# Dirted tanks and carpet plants - advice needed



## aquaBender (Aug 18, 2016)

Hello all! I recently set up a dirted tank following the Walstad method and have some questions. I've already had great success with the Walstad method and a jungle style aquarium however I wanted something a bit more minimalist this time - a simple 'scape with a foreground carpet, some nice slow growing midground plants, and some tall background plants.

Tank setup is a standard 10 gallon with an Aqueon QuietFlow 10 and Finnex Planted+. I used 2 inches of sifted organic potting soil covered by about 1 1/2 inches of gravel. There is a filter pad in the filter for mechanical filtration and to slow down water movement. 

After visiting my LFS, I ended up with Lilaeopsis brasiliensis, Crypt lutea, and Vallisneria spiralis. These have been planted for 10 days now, with the crypts and vals showing signs of growth. I have also put in some water lettuce and duckweed in a hope that these will help stabilize the tank. 

This is where i get to the questions...Has anyone had success carpeting brasiliensis in dirted tanks? Does anyone have experience with slower growing plants in a Walstad setup, and will floating growth compensate for these slower growers in initially stabilizing the tank? And what experience do people have with the growth of Crypt lutea in dirted scenarios, as I don't want these to grow much faster than the Lilaeopsis and shield light.

Thanks for the help!


----------



## nickquinteros (Mar 24, 2017)

the brazilian micro swords can make a good carpetting effect in your tank but i think the val might be too big for your tank. typically vals will grow to 3 feet long. a stem plant might be better as a background plant as you can trim them down when they reach the top of the tank and even replant the cuttings to fill out the back. the crypt will grow very slowly as most crypts do. and make sure you thin out the duckweed every so often so the bottom of the tank can get light.


----------



## Bananableps (Nov 6, 2013)

I have never grown Lilaeopsis brasiliensis, but my experience with other carpeting plants (glosso, mc, dhg, s. repens, r. inundatus) in dirt always involved a long period of acclimation before any noticeable growth. Eventually, all of these plants formed very satisfying carpets, but it seems to take awhile for them to adjust to getting nutrients from the substrate rather than from the water column. 

Some aquatic plants (grasses, swords, vals) seem to prefer substrate nutrient sources while others (myrio, hydrocotyle, ludwigia) prefer the water column. According to some quick Google'n, Lilaeopsis brasiliensis is not a true sword. It might be closely related to hydrocotyle, suggesting a water column preference.

Eager to see how it turns out either way! I would very much appreciate it if you posted a pic with followup resultsin my thread.

And I agree with nick: vals will get too tall for that tank. It's a pain to do maintenance when plants get tall enough to form a mat at the surface.


----------



## aquaBender (Aug 18, 2016)

Thanks for the replies! I was interested in having the vals in the back with their leaves being blown by the filter outflow. The hob turns over 100 gph so there's a good flow about the tank, and I was thinking I would eventually remove the floaters and the val leaves would float about the top. I also planned on limiting any val runner growth so there was only the six i planted in the back. Do you think they would look okay like that? The woman at my LFS actually told me they were a smaller, thinner species than spiralis but I couldn't remember the name. I'm not too keen on pulling them out now as they've already sent up new growth so I'm assuming the roots will be decent. 

I hope Lilaeopsis brasiliensis is similar to other carpet plants and is just going through some acclimation, because it doesn't seem too happy right now. The crypts are also showing signs of new growth though.


----------



## Bananableps (Nov 6, 2013)

aquaBender said:


> Thanks for the replies! I was interested in having the vals in the back with their leaves being blown by the filter outflow. The hob turns over 100 gph so there's a good flow about the tank, and I was thinking I would eventually remove the floaters and the val leaves would float about the top. I also planned on limiting any val runner growth so there was only the six i planted in the back. Do you think they would look okay like that? The woman at my LFS actually told me they were a smaller, thinner species than spiralis but I couldn't remember the name. I'm not too keen on pulling them out now as they've already sent up new growth so I'm assuming the roots will be decent.
> 
> I hope Lilaeopsis brasiliensis is similar to other carpet plants and is just going through some acclimation, because it doesn't seem too happy right now. The crypts are also showing signs of new growth though.


I mean of course it's totally subjective. See how it goes. If they get out of control and you want to pull them later, you can use scissors to cut the roots under the substrate for a clean minimum-cap-breach removal.

Don't worry about the carpeting plants - it hasn't been that long yet. If nothing happens after a month, then you can worry.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Doing a minimalist setup via the Walstad method will probably be somewhat tougher to do. You have a high organic load that sits in the tank and you don't have the plant mass to uptake it. In addition doing a light demanding carpeting type plant, your forced to push pretty good light to the bottom of the tank to satisfy it. 

Strong light, low plant mass, less uptake, high organic load = algae. 

What was the most light demanding plant you grew in your other walstad style setup?


----------



## Bananableps (Nov 6, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> Doing a minimalist setup via the Walstad method will probably be somewhat tougher to do. You have a high organic load that sits in the tank and you don't have the plant mass to uptake it. In addition doing a light demanding carpeting type plant, your forced to push pretty good light to the bottom of the tank to satisfy it.
> 
> Strong light, low plant mass, less uptake, high organic load = algae.
> 
> What was the most light demanding plant you grew in your other walstad style setup?


This is an old, bad image, and I would never allow my stemmed plants to look this bad now'a'days, but here's a semi-minimalist Walstad tank I had running for about 18 months. Never any algae problems. Only tore it down to do something different.










That said, hairgrass is possibly much bigger nutrient hog than the plants used in OP's tank. Some fast growing stems in the back might help, but perhaps the floating plants will be enough.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Bananableps said:


> This is an old, bad image, and I would never allow my stemmed plants to look this bad now'a'days, but here's a semi-minimalist Walstad tank I had running for about 18 months. Never any algae problems. Only tore it down to do something different.
> 
> That said, hairgrass is possibly much bigger nutrient hog than the plants used in OP's tank. Some fast growing stems in the back might help, but perhaps the floating plants will be enough.


Read my quote again.



houseofcards said:


> Doing a minimalist setup via the Walstad method will *probably be somewhat tougher to do*. You have a high organic load that sits in the tank and you don't have the plant mass to uptake it. In addition doing a light demanding carpeting type plant, your forced to push pretty good light to the bottom of the tank to satisfy it.
> 
> Strong light, low plant mass, less uptake, high organic load = algae.
> 
> What was the most light demanding plant you grew in your other walstad style setup?


I never said you can't do it, I said it's somewhat tougher to do. This is not arguable point, less plant mass, more light you are more likely to get algae. There are thousands of hobbyist tanks that back this up. Also from my experience the Lilaeopsis requires more light than most DHG. 

I don't know how long it took you to grow in the hairgrass, but even in plain sand with added co2, it would grow in faster and the tank would be easier to move things around then with dirt. The foreground of your tank, if I'm being honest, where there isn't any hairgrass growing and the dirt has mixed with the cap distracts from the the pristine nature of the setup. You don't have those issues when just using one substrate whether it be sand or a nutrient rich one made for aquaria.

I have nothing against dirt, but if your doing an actual scape you'll be moving things around a lot until its the way you want it and soil does not like to be moved around.


----------



## Bananableps (Nov 6, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> Read my quote again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh without doubt that's correct - as I said in my own post, even what I did wasn't comparable. I was just adding a little extra information on top of your post. Sorry for not clarifying that more in my post.

Yeah the foreground there got messed up from my having to repeatedly pull out clumps of hairgrass to stop it from smothering other plants. Not a good time. Was not a big fan of the scape in general. Will definitely not use hairgrass again without some sort of under-substrate barrier. And I totally concede that this is a drawback of using dirt.

That said, it was incredibly easy to grow. It only took two months for about 4"x4" worth of hairgrass plugs, evenly distributed, to take over that 30 gallon tank. Until it started to get too invasive, I never had to worry about anything other than feeding my fish, topping off, and doing a precautionary water change every two months or so. 

Of course a high tech setup will look better in many ways, but my life has gotten a lot simpler as dust has collected on my bags of dry ferts. I've seen people posting on this forum struggling to get hairgrass to grow hightech because they didn't dial in their ferts right. I know you've seen this image, but dirt with a big of light and no other maintenance can make an awfully nice carpet for very little cost and time:









(don't mind the various leaves and things that blew in there)

I don't want to give the impression that I am actively opposing high tech setups. I just like to advocate for dirt because there are a lot of people who don't know they have options.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Bananableps said:


> ...
> I don't want to give the impression that I am actively opposing high tech setups. I just like to advocate for dirt because there are a lot of people who don't know they have options.


Agree, they both have their place in planted aquaria. And there are certainly some very seasoned hobbyists that use dirt and use it very well and develop some very impressive setups.

Overall though, dirt is harder to work with especially if your a newbie. There's a reason when you look at a Walstad tank the aesthetics are a distant second in importance. It's more for people who enjoy a somewhat self sustaining system, the science of the whole thing. It is called "The Ecology of The Planted Tank".

Most of the tanks operate in a narrow bandwidth of plant selection and light due to the high organic content of the water that feeds the plants as opposed to the "cleaner" water of bigger water changes and dosing inorganic salts in most EI, ADA type setups. 

Your first pic illustrates some of the issues with soil, the mixing of substrates and not receiving enough nutrients/co2 for some plants and/or light limitations. Adding co2, higher light and doing larger water changes allows a much wider bandwidth to operate in and the chances of light and/or nutrient limitation is much less. 

They'll always be skilled hobbyists who can work around this, devote the time, etc, but generally speaking I believe this to be true.


----------



## aquaBender (Aug 18, 2016)

houseofcards said:


> Doing a minimalist setup via the Walstad method will probably be somewhat tougher to do. You have a high organic load that sits in the tank and you don't have the plant mass to uptake it. In addition doing a light demanding carpeting type plant, your forced to push pretty good light to the bottom of the tank to satisfy it.
> 
> Strong light, low plant mass, less uptake, high organic load = algae.
> 
> What was the most light demanding plant you grew in your other walstad style setup?


I haven't grown anything light demanding, only the basics - stuff like Ludwigia repens, Rotala rotundifolia, C. wendtii and other recommended plants from "The Ecology of the Planted Aquarium". I'm hoping that having the duckweed and water lettuce on top, some of which i remove almost daily, will help minimize algae while the others get going. I think the snails are helping as well as it's been 2 weeks and there is not a spot of algae. 

It is hard to move anything around in a dirted tank but I really enjoy having a system that somewhat mimics the ecology of wild freshwaters. I do agree that these tanks usually sacrifice something in terms of the standard planted aquarium aesthetic, which is why I'm really hoping this tank turns out well, as a nice complement to my jungle-style tanks.

Bump:


Bananableps said:


> Oh without doubt that's correct - as I said in my own post, even what I did wasn't comparable. I was just adding a little extra information on top of your post. Sorry for not clarifying that more in my post.
> 
> Yeah the foreground there got messed up from my having to repeatedly pull out clumps of hairgrass to stop it from smothering other plants. Not a good time. Was not a big fan of the scape in general. Will definitely not use hairgrass again without some sort of under-substrate barrier. And I totally concede that this is a drawback of using dirt.
> 
> ...


This tank gives me hope for my carpet, thanks!

I'm also hoping that the floaters will be enough to stabilize the tank, but I may add some Ludwigia repens from another tank. I was hesitant to begin with stems as they went absolutely nuts in my last Walstad tanks in the beginning and started taking over the tank, forming large root masses and stuff, but if I keep them under control I think they would definitely help stabilize the tank.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

aquaBender said:


> It is hard to move anything around in a dirted tank but I really enjoy having a system that somewhat mimics the ecology of wild freshwaters. I do agree that these tanks usually sacrifice something in terms of the standard planted aquarium aesthetic, which is why I'm really hoping this tank turns out well, as a nice complement to my jungle-style tanks.
> .


Yep I agree, pretty much what I’ve been saying. Nothing wrong with it, but usually it’s a different mind set then someone really wanting to scape a tank and having the ability to tweak things by moviing things around.

You might be able to pull it it off, it just becomes a harder balancing act between the foreground plant getting enough light and co2 so it grows. There’s growth and there’s growth. If it lives but doesn’t come in full it’s not really what you want either. Faster growth usually means less algae to inhibit growth.


----------



## Bananableps (Nov 6, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> Agree, they both have their place in planted aquaria. And there are certainly some very seasonal hobbyists that use dirt and use it very well and develop some very impressive setups.
> 
> Overall though, dirt is harder to work with especially if your a newbie. There's a reason when you look at a Walstad tank the aesthetics are a distant second in importance. It's more for people who enjoy a somewhat self sustaining system, the science of the whole thing. It is called "The Ecology of The Planted Tank".
> 
> ...


Look, I'm trying to meet you halfway here, but when you claim that dirt is across-the-board a more difficult way of keeping aquatic plants, for everyone, you're being unreasonable. 

Spending hundreds of dollars on just the upfront cost of the CO2 system, dry ferts, and high intensity lighting is a significant barrier to entry for most. Having to understand various nutrient deficiencies, and how to properly compensate for those deficiencies, is a steep learning curve that no dirted tank owner has to worry about when it comes to keeping 90% of aquarium plants. 

When people come to this forum with dirted tank problems, 99% of the time it's the same issue: they didn't cap the substrate properly because they refused to spend 3 minutes watching a youtube tutorial. It's super easy to put these people on the right path, because dirted tanks are easy. When someone comes to the forum with an issue for their inert substrate tank, however, it's a god damn Sherlock Holmes mystery. Experts with hundreds of gallons of aquaria, decades of experience, and thousands of forum posts disagree about which nutrient is deficient, what spectrum should be used, is fluoride to blame, etc. etc. etc. These are fascinating issues, and solving them can lead to some really great looking aquariums, but I don't think it makes sense to say that ALL beginners are better off getting a tank where they need to worry about all of those things rather than a tank that's basically plug-and-play. And that's just the best case scenario. There are also the beginners who just end up gassing their fish to death, as well as the countless would-be-hobbyists who give up because their plants melted for lack of a microbiology degree.

The excess organics you mention are nothing. If I performed half the water changes you do, the tank in the picture above would look immaculate. The stemmed plants are a mess in that pic because they were battered from bad trimming - I'll be updating my What Works in Dirt Guide soon with some pictures.

A dirted tank is as simple as it gets. You just add dirt, sand, plants, light, and water current. Nothing else. No other school of planted tank keeping is simpler than that.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

This has nothing to do with expense. I purposely pointed out that in term of "scaping" dirt is much more difficult to work with. Even with the correct cap it mixes and makes a mess. Look at the foreground in your own tank.

I'm not here to give you a hard time, I'm telling the truth. My comments have nothing to do with expense (which by the way co2 is no more than the price of a canister filter.) Dirt also limits your range of lighting, thus limiting plant selection. Have you looked at The Ecology of the Planted Aquarium. Look at the pics. It's usually the same 9-10 plant that do well in low-medium light,because the system doesn't work with strong light. The system also doesn't give the plants as much co2 as pressurized so your limited there as well. As I mentioned Walsted is not an aquascaper. Look at the pics in her own books. It's more about the satisfaction of having a system that sustains itself with limited water changes and not adding co2 and/or ferts. Because your relying on first waste, etc. Of course the tanks will be limited to lower light. 

You could stuff the tank full of plants to help, but again that's another limitation to the system that you can't do what you want, but must operate in a more confined system.

If soil is so great, why does Tom Bar (creator of EI) use mostly aquasoil in his tanks? He doesn't sell it, it's sold by ADA. BTW I don't know any professional who would go into a home or business where aesthetics are key and setup a tank with soil? Why not use it if it's so inexpensive and simple as you say? Look at any aquascaping contest, AGA, ADA, etc. you will find almost all using specific substrate made for aquaria, why? 

Getting your NPK from inorganic salts vs the nitrogen cycle is night and day in terms of water quality and flexibility. I already said soil is fine if that's why you want, but if your scaping a tank it's more difficult to work with and does not provide the plants with everything pressurized co2 and adding ferts.


----------



## aquaBender (Aug 18, 2016)

houseofcards said:


> This has nothing to do with expense. I purposely pointed out that in term of "scaping" dirt is much more difficult to work with. Even with the correct cap it mixes and makes a mess. Look at the foreground in your own tank.
> 
> I'm not here to give you a hard time, I'm telling the truth. My comments have nothing to do with expense (which by the way co2 is no more than the price of a canister filter.) Dirt also limits your range of lighting, thus limiting plant selection. Have you looked at The Ecology of the Planted Aquarium. Look at the pics. It's usually the same 9-10 plant that do well in low-medium light,because the system doesn't work with strong light. The system also doesn't give the plants as much co2 as pressurized so your limited there as well. As I mentioned Walsted is not an aquascaper. Look at the pics in her own books. It's more about the satisfaction of having a system that sustains itself with limited water changes and not adding co2 and/or ferts. Because your relying on first waste, etc. Of course the tanks will be limited to lower light.
> 
> ...


I like setting up natural planted tanks with soil, but it is a very different philosophical journey. Whereas using pressurized CO2 and ferts allows people to feel as if they are in control of the system, I think spending that much money and doing so much work is silly when more closely mimicking a wild system delivers very similar results. 

Obviously there are differences between what one can achieve with a dirted scape and a non-dirted, but I believe these are limited only by ingenuity of the scaper and not by the inherent inadequacy of soil.


----------



## Bananableps (Nov 6, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> This has nothing to do with expense. I purposely pointed out that in term of "scaping" dirt is much more difficult to work with. Even with the correct cap it mixes and makes a mess. Look at the foreground in your own tank.


I posted a picture of that tank because OP was asking about thick carpets. As I've already explained, there is some detritus in that tank because DHG grows too quickly, too invasively, and needed to be pulled out. This is not a problem in tanks with other plants. I don't claim to be a great scaper, but my dirted tanks do not have the mess you constantly allude to.










Even with my DHG tank, if I performed anywhere near as many water changes as most high tech tank owners do, detritus would not have been a problem at all.



> I'm not here to give you a hard time, I'm telling the truth. My comments have nothing to do with expense (which by the way co2 is no more than the price of a canister filter.)


What about valves? Diffuser? Regulator? Drop checker? Are you suggesting beginners should take the risk of using a solenoid-free paintball rig? You're either suggesting beginners should take a substantial risk of gassing their fish to death or they should spend hundreds of dollars. It's either a learning barrier or a cost barrier.



> Dirt also limits your range of lighting, thus limiting plant selection. Have you looked at The Ecology of the Planted Aquarium. Look at the pics. *It's usually the same 9-10 plant that do well in low-medium light,because the system doesn't work with strong light. * The system also doesn't give the plants as much co2 as pressurized so your limited there as well. *As I mentioned Walsted is not an aquascaper. Look at the pics in her own books.* It's more about the satisfaction of having a system that sustains itself with limited water changes and not adding co2 and/or ferts. Because your relying on first waste, etc. Of course the tanks will be limited to lower light.


Your proof that dirt limits the range of plant selection to 9-10 plants is that there are only pictures of 9-10 plants in a fairly old aquarium book written by someone _who you just said_ is not an aquascaper. I don't follow your logic.

So far, I have found very few plants that don't thrive in a dirted setup. Those that do fail on first try usually turn out to be successes when I put them under better lighting, and the only plants that I currently list as "failures" are plants I haven't had a chance to try a second time yet. I only have a couple of tanks, and yet I pretty effortlessly manage to keep over 40 species of aquatic plants. I'm sure the full list of dirt-acceptable plants is in the high hundreds. How many plants does someone actually need? 10 years ago, an aquascaper would be hard pressed to collect 100 different species at all, under any setup, and yet you insist that anything short of _every single aquatic plant available _ is an unacceptable limitation.



> You could stuff the tank full of plants to help, but again that's another limitation to the system that you can't do what you want, but must operate in a more confined system.


Your system also has limitations. The time to do weekly water changes and dosing, to measure obscure water parameters, buy expensive products, and monitor a CO2 system that could annihilate a tank's animal population - all of this is a limitation. 



> If soil is so great, why does Tom Bar (creator of EI) use mostly aquasoil in his tanks? He doesn't sell it, it's sold by ADA. BTW I don't know any professional who would go into a home or business where aesthetics are key and setup a tank with soil? Why not use it if it's so inexpensive and simple as you say? Look at any aquascaping contest, AGA, ADA, etc. you will find almost all using specific substrate made for aquaria, why?


This is the thing that bugs me most about your argument. We are talking about what is best for beginners and casual hobbyists. The above statement makes as much sense as insisting that all hobbyist photographers should immediately buy a $1K camera, because that's what professionals use, and who gives a damn whether they know how to use it or how much it costs.

As for domestic aquariums, these people don't use dirt because they don't know about it. They don't know about dirt because pet stores cannot obtain a good profit margin selling it. Most of the new people in this hobby come to this forum with a tank full of eco-complete, and you know as well as I do that eco-complete is pretty much a scam. They have eco-complete because that's what a pet store sold them. They don't have dirt because a pet store didn't sell them dirt.


You ignore the fact that people keep aquariums for different reasons. You ignore the enormous informational and cost barrier to entry of high tech setups. You ignore the scores of people who walk away from this hobby because they failed to make inert substrate work because it is objectively more difficult to get plants to grow in. I know you insist that high tech is easier because it's easier to scape with, but difficult of scaping doesn't mean [censored][censored][censored][censored] if you can't even get plants to survive.





> Getting your NPK from inorganic salts vs the nitrogen cycle is night and day in terms of water quality and flexibility. I already said soil is fine if that's why you want, but if your scaping a tank it's more difficult to work with and does not provide the plants with everything pressurized co2 and adding ferts.


I have healthy breeding fish and great looking plants. I very rarely have any problems with algae. You don't know anything about my water quality.

I'll say it again: all of my tanks are basically plug-and-play. I set them up, I add fish food, I do a water change once every two months, and I watch plants grow. You insist that because this method does not produce the best-possible-looking plants, beginners should not bother with it because beginners in things should only strive for top-level output, and because of aquascaping is more important than ease of plant care. 

I think people would have a much better introduction to the hobby if they started with a method that allowed them to reliably grow aquatic plants before they worried about making their tank look like something from an ADA catalogue.


----------

