we have the same understanding, but different preconceptions and cultural backgrounds that hinder the discussion.

People don't think of deficiencies and toxicities until clear symptoms are present, but any process that hinders the optimal growth of the plant could be considered as a deficiency or a toxicity. re: your points regarding limitations.



> In another way, if you had 10 of one nutrient and and 10 of another, you'll be able to take up all 10 of each of them. If on the other hand you had 10 of one, and 2 of another, then the plant only takes up 2 of each of them and then becomes deficient in the one that is not around.


This is an interesting point. If the absence of one nutrient ceases the uptake of another nutrient, then clearly the absent nutrient is deficient from a supply perspective. Add more of that nutrient and things begin to work again. But from a plant perspective, although the addition of the lacking nutrient will also make things work again, does the plant only show signs of the supply deficient nutrient, or, would the plant show symptoms of deficiency of both nutrients? Or, if the supply deficient nutrient plays a large role in the facilitation of the other nutrient, could we instead expect to see deficiency symptoms related to the nutrient that is in plentiful supply, but otherwise deficient from the plants perspective due to it's inability to uptake that nutrient?

Take chlorosis for instance. A deficiency in any of a significant number of nutrients will display this symptom. It is not until we search for other signs displayed by the plant, or perform detailed analysis that we can be certain which nutrient is the root cause.



> As long as neither nutrient runs out it is difficult to argue that there is an ideal ratio that plants absolutely need to do well.


I see your point. Again, we probably have the same opinion on this thing, but different preconceptions.

Clearly, nutrients are needed in different concentrations by the plant. This is why some subset of nutrients are labeled as macros, with another subset of nutrients labeled as micros. And within these subsets of nutrients, Some of the macro nutrients are needed in higher concentrations then the others, and indeed for the micros. I realize that there has been a ton and more of bullshi* perpetrated in the industry for some time regarding _ideal ratios_. But I'm not really interested in the bullshi* aspect of the industry, I'm interested in the facts. Saying that plants need 10-20 ppm of N and 1-4 ppm of P is exactly the same thing as saying the plants need N at a ratio of 3:1 to 20:1 to P. The only difference being, I use the term ratio which triggers longstanding preconceptions.

Where I think ratios are better suited as the term used, is when one decides that they want to increase or decrease growth of the plant by taking the concentrations of the nutrients outside of the bounds often specified. If we decide to decrease the growth rate of the plant, we can limit the supply of N for instance, leaving the other nutrient concentrations alone. What ratios describe to us, is that we can limit all of the nutrients by some specified margin, for the same reduction in growth rate, for a significantly less concentration of elements in the water. Here, my preconceived notions regarding excess play a large role in my opinion.


----------



## sevendust111 (Jul 15, 2014)

This thread is getting rather technical for me, but I will tell you what I do know. I have rotala in my tank and I am using seachem's full line of ferts (for now), and I am using the same chart for dosing you are using adjusted for a 20L. I use diy co2 as well. When I started, I only 
dosed micros at half of the adjusted dose. Eventually, I noticed similar symptoms your plants are having. Then, I started dosing the full micro amount, still deficiencies. Only when I started to dose seachem's macros at the suggested amount, did the problem mostly subside. Since I still some minor deficiencies, my guess is that I need to increase my macros and probably you do to. Also, don't be afraid to double the suggested dose of Excel and use it everyday. So, I think Portal's idea is the best course of action.


----------



## weaselnoze (Dec 22, 2006)

sevendust111 said:


> This thread is getting rather technical for me, but I will tell you what I do know. I have rotala in my tank and I am using seachem's full line of ferts (for now), and I am using the same chart for dosing you are using adjusted for a 20L. I use diy co2 as well. When I started, I only
> dosed micros at half of the adjusted dose. Eventually, I noticed similar symptoms your plants are having. Then, I started dosing the full micro amount, still deficiencies. Only when I started to dose seachem's macros at the suggested amount, did the problem mostly subside. Since I still some minor deficiencies, my guess is that I need to increase my macros and probably you do to. Also, don't be afraid to double the suggested dose of Excel and use it everyday. So, I think Portal's idea is the best course of action.


Thanks for sharing your experience! I very rarely see anyone on here that uses the full Seachem lineup. For now I am dosing half the Fe, triple the macros and keeping Flourish the same as the adjusted chart.


----------



## Zapins (Jan 7, 2006)

Audionut said:


> Honestly, I think we have the same understanding, but different preconceptions and cultural backgrounds that hinder the discussion.


Yes, I get that feeling too after discussing it a bit with you. Forum posts often don't really capture the meaning of what we try to say, or at least our meaning isn't conveyed very well with text only compared with in person or voice conversations. 



Audionut said:


> People don't think of deficiencies and toxicities until clear symptoms are present, but any process that hinders the optimal growth of the plant could be considered as a deficiency or a toxicity. re: your points regarding limitations.


Everyone has slightly different definitions for each word. For me, the slight difference between a deficiency and limitation is important. I had a discussion about it a few years back here: "CO2 Deficiency" Definition Discussion - Page 3 - Plant Deficiencies - Aquatic Plant Central



Audionut said:


> This is an interesting point. If the absence of one nutrient ceases the uptake of another nutrient, then clearly the absent nutrient is deficient from a supply perspective. Add more of that nutrient and things begin to work again. But from a plant perspective, although the addition of the lacking nutrient will also make things work again, does the plant only show signs of the supply deficient nutrient, or, would the plant show symptoms of deficiency of both nutrients? Or, if the supply deficient nutrient plays a large role in the facilitation of the other nutrient, could we instead expect to see deficiency symptoms related to the nutrient that is in plentiful supply, but otherwise deficient from the plants perspective due to it's inability to uptake that nutrient?


This is a great question. I do not know the answer to this for sure and I do not think there is enough research to say exactly one way or another but here are my thoughts on the matter. 

People have many different transporters to absorb each type of nutrient (they all absorb the same nutrient in exchange for a different counter ion), plants probably also have a similar number of different transporters for the same nutrient. So when one counter ion runs out the person/plant can still absorb the nutrient through a different transporter that uses a different counter ion. For example, if you had a transporter that pulled in K in exchange for Cl, and another one that pulled in K in exchange for Na, then if you ran out of all Cl the plant would still take up K by swapping it for Na. I haven't looked into the different types of K transporters plants have but I highly doubt plants rely on just 1 transporter to take in all the K they need, that seems a bit unsafe for survival. The same is probably true for each nutrient. 

In this way, if you completely ran out of 1 nutrient or counter ion in the environment the plant should just run out of that one nutrient and not the counter ion as well. This concept is summarized as "Liebig's law of the minimum" which has been around for nearly 200 years or so and basically states that a plant's growth rate [and health] depends on the most limiting nutrient in the environment. 




Audionut said:


> Clearly, nutrients are needed in different concentrations by the plant. This is why some subset of nutrients are labeled as macros, with another subset of nutrients labeled as micros. And within these subsets of nutrients, Some of the macro nutrients are needed in higher concentrations then the others, and indeed for the micros. I realize that there has been a ton and more of bullshi* perpetrated in the industry for some time regarding _ideal ratios_. But I'm not really interested in the bullshi* aspect of the industry, I'm interested in the facts. Saying that plants need 10-20 ppm of N and 1-4 ppm of P is exactly the same thing as saying the plants need N at a ratio of 3:1 to 20:1 to P. The only difference being, I use the term ratio which triggers longstanding preconceptions.


I see what you are saying. I have developed somewhat of a knee jerk reaction to "ratios" due to the confusion that word brought to the hobby in the past.

Concentrations don't really matter much in the long run, 10-20 ppm or 1 ppm as long as the nutrient doesn't run out the plants will grow. At very low concentrations (like 1 ppm) it is very easy for the plants to use it up before the next dose comes and then enter into a state of deficiency. At very high concentrations a toxicity might be possible. That is why the general advice is around 10-20 ppm, because for most people this will get them from 1 dose to another without running out and causing deficiencies and it is not damaging to the plant. 

What is interesting to me is the ideal concentration in ppm that each plant prefers in order to grow the fastest and healthiest it can. I believe Marcel is looking into this with his recent post & experiment. 



Audionut said:


> Where I think ratios are better suited as the term used, is when one decides that they want to increase or decrease growth of the plant by taking the concentrations of the nutrients outside of the bounds often specified. If we decide to decrease the growth rate of the plant, we can limit the supply of N for instance, leaving the other nutrient concentrations alone. What ratios describe to us, is that we can limit all of the nutrients by some specified margin, for the same reduction in growth rate, for a significantly less concentration of elements in the water. Here, my preconceived notions regarding excess play a large role in my opinion.


It is difficult to say how to reduce the growth rate of plants without causing a deficiency, perhaps it is possible to do with macros and micros but deficiencies are an extremely common problem so maybe not? 

The 3 ways I know of to induce a slow growth rate without damaging the plant are with less light (energy), less temperature (energy), and less CO2 (energy in sugar form). These three also make sense because they all greatly affect the amount of energy a plant has available to put towards growing rather than limiting the building blocks of cells like limiting Macros & micros would do. What are your thoughts?


----------



## Audionut (Apr 24, 2015)

Zapins said:


> What is interesting to me is the ideal concentration in ppm that each plant prefers in order to grow the fastest and healthiest it can. I believe Marcel is looking into this with his recent post & experiment.


Yes. For me, I have strong objections to excess, so it's about finding the minimum concentrations of things to deliver the required level of growth. And then to take that a step further, what role does the concentration of the thing have in regards to creatures wellbeing.

I have some stem plants that respond really well to (NH4)2SO4 dosing of 2 ppm per day (NH4). They explode. The other nutrients are in good supply, since the increase in NH4 provides a net positive response. You can see some details at http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/12-tank-journals/933937-audionuts-chemistry-lesson.html.

However, 2 ppm of NH4 per day leads to an NO3 concentration of around 60 ppm (or more) thanks in large part of nitrifying bacteria. So although the 2 ppm per day of NH4 is excellent from the plants perspective, but from the creatures perspective it's not so good.

I believe this is the intent of Marcel. Showing the damaging affects of these high concentrations towards creatures, and then, performing the tests to show that some reductions in these concentrations only leads to small reductions in plant growth. A balancing act. This revolves around the deficiency/limitation discussion also. It's not about inducing a deficiency, it's simply about providing a small limitation on the growth rate of the plant, not it's health (deficiency), and showing how that small limitation towards plant growth can have large positive affects towards creatures.

If he was just to say that large concentrations of nutrients leads to poor creature health, all of about 5 people would find that interesting. But by providing well thought out testing showing how the reduction in concentrations only provides a small limiting factor towards plant growth, he is better able to reach a larger audience.

Agreed with all of your other statements. I can't comment further at this time since family duties call. Cheers.


----------



## ccar2000 (Sep 3, 2011)

weaselnoze said:


> I very rarely see anyone on here that uses the full Seachem lineup.


For what it is worth I am a full line Seachem user too. I use the original Seachem dosing chart and have modified it for dosing every other day. And I am dosing Excel at about 1.5x


----------



## weaselnoze (Dec 22, 2006)

ccar2000 said:


> For what it is worth I am a full line Seachem user too. I use the original Seachem dosing chart and have modified it for dosing every other day. And I am dosing Excel at about 1.5x


Good to know thanks!


----------



## Zapins (Jan 7, 2006)

Audionut said:


> Yes. For me, I have strong objections to excess, so it's about finding the minimum concentrations of things to deliver the required level of growth. And then to take that a step further, what role does the concentration of the thing have in regards to creatures wellbeing.
> 
> I have some stem plants that respond really well to (NH4)2SO4 dosing of 2 ppm per day (NH4). They explode. The other nutrients are in good supply, since the increase in NH4 provides a net positive response. You can see some details at http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/12-tank-journals/933937-audionuts-chemistry-lesson.html.
> 
> However, 2 ppm of NH4 per day leads to an NO3 concentration of around 60 ppm (or more) thanks in large part of nitrifying bacteria. So although the 2 ppm per day of NH4 is excellent from the plants perspective, but from the creatures perspective it's not so good.


I am curious, why do you have objections to dosing excess? For fish health reasons?

I've read some studies on fish that looked for toxicity from nitrates and other nutrients. The concentrations they find for harmful and the LD50's they come up with are surprisingly low often times, at or below aquarium concentrations.

I do however wonder about the usefulness of these studies for us. The species they used were notoriously sensitive to begin with and are found in water that is usually pretty devoid of nutrients. Our fish are for the most part very well domesticated, are originally from eutrophic ponds/rivers/streams with a lot higher average nitrate load and are presumably more tolerant of these nutrients.

Another thing to think about is that stress is generally additive. Nutrients can can cause stress, but so can the fish's environment, tank load, other species in the tank, number of hiding spaces, brightness of the tank, etc. From my own personal experience I've noticed that fish are far more stressed out in petstore tanks with low nitrate/other nutrient readings than in a heavily planted tank with high nutrients in the water. Perhaps the moderately high to high levels of nutrients we routinely use in our tanks isn't as harmful as the studies would lead us to believe? After all the study's fish are often kept in sterile, tiny tanks, where lots of stress can add to their health problems. 



Audionut said:


> However, 2 ppm of NH4 per day leads to an NO3 concentration of around 60 ppm (or more) thanks in large part of nitrifying bacteria. So although the 2 ppm per day of NH4 is excellent from the plants perspective, but from the creatures perspective it's not so good.


Ammonia is preferred by some plants over NO3, but there are quite a few more that don't do well with it, or do just as well as NO3, this is also mainly for terrestrial crops who just have their more tolerant roots exposed to ammonia rather than the more delicate leaves/stem/buds. The Handbook of Plant Nutrition gives a really good explanation of ammonium toxicity and how under anaerobic, wet, waterlogged soil conditions it becomes a lot more toxic. I'll have to see if I can dig up the library link where you can download it, it is a very worthwhile book to have. 



Audionut said:


> If he was just to say that large concentrations of nutrients leads to poor creature health, all of about 5 people would find that interesting. But by providing well thought out testing showing how the reduction in concentrations only provides a small limiting factor towards plant growth, he is better able to reach a larger audience.


I will have to read through the rest of his thread at some point. There never seems to be enough time in a day anymore...


----------



## Audionut (Apr 24, 2015)

Zapins said:


> I am curious, why do you have objections to dosing excess? For fish health reasons?


In the simplest manner, yes. If I was to become descriptive it would require more time then I currently have. Actually, I think I can be a little more descriptive in a quick manner.

I like nature. She has provided the means for all life on earth to thrive. If nature thought that the excess of things was needed to support life, then I would probably apply the same principles too.



Zapins said:


> I've read some studies on fish that looked for toxicity from nitrates and other nutrients. The concentrations they find for harmful and the LD50's they come up with are surprisingly low often times, at or below aquarium concentrations.
> 
> I do however wonder about the usefulness of these studies for us.


It's funny you should mention that. My post here shares the same thoughts.




Zapins said:


> Another thing to think about is that stress is generally additive.


It's funny you should mention this too. I've labeled it as stress factors. As long as the *combined* stress factors are below some threshold, the creatures should live a healthy life.

edit: For clarity, regardless of the all of the other parameters that support life, if one of those parameters is significantly outside of the bounds of those required for life, then regardless, life will still perish.



Zapins said:


> Ammonia is preferred by some plants over NO3,


It was my understanding that all plants must transform NO3 to NH4 for use.

Also you point out other confounding factors that lead to detrimental affects of NH3, not specifically NH3 in and of itself.

I maintain a pH level of around 5.5 pH. So for me, it's not about what NH3 does or doesn't do, it's about what NH4 does and doesn't do. 
@Zapins, this one?


----------



## Straight shooter (Nov 26, 2015)

I just want to add in something Marcel G mentioned referring to plants ability to survive super high nutrient concentrations:



> For plants we can use 200 ppm NO3, 20 ppm PO4, 40 ppm CO2 etc., and most of the plant species may do just fine.


http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...tritional-requirements-aquarium-plants-6.html

Seems to be a lot of worry about toxicity in plants when they can handle much higher concentrations than we would ever dose.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

Straight shooter said:


> Seems to be a lot of worry about toxicity in plants when they can handle much higher concentrations than we would ever dose.


This is an incomplete statement. While it's true that for primary and secondary macro nutrients, the range that it can become toxic is in far excess of what should be reasonably dosed (as to not kill animals), when it comes to trace nutrients, it can very easily become toxic both to the plants and animals at the concentrations suggested by many fertilization routines.

So do you think it is wise to dose more iron than phosphorus, when iron is a micronutrient while phosphorus is a macro nutrient?


----------



## Straight shooter (Nov 26, 2015)

Can you provide a scientific reference for any of your claims Solcielo? It seems your experience is completely anecdotal. I haven't seen ONE meaningful shread of evidence from you.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

Straight shooter said:


> Can you provide a scientific reference for any of your claims Solcielo? It seems your experience is completely anecdotal. I haven't seen ONE meaningful shread of evidence from you.


That was pretty derisive thing to say. I encourage you to be respectful especially when you are the one who's lacking knowledge and understanding in this instance.

The knowledge in my previous post can be easily found in any basic botany/plant biology textbook. Or on the internet.


----------



## Audionut (Apr 24, 2015)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> That was pretty derisive thing to say. I encourage you to be respectful especially when you are the one who's lacking knowledge and understanding in this instance.
> 
> The knowledge in my previous post can be easily found in any basic botany/plant biology textbook. Or on the internet.



It was a question, a statement regarding what your evidence appears to be, and other statement regarding the lack of sound evidence.

Only a troll would claim that this is a derisive thing to say, while simultaneously attacking that persons knowledge and understanding.


----------



## Straight shooter (Nov 26, 2015)

> The knowledge in my previous post can be easily found in any basic botany/plant biology textbook. Or on the internet.


Anybody could make this claim regarding the source of their information. You wouldn't appreciate someone using this statement in a discussion regarding nutrient toxicity if that opinion opposed yours, why should we put up with it?

My aim is not to offend you too much Solcielo, I don't even know you. Just using my common sense in addressing statements that I believe are unfounded, and responding to what I see as spamming, not sober discussion.


----------



## jr125 (Mar 5, 2015)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> The knowledge in my previous post can be easily found in any basic botany/plant biology textbook. Or on the internet.


To me if this information is so easily available the appropriate response when asked to present it would be to do so instead of just state that it is "easily found". I have read many requests for you to simply substantiate your claims with some reputable documentation, source material etc. and don't know that you have responded with any ever. I think your credibility here would go up if you would simply do so. 

I don't think anybody's reason for being here is anything other than getting good, accurate information so we can all get a little smarter.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

jr125 said:


> To me if this information is so easily available the appropriate response when asked to present it would be to do so instead of just state that it is "easily found". I have read many requests for you to simply substantiate your claims with some reputable documentation, source material etc. and don't know that you have responded with any ever. I think your credibility here would go up if you would simply do so.
> 
> I don't think anybody's reason for being here is anything other than getting good, accurate information so we can all get a little smarter.


If I were to post a link to something that is indeed easily found, that would be an insult to their intelligence. This is the internet age, not back in the days of the Dewey decimal system and calling cards. The information is easily found if a simple search were performed. Google.com is a good search engine and one I recommend since that is what I used to search for most of the articles and information.

And I disagree that we are all here to find information. If that were true, why are certain ideas automatically dismissed and derided in favor of prevailing ones even by those who are very experienced? And these prevailing ideas don't even have scientific support, just someone whom others regard as an authority that says so, and shows fancy pictures, therefore it must be true. So it seems there are some people who are looking for answers to fit their preconceived notions; they are looking for anything that fits their dogma. Anything that doesn't or contradicts it is automatically dismissed. In psychology, we refer to this phenomenon as confirmation bias.

I will not post links to anything that can easily be found or is so basic that it's always included in introductory textbooks. If it were obscure, that would be different and I'd easily post a link.


----------



## c9bug (Feb 15, 2015)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> If I were to post a link to something that is indeed easily found, that would be an insult to their intelligence. This is the internet age, not back in the days of the Dewey decimal system and calling cards. The information is easily found if a simple search were performed. Google.com is a good search engine and one I recommend since that is what I used to search for most of the articles and information.
> 
> 
> I will not post links to anything that can easily be found or is so basic that it's always included in introductory textbooks. If it were obscure, that would be different and I'd easily post a link.


I doubt anyone would consider this to be an insult to their intelligence. It is common practice to cite your sources. Maybe you can just post your evidence once and then refer back to it when anyone questions you in the future? I would also like to note that many of us may not have access to plant biology textbooks. 

Personally, I would be interested in seeing your data, especially if you documented it. However without that or even relevant references, people are going to be skeptical of your claims. Especially if you tell them to do the research on their own. Not everyone has the time or the energy to research every claim they hear.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

c9bug said:


> I doubt anyone would consider this to be an insult to their intelligence. It is common practice to cite your sources. Maybe you can just post your evidence once and then refer back to it when anyone questions you in the future? I would also like to note that many of us may not have access to plant biology textbooks.
> 
> Personally, I would be interested in seeing your data, especially if you documented it. However without that or even relevant references, people are going to be skeptical of your claims. Especially if you tell them to do the research on their own. Not everyone has the time or the energy to research every claim they hear.


If it's common practice to cite your sources prior to belief, then why do so many people follow EI without ever having seen a single article? A couple of fancy pictures are enough, even though they show symptoms of toxicity. And the hundreds of people who've had issues, what about them? Their issues are dismissed and the user is to blame. And if it's an authority who dismisses them, then others dismiss them as well. There are probably more than a thousand different threads across various forums asking what's wrong with their plants. I've already counted more than 100 on this forum alone that goes back only _three_ months. In a year, that's over 400 threads all asking the same thing: What's wrong with my plants?

I share the results of my experiments on my local forum. I'm not attacked or trolled there nor is what I share derided.

Most of the basic stuff on plant biology is available freely online. Just search "plant nutrient toxicity." The topic is covered extensively by both academics and hobbyist plant growers.


----------



## c9bug (Feb 15, 2015)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> If it's common practice to cite your sources prior to belief, then why do so many people follow EI without ever having seen a single article? A couple of fancy pictures are enough, even though they show symptoms of toxicity. And the hundreds of people who've had issues, what about them? Their issues are dismissed and the user is to blame. And if it's an authority who dismisses them, then others dismiss them as well. There are probably more than a thousand different threads across various forums asking what's wrong with their plants. I've already counted more than 100 on this forum alone that goes back only _three_ months. In a year, that's over 400 threads all asking the same thing: What's wrong with my plants?
> 
> I share the results of my experiments on my local forum. I'm not attacked or trolled there nor is what I share derided.
> 
> Most of the basic stuff on plant biology is available freely online. Just search "plant nutrient toxicity." The topic is covered extensively by both academics and hobbyist plant growers.


At the moment EI users are are not making a claim or trying to convince someone else of the validity of their position. Photographic evidence of their own experiences is not perfect, but it can still be convincing. Adopters of EI likely heard that this was one method to have a successful planted tank and tried it out. Their personal experience either turned them off of the EI regimen or kept them on board. If there are problems with the EI protocol, I would want to know, but I would need more than just a comment. While I don't doubt your claim that there are hundreds of people who are having issues with EI, we don't know their circumstances. There are a multitude of problems that can be attributed to why someones' tank is having issues, fertilizer may not be the only problem. The most common issue I see is low CO2 or high light levels. I can just as easily say to you that thousands of people have had success with PPS pro or EI or (insert your favorite fertilizing regimen here), giving a number like that is meaningless to this argument unless you can cite something.

I'm sorry that you feel attacked or trolled, however do not mistake requests for evidence as such. If you disagree stand up for your opinion and provide evidence, your own or from elsewhere. Again, if the information is so prevalent, please provide some guidance as to where to look. If it is not worth your effort, that is fine, but it does weaken your argument. I just now googled "plant nutrient toxicity" as you suggested and I found nothing particularly relevant to planted tanks.

I do encourage you to provide results from your experiments. Sure people will question you, but would you really have it any other way? You may bring something new to the table or make people question their previous beliefs. You may also find out some error in your procedure and learn from the process. None of this is possible if you act under the assumption that you are being attacked or trolled.


----------



## LRJ (Jul 31, 2014)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> If I were to post a link to something that is indeed easily found, that would be an insult to their intelligence. This is the internet age, not back in the days of the Dewey decimal system and calling cards. The information is easily found if a simple search were performed. Google.com is a good search engine and one I recommend since that is what I used to search for most of the articles and information.
> 
> And I disagree that we are all here to find information. If that were true, why are certain ideas automatically dismissed and derided in favor of prevailing ones even by those who are very experienced? And these prevailing ideas don't even have scientific support, just someone whom others regard as an authority that says so, and shows fancy pictures, therefore it must be true. So it seems there are some people who are looking for answers to fit their preconceived notions; they are looking for anything that fits their dogma. Anything that doesn't or contradicts it is automatically dismissed. In psychology, we refer to this phenomenon as confirmation bias.
> 
> I will not post links to anything that can easily be found or is so basic that it's always included in introductory textbooks. If it were obscure, that would be different and I'd easily post a link.


Solcielo, I think some pictures of your thriving plants (or other photographic evidence) would go a long way in people's minds toward supporting the credibility of your claims. At the least, it would make them more difficult to dismiss off hand. Whether it should be this way or not, that's just how people are. I would love to see some pictures of your tank(s).


----------



## c9bug (Feb 15, 2015)

Solcielo, I would like to add one more thing. When people ask for you to substantiate you claims (you can do this with photos of your own tanks after they suffered trace toxicity), they are not dismissing your opinion, rather it is new information to them and they want more information. If anything they are actually interested (if even a bit skeptical).


----------



## jr125 (Mar 5, 2015)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> If I were to post a link to something that is indeed easily found, that would be an insult to their intelligence. This is the internet age, not back in the days of the Dewey decimal system and calling cards. The information is easily found if a simple search were performed. Google.com is a good search engine and one I recommend since that is what I used to search for most of the articles and information.
> 
> And I disagree that we are all here to find information. If that were true, why are certain ideas automatically dismissed and derided in favor of prevailing ones even by those who are very experienced? And these prevailing ideas don't even have scientific support, just someone whom others regard as an authority that says so, and shows fancy pictures, therefore it must be true. So it seems there are some people who are looking for answers to fit their preconceived notions; they are looking for anything that fits their dogma. Anything that doesn't or contradicts it is automatically dismissed. In psychology, we refer to this phenomenon as confirmation bias.
> 
> I will not post links to anything that can easily be found or is so basic that it's always included in introductory textbooks. If it were obscure, that would be different and I'd easily post a link.


Yes, we are all here to share information. I have a tiny fraction of the knowledge most posters here have. Most of them don't just blindly rely on what others have said or what this study says or that study says. It's that very "experience" you are talking about that tells us what is really going on. I don't think notions are dismissed or held on to unless there is a measure of real life experience that justifies it one way or the other. It may just be that people with so much "experience" have worked though some of these situations before either on their own or with the help of someone else and are only sharing what they have learned from those experiences.

I don't get that people are unwilling to accept what you are saying at all. They would like to know what you are basing it on. With all due respect you seem to be the one that is unwilling to consider other points of view. With the huge amount of variables possible in each of the hundreds of specific situations where people are having "problems with their plants" there must be just as large a number of different causes or contributing factors for those "problems". People aren't dismissing trace toxicity, I think they are just skeptical that it seems to be the cut and dried diagnosis in such a high number of situations when that runs contrary to their own experience. I'm not sure what that is called in psychology, I call it common sense.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

c9bug said:


> I'm sorry that you feel attacked or trolled, however do not mistake requests for evidence as such. If you disagree stand up for your opinion and provide evidence, your own or from elsewhere. Again, if the information is so prevalent, please provide some guidance as to where to look. If it is not worth your effort, that is fine, but it does weaken your argument. I just now googled "plant nutrient toxicity" as you suggested and I found nothing particularly relevant to planted tanks.
> 
> None of this is possible if you act under the assumption that you are being attacked or trolled.


How do you explain the behavior of some members here? I'd quote them but they're now on my ignore list. I just took one guy off my ignore list yesterday, and today he attacks me. That was really quick, or maybe its that I didn't see all the other attacks since he was on my ignore list. These are very blatant, obvious to anyone who reads them. Others do it in subtle ways so they get away with it. So there's no need on your part to apologize, which by the way, actually dismisses or ignores their behavior as well as my own observations that they're trolling. So if you stand by and do nothing, that justifies their behavior. So instead of addressing it to me, perhaps you should address it to them to stop and act respectfully.

Bump:


jr125 said:


> I don't get that people are unwilling to accept what you are saying at all. They would like to know what you are basing it on.


Again, the 100+ threads in just the past _three_ months all asking about the problems with their plants when they are dosing and doing everything 'right' and they're still having issues. These are threads I personally read through, identified toxicity by either the pictures provided or by the description of the problems, or both. This is the evidence right here. The only thing different is that I have the knowledge and experience to identify the symptoms of toxicity, even when everyone else says it's a low CO2, low flow, or some deficiency issue.

Bump:


LRJ said:


> Solcielo, I think some pictures of your thriving plants (or other photographic evidence) would go a long way in people's minds toward supporting the credibility of your claims. At the least, it would make them more difficult to dismiss off hand. Whether it should be this way or not, that's just how people are. I would love to see some pictures of your tank(s).


Why do you think I have thriving plants? I've never made any such claim. The only thing I've done is identify toxicity (or deficiency but this is rare) when I see it. If you want to learn to do what I'm able to do but not even the very experienced in this hobby can do, then look for yourself and look and see what I'm pointing at. People spend way too much time talking about my finger when it's pointing to the stars.


----------



## c9bug (Feb 15, 2015)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> So there's no need on your part to apologize, which by the way, actually dismisses or ignores their behavior as well as my own observations that they're trolling. So if you stand by and do nothing, that justifies their behavior. So instead of addressing it to me, perhaps you should address it to them to stop and act respectfully.


I have also noticed some very polite requests for you to show your evidence. Right now what you are claiming goes against what many here think to be correct. For instance OP has is using sea chem ferts, which are not all that high in micros. I think worrying about traces in this instance is actually bad advice. 

I have heard very little about trace toxicity on these forums. But truthfully I have some doubts about the amounts used in EI dosing (not seachem though, there is very little nutrients in comprehensive or trace). This is why I would like to see the evidence you can provide. I want to know more about this issue. When you claim to have the answers at 100% certainty (regarding trace toxicity) but tell me to look up the answers myself, I can't help but get a bit annoyed. 

I understand that some comments were a little blunt, however the most recent one you quoted that was asking for evidence was quite polite. I share their the opinion that I would like some sort of evidence about why you think this is trace toxicity. I would also like to note that some of the things you said were not in the best taste either. I will refer to your quote earlier in this thread:

"That was pretty derisive thing to say. I encourage you to be respectful *especially when you are the one who's lacking knowledge and understanding in this instance*."

How do you know he/she is lacking in knowledge. It seems like a rather condescending assumption don't you think? Even if you think that, phrasing in that way is bound to upset some people. I also don't think there is anything wrong about asking for evidence to your claim.

I hope you don't feel that I am being rude or attacking you. Again, I actually want to learn more if trace toxicity is actually a problem.


----------



## jr125 (Mar 5, 2015)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Bump:
> 
> Again, the 100+ threads in just the past _three_ months all asking about the problems with their plants when they are dosing and doing everything 'right' and they're still having issues. These are threads I personally read through, identified toxicity by either the pictures provided or by the description of the problems, or both. This is the evidence right here. The only thing different is that I have the knowledge and experience to identify the symptoms of toxicity, even when everyone else says it's a low CO2, low flow, or some deficiency issue..


I know of at least one of those threads where you claimed trace toxicity and someone else recommended a lighting and/or water flow/CO2 problem and when the OP tried his recommendations and changed nothing else but that the problem was resolved. How do we explain that? It couldn't have possibly been something other that trace toxicity causing the problem could it?

In all those 100+ threads I don't think every one of them suggested they were "dosing and doing everything else right". I'm not sure any of them did. They were presenting their situation and asking if anyone could identify the problem and suggest changes they could make. Most that responded asked specific questions about what the poster was doing in order to assess the situation and narrow down the many possible variables. 

I'm really trying to keep an open mind here. When someone says something to me that runs contrary to my personal experience or "preconceived notion" I might ask; Why do you say that? I would hardly expect an answer of "its common knowledge, look it up". A reasonable person might take a reasonable amount of time to offer an explanation. You're attitude comes across like "I don't have to waste my time explaining this to idiots".

Graciousness and courtesy is a two-way street.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia (Dec 30, 2013)

c9bug said:


> I have also noticed some very polite requests for you to show your evidence. Right now what you are claiming goes against what many here think to be correct. For instance OP has is using sea chem ferts, which are not all that high in micros. I think worrying about traces in this instance is actually bad advice.


Any micro nutrient can become toxic, even at relatively low amounts, if it's unbalanced with the rest of the other micro nutrients. OP was doing crazy amounts of iron, and had those symptoms of necrotic spots in both old and new leaves. It's not the absolute concentration that matters, it's the relative concentration to the other nutrients. 



> "That was pretty derisive thing to say. I encourage you to be respectful *especially when you are the one who's lacking knowledge and understanding in this instance*."
> 
> How do you know he/she is lacking in knowledge. It seems like a rather condescending assumption don't you think? Even if you think that, phrasing in that way is bound to upset some people. I also don't think there is anything wrong about asking for evidence to your claim.


If the person wasn't lacking knowledge, then he wouldn't have asked for information while simultaneously attacking me and claiming I knew nothing. If he's right, then I don't know no nothing.

Bump:


jr125 said:


> I know of at least one of those threads where you claimed trace toxicity and someone else recommended a lighting and/or water flow/CO2 problem and when the OP tried his recommendations and changed nothing else but that the problem was resolved. How do we explain that? It couldn't have possibly been something other that trace toxicity causing the problem could it?


Do I respond to the troll when he's asking a valid question? I know that the answer would be very relevant to the readers of the thread and provide understanding to a relatively unknown topic, but should I? If I called you names and then asked you a question, would you answer? 



> I'm really trying to keep an open mind here. When someone says something to me that runs contrary to my personal experience or "preconceived notion" I might ask; Why do you say that? I would hardly expect an answer of "its common knowledge, look it up". A reasonable person might take a reasonable amount of time to offer an explanation. You're attitude comes across like "I don't have to waste my time explaining this to idiots".
> 
> Graciousness and courtesy is a two-way street.


But, you aren't the one asking while simultaneously throwing insults at me. And yet, you just justify that kind of behavior by ignoring the insults, then shift the burden onto me to respond? I'm not going to respond to those who are disrespectful. You may not be the one being attacked, but by standing by and ignoring it, then demanding that I answer, you justify their behavior and are part of the problem.


----------



## jr125 (Mar 5, 2015)

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Bump:
> Do I respond to the troll when he's asking a valid question? I know that the answer would be very relevant to the readers of the thread and provide understanding to a relatively unknown topic, but should I? If I called you names and then asked you a question, would you answer?
> 
> 
> But, you aren't the one asking while simultaneously throwing insults at me. And yet, you just justify that kind of behavior by ignoring the insults, then shift the burden onto me to respond? I'm not going to respond to those who are disrespectful. You may not be the one being attacked, but by standing by and ignoring it, then demanding that I answer, you justify their behavior and are part of the problem.


 I am speaking for myself. I and many others(I assume) learn much from the discussions on these threads. To my knowledge I have not insulted you or derided your views. I am just trying to understand your position. You suggest that too many people just take things at face value because it is commonly accepted. Isn't that what you are asking us to do in regard to your conclusions? You say that this information is readily available in one post, now you suggest you can provide understanding to a relatively unknown topic. I'm sorry, that's a little hard to understand. Please, enlighten us. Just because some are not being respectful or kind doesn't mean others should be excluded as well.

I am not condoning or justifying anyone's behavior. If you are unwilling to judge me based on MY behavior don't judge me at all. I certainly don't point out every instance of rudeness or inappropriate behavior here, on the road when I'm driving, at the grocery store or anyplace else. I doubt you do either.


----------



## PortalMasteryRy (Oct 16, 2012)

LOL this thread has a become a mess.

@OP: I would like to help solve your issue and validate/invalidate 100% that this is a macro issue. If you are willing to send me a sample of your water then I can do a full check on the N,P,K,Ca,Mg,Fe,Cu,Cl,S and Mn levels of your water using my benchtop photometer. If you are interested send me a PM. 

MY bet is still with one of the macros but this would be the best way to sort it out.


----------



## ccar2000 (Sep 3, 2011)

At this juncture I would not know what to do if I had holes appearing in rotala rotundifolia


----------



## dpod (Sep 16, 2014)

If I had the space and time I'd be setting up a few 10 gallon tanks and performing some experiments. It should be pretty easy to test: how is growth affected by micronutrient concentrations? I'd guess that trying 0.1x, 0.5x, 1.0x, and 2.0x standard EI concentrations would give a pretty good spread of results. Of course, we'd have to try it on Rotala rotundifolia. If Solcielo is right, then we should see less growth with more pinholes and twisted leaves at high levels of micros. Anyone want to give it a go?


----------



## weaselnoze (Dec 22, 2006)

Wow what happened to this thread?

This isn't my forum and I certainly don't have the right to tell anyone how to act, but it IS my thread and I'd prefer to stay on topic. 

I've chosen my plan of attack on this topic and for now, lets just wait and see what becomes of it, mmmkay? 

I appreciate ALL constructive responses. Let's not get into a pissing match please. Thank you to everyone who participated, I will update once I see some results.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

PortalMasteryRy said:


> @OP: I would like to help solve your issue and validate/invalidate 100% that this is a macro issue. If you are willing to send me a sample of your water then I can do a full check on the N,P,K,Ca,Mg,Fe,Cu,Cl,S and Mn levels of your water using my benchtop photometer. If you are interested send me a PM.
> 
> MY bet is still with one of the macros but this would be the best way to sort it out.


Did this ever happen?


----------



## PortalMasteryRy (Oct 16, 2012)

@burr740: Nope. It did not happen. Unfortunately only a few of us hobbyist still appreciate the value of being able to "read the water" as part of troubleshooting the tank. I find it once you learn to get an idea of the parameters, you can pretty much grow anything using the simply principle of balancing the light, CO2 and nutrients.


----------

