# PO4 overdose: plant in trouble



## Jackfrost (Jan 8, 2005)

I didn't see any water numbers, but I would not worry too much. Keep doing some 50% water changes.

You do not want to start "over correcting"

P.S. I have done the same thing also !


----------



## Anthony (Jan 11, 2005)

That is luwdwiga glandulosa. Definitely a beautiful plant. I must get this plant again soon.


----------



## Nix (Mar 7, 2006)

L. glandulosa? Oh, thank you. I sure hope she will get over the shock, she has been a real problem child the last two years.

It shows it's not that undangerous to dose ferts dry, I guess!

Somebody know how GSA can happen even when PO4 is more than high or especially *because* it is high? Baffles me.

So you would go up on my normal dose, that's 2 mg/L/week, of PO4 again, regardless?

As Jackfrost asked my "water numbers", here they are:

2 W/g; GH 7°; KH 3°; NO3 20 mg/l; PO4 1 mg/l (normally around 2 mg/l); CO2 ca. 3O mg/l; Fe ?; pH ?

Thanks!


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

If your plants were growing vigorously then confusing PO4 and NO3 would cause harm by underdosing the nitrates. Then you did a big water change, reducing the nitrates still more. And, the high phosphates encourage the plants to grow still faster, demanding still more nitrates. So, I suggest you assume you have corrected the problem, resume normal nitrate/phosphate dosing, and expect normal plant growth.


----------



## deleted_user_7 (Jul 7, 2003)

Really? Aww this chemistry is killing me!

I've been keeping my nitrate at about 20 ppm and i've been unknowingly, untill yesterday when my test came in, keeping my phosphate at.. are you ready? ten!

I still have GSA  and as you can imagine, diatoms lmao. I've since gotten my phosphate level down to 2. I expect the diatoms to go away and the GSA to get stronger 


I always find that the GSA grows almost exclusively on the first two inches of glass... not above. Strange.I have added jobes sticks, yes, but the GSA never grew above that line before I added them and before I dosed phosphate.


----------



## Nix (Mar 7, 2006)

Really, justlikeapill, you still got GSA with long time 10 mg/l PO4? This is getting not to my liking. 

With me it was surely the very local dry fert overdose that made the problems. Not that I understand
the outbreak of that algae in any way. I hoped to get some enlightening here from the experts. 

Hoppy, I don't think the nitrate even went too low while it happened, I had 5mg/l of it still when
I tested the water after the big change. And I dosed it up again, but not the phosphate.

And it just this one plant so effected and of course the mysterious GSA in its vacinity. But I will do 
as you say and just pretend it never happened. 

On to less mysterious topics...and HAPPY NEW YEAR!


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

It is rarely a good idea to depend on test kits for decisions on how much fertilizer to add unless you first calibrate the test kits. So, part of your problem may be inaccurate test kits, a common occurrence. Both nitrate and phosphate test kits have been reported to have been way off several times on these forums.


----------



## deleted_user_7 (Jul 7, 2003)

OOHkay. I'll look up how to calibrate my test kits. Thanks!

IF there are off can you do a little math to compensate or do you have to buy new ones?


----------



## defdac (Dec 28, 2003)

I've also managed to induce these "calcium deficiency"-like new twisted growth in L. glandulosa with high PO4.

It seems one can limit this "calcium deficiency" in low KH-waters by either have somewhat limiting NO3 or PO4.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

If the PO4 is good, then the CO2 is the main suspect for GSA.

When you add high PO4 to an otherwise PO4 limited tank(goes back to the either EI or test kit calibration), this can increase the CO2 uptake dramatically.

That can lead to mild issues.
Many over dosing experiences lead to increased CO2 uptake because many assume that the levels where fine and adding more would not increase growth more and that it would have no effect on the CO2 deamnd.

This is a very common issue with folks and excess nutrient "issues".
I try to explain but many simply do not believe me and I test the issues, and have done so many times in the past to show and prove this to myself and to them, but they do not come back and support their claims later:thumbsdow

Correaltion does not = causation 
You should be skeptical and cautious about your own assumptions.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## defdac (Dec 28, 2003)

The following seems to go hand in hand with most things that this and other planted tank communites have to say about calcium related disorders.

Folks have claimed to much NO3, PO4, light and even CO2 to be the reason for calcium deficiencies. Also many have said that it seems that large and established root systems seems to be a cure for it. Or shade. Or less light. Or less PO4 or even less NO3 (kekon).

INTERACTION BETWEEN NUTRIENT UPTAKE AND PHOTOSYNTHESIS 

"Calcium deficiencies are not necessarily alleviated by raising soil calcium levels. Activity of the plant in uptake and translocation of calcium is crucial for accumulating sufficient quantities of this element. Kirkby (1979) reviewed the factors important in maximizing calcium uptake by plants. He reviewed the literature dealing with calcium uptake through the free space pathway (the apoplast) *which requires continuously growing roots to always have root segments available for calcium uptake*. He pointed to soil factors, such as *low temperature*, *inadequate aeration*,* poor nutrient statu*s or *high hydrogen-ion concentration*, which inhibit root growth and also inhibit calcium uptake. Light has also been reported to be a factor in calcium uptake (Kasztori, 1969; Scheidecker and Andropoulos-Remand, 1971). Light may influence the uptake of calcium by influencing photosynthesis. 

*It is well known that a wide variety of plants, if forced to grow fast, will develop more calcium-related disorders *(Shear, 1975; Cox, McKee and Dearman, 1976). Fast-growing plants apparently partition the products of photosynthesis in such a way that the carbohydrate supply received by the root is insufficient for a high rate of calcium uptake. *It is immaterial whether the high rate of growth is induced by pruning or by high nitrogen fertilization *(Kirkby, 1979). Recent work with photosynthetic inhibitors has indicated that decrease in photosynthetic activity (Sharma, Ferree and Hartman, 1977) may also severely inhibit root growth and calcium uptake (Faust and Korcak, 1979). Thus the role of photosynthesis in calcium uptake is strongly implicated. This work has been undertaken to evaluate the importance of photosynthesis in root growth and/or in calcium uptake."


----------



## Nix (Mar 7, 2006)

defdac said:


> I've also managed to induce these "calcium deficiency"-like new twisted growth in L. glandulosa with high PO4.


Hi, defdac, that's interessting, and a relief to hear! I wondered already if I saw ghosts. So you think it was a sudden Calcium deficiency caused by the PO4 overdose? And that can be so obvious and dramatic inside of three hours? Wow.http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/images/smilies/icon_neutral.gif



plantbrain said:


> If the PO4 is good, then the CO2 is the main suspect for GSA.
> 
> When you add high PO4 to an otherwise PO4 limited tank(goes back to the either EI or test kit calibration), this can increase the CO2 uptake dramatically.
> 
> That can lead to mild issues.


Hi, Tom. I'm pretty sure PO4 is and has not been limited in my tank for quite a while. 

With my medium light the uptake of all the nutrients isn't that overwhelming anyway and the levels therefore rather easy to maintain.

That issue with CO2: I can't say it was so or not, because the drop checker is quite slow in reacting and never showed a swing of color worthy of notice. But that doesn't mean there wasn't a sudden drop in CO2, I just haven't seen one. I believe you if you say that could have been the issue with the GSA. I for sure have no explanation at all for it!

The leaves with the algae spots will go the way of all wordly matters with the next pruning and I hope I won't see those algae again.

Thanks to all of you!


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Given the recent massive molecular research done the last 30+ years in understanding the nutrient uptake processes since these articles where published, you may want to find something a lot more recent rather than these old articles, or at least something in addition to these articles.

There is a lot more known now, 2007, about Ca++ and it's role.
When you look at a review, also look at the *when* it was published.

When we drive high light, CO2 enriched systems, the Ca might have issues, but...........aquatic plants do not have to *transport* Ca++.
Why might that be? 

Aquatic plants make good models for such issues!! But we do need to be careful how we apply terrestial support to aquatic macrophytes.

Ca++ can be supplied and no need for transport at all in aquatic plants!!
The Ca++ ions are all over the plant and the roots!! Obviously Ca++ is in the water column, but it's obviously lacking in the air!

In terrestrial systems, they generally have to transport Ca++ from the root to the shoot, most aquatic plants are well adapted to get their Ca, Mg, K+ from the water column.

If folks would like a Ca++ reference listing, I have maybe 50 to 100.
Most are very recent(5 years or less).

But the point made about pushuing growth too fast and suffering, does apply often times to many things, not just CA, but CO2, NO3 etc.

Plants cannot just keep being pushed in terms of their growth rates infinitely.
Have a little patience, use less light, that drives CO2 uptake which regulates N metabloism which regulates K+/P/Traces etc on down the line.

It all starts with light.
So if you fret over limiting anything, try reducing and adding "just enough" light instead, from a management prespective, that's the wisest choice and makes the most sense.

That affords you more methods, more wiggle room, less water changes, more reliance on the water column or substrate etc etc.

FWIW, L granulosus is a rather easy plant, in ADA AS, EC, Flourite, plain old sand even.

Just keep the nutrients up and decent CO2 and maintain things in a stablke range.

It's not a hard plant to grow.
You likely are making an assumption somewhere and it's leading to scratch your head. But excess PO4 is not the cause. That much I am fairly sure of.
I've had that plant for perhaps 8 years, each time, lack of dosing(less so, tends to get sort of plae with leaner dosing IME), or CO2, that's about the only things that produces that specific response. It'll liose lower leaves also if not happy.

I've tortured plenty of plants at higher ranges and seen enough to know generalizations.I have tanks of my own and clients.
They have this same plant also, grows quite fast for them.
It'll get somewhat stunted twisted tips when folks mess with the CO2 and when they do not listen to me about the CO2.
When they do, and I go in and make sure, the issue goes away.

Large water changes, dosing right back afterwards, 2-3x a week will rule out all the nutrients if you add them.

All you are left with is CO2 and light and general maintenace issues such as pruning, patience etc.


Regards, 
Tom Barr




defdac said:


> The following seems to go hand in hand with most things that this and other planted tank communites have to say about calcium related disorders.
> 
> INTERACTION BETWEEN NUTRIENT UPTAKE AND PHOTOSYNTHESIS
> 
> ...


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Here's a few, some are old, some are new.

This is one that I read about Ca and blue light.

CAT.INIST.FR

Another with red light:

Entrez PubMed

This is about the best on line public article:

Calcium in Plants -- WHITE and BROADLEY 92 (4): 487 -- Annals of Botany

If you need more Calcium ref's check the ref section for the White paper above. That should keep you out of trouble for a month or more.

Barber, S. 1995 Soil Nutrient Bioavailability: A Mechanistic Approach 
2nd ed. Wiley, John & Sons, Inc.
Edited by L. A. Desougi. H.J. Dumont Edited by A. I. Moghraby 1984. 

Dobermann A, Fairhurst T. 2000. Rice. Nutrient disorders & nutrient management. Handbook series. Potash & Phosphate Institute (PPI), Potash & Phosphate Institute of Canada (PPIC) and International Rice Research Institute. 191 p.

Esau, K 1977, Plant Anatomy. 576 pages 2nd Edition edition John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd 

FINK, S. 1991. Comparative microscopical studies on the patterns of calcium oxalate distribution in the needles of various conifer species. Bot. Acta 104: 306-315.

Franceschi V. R. and Nakata, P. A. 2005. 2005 CALCIUM OXALATE IN PLANTS: Formation and Function Annual Review of Plant Biology Vol. 56: 41-71 June. 

Johnson, J. Substrates for the planted aquarium. 2000. Substrates for the Planted Aquarium

Kauss H., Some Aspects of Calcium-Dependent Regulation in Plant Metabolism
Annual Review of Plant Physiology, June 1987, Vol. 38, Pages 47-71

Marschner, H. 1995, 1986. Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants. Academic Press, London. 

OKALI, D.U.U. and ATTIONU, R.H. 1974. The quantities of some nutrient elements in _Pistia stratiotes _L. from the Volta Lake. Ghana Jnl Agric. Sci. 7: 203-208. 

Oki. Ito, M. and Ueki, K. 1978. Studies on the growth and reproduction of water hyacinth, _Eichhornia crassipes _(Mart.) Solms. 1. Effect of nutrients on the growth and reproduction. Weed res., Tokyo 23: 115-120.

SINGH, H.D., NAG, B.,SARMA, A.K., and BARUAH, J.N. 1984. Nutrient control of water hyacinth growth and productivity. In G. Thyagarajan (Ed) Proc. Int. Conf. Water Hyacinth. UNEP, Nairobi p243-263.

SUTCLIFFE, J.E. and BAKER, D.A., 1974. Plants and Mineral salts. Edward and Arnold, London. 
Talatala, R.L. 1974. Some aspects of the growth and reproduction of water hyacinth _Eichhornia crassipes _(Mart.) Solms. Southeast Asian Workshop on aquatic Weeds, Malang, June 1974. mss. 27pp

Tamura S., Kuramochi H. and Ishizawa K. Involvement of Calcium Ion in the Stimulated Shoot Elongation of Arrowhead Tubers under Anaerobic Conditions Plant and Cell Physiology, 2001, Vol. 42, No. 7 717-722 

WYN JONES, R.G. and LUNT, O.R. 1967. The function of calcium in plants. Bot. Rev. 33: 407-426.
Zipkin, Isadore, 1973. Biological Mineralization, John Wiley & Sons, NY.

Entrez PubMed

Too much focus on specifics and micromangement and you can miss the larger whole plant response and regulation balance. I seldom suggest micromangement methods, rather, go after things as a whole and rule things out the best you can, but do not rely so heavily on test kits unless you can calibrate them or can estimate using EI or something similar to ensure your assumptions are correct. Then go back and make sure a few times more.


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

More of foliar uptake of Ca++(yea, that's how aquatic plants transport most nutrients, they do not have to if it's in the water column........):

SpringerLink - Journal Article


BIOONE Online Journals - Element Concentrations and Enrichment Ratios in the Aquatic Moss Rhynchostegium riparioides along the River Iregua (La Rioja, Northern Spain)

Barko was very prolific and gives lots of support of foliar uptake:

CSA

Of interest:

SpringerLink - Journal Article

IngentaConnect Environmental influences on aquatic plants in freshwater ecosyste...

On carbon partitioning/health:

SpringerLink - Journal Article

The above paper shows how a plant-plant competition exists for CO2 when limiting and under certain conditions.

Photoassimilate Distribution in Plants and... - Google Book Search




A very nice paper on sources of nutrients either in the water column or the sediment:

Blackwell Synergy: Freshwater Biol, Vol 47, Issue 2, pp. 283-291: Sources of nutrients to rooted submerged macrophytes growing in a nutrient-rich stream (Abstract)

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0028-646X(199103)117:3<493:RONIWW>2.0.CO;2-H

On resorption when limiting conditions exists from my wetland professor at UC Davis:

Blackwell Synergy: New Phytol, Vol 167, Issue 2, pp. 471-482: Nutrient resorption in wetland macrophytes: comparison across several regions of different nutrient status (Abstract)

That should keep you busy for awhile.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## defdac (Dec 28, 2003)

> That should keep you busy for awhile.


That was helpful. Thanks. =)


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

defdac said:


> That was helpful. Thanks. =)


It's actually quite supportive of your ideas and notions, something folks often miss when chasing one nutrient or problem with their growth.

I think many times folks think it's one silver bullet that will cure things, wiser more experienced folks realize that's not the case, although such advice may same like a broken record many times, unfortunately much of the return to the basics is really true for many folks.

Folks that know a little are dangerous, as they learn and gain experience, they often realize than most old timers agree on most things.

I know at times things are frustrating and many think I'm nuts from time to time, but if you are a researcher and have done these types of test and gone after such questions, most researchers also all agree as well.

You should be your own worst critic and look into your ideas with skepticism.
I try to prove my notions wrong.

I often do and then make a new hypothesis that seems more probable than then last(hopefully). Often times I come back to some oklder hypothesis and take another look. 

CO2 is just one of those things that is easy to see with clients as they often will reduce or fiddle or for some reason(empty gas tank for a week etc) stop the CO2 and then you come back and see the results even though light/nutrients have been added.

I really do not need a test kit for most things these days, but that's takes a lot of experience. Folks run out of KNO3 here and there, or do not add PO4, have hard or soft water, low or high GH/KH etc.

I have lived many places over the years with a wide range of tap waters, and sodium levels as well.

I think if you live in one area and everyone has the same tap as well, it can be tougher also if folks have issues with their tap, but some RO can rule out some issues like that also.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Nix (Mar 7, 2006)

defdac said:


> It seems one can limit this "calcium deficiency" in low KH-waters by either have somewhat limiting NO3 or PO4.


I haven't understood any of your conversation with Tom and if it was of any relevance to my problem, or if I was even meant to understand it. 
Maybe you could give the laymen a summery of what all the links said? In two or three sentences? ;-)

But one question to your quote. You say "low KH- waters". Actually I thought you were talking about the Calcium of the *GH*? 

(?)


----------



## fresh_lynny (Mar 9, 2006)

Thanks Tom....good info..but it backs what I already throught....bottom lone..it all goes back to CO2. Also good tip for many to benefit from...lower photoperiod when something like that is up, to gain more wiggle room to investigate the deficiency...


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Well, folks see a stunted twisted tip, they imeediately think Ca, some thiought K+ blockage a few years ago.

Honestly, I've had a real tough time finding any cases where I stunted any plant due with good reasonable plausible Ca++ limitation.

It's very rare in otherwords in aquatic ecosystems, but it's a commonly blamed nutrients on forums and boards.

I have very high skepticism about the entire notion as folks in the Bay area and 4 clients I've had ovger the years, and folks that tested much better and more critically than anyone I know there today failed to see much relationship with very low Ca++ levels.
The tap there is very pure, hardly any GH or KH.
Prior, many added just Mg and no Ca at all till later.

I've loused up dosing CaSO3/CaCl2 etc here and there and never noted any issues.

Ca++ is immobile, I make no arguement there, but if the plant is surrounded by water even with low Ca++ ppms, the plant does not need to transport it from the roots to the meristematic tip.

Why do that when it's already there?
Makes no sense. Plants can take it in easily through the leaves foliarly.

Bottom line, general over all health and re setting the tank, adding a bit more to relieve any suspected limitation is about the best approach, look at whole plant health, not micromanaged issues. CO2 will burn you if you assume too much about nutrients.

When you do figure things out and solve the issue, go back andf terst to see if you where right by removing Ca++:thumbsup: 

That';s a lot better than trying to take a messed up system and trying to do a test on that, there's no control , there's a lack of stability and many other issues when folks try and do things that way.

If youi test, test on purpose, see if you can induce an otherwise stable happy planted tank to stunt by removing just the Ca++.

Few will ever do that, but many will speculate and carry on and on about how their messed up tank is the model for testing Ca++ limitation:thumbsdow 

They need to be able to have a good starting piont and a control and see if they can repoduce things on purpose.

But that takes work, testing, and lousing uop an otherwise stable tank and most will never do that, but when I go and do it, they still want to argue with me about it........

I know what I know because I have done things to rule issues out, I add things on purpose to prove myself or an idea wrong.

That's a much different approach than many do and suggest.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Nix (Mar 7, 2006)

All right, I see nobody is interested in explaining to me what happened and
why and how to prevent it in future, short of not misdosing again.
Was it low Ca? Nobody asked if I have low Ca in my water. Was it low CO2?
I had no break down of the equipment and the drop checker showed a light
green all the time. I can ask and ask again, you just ignore me. It's alright,
I'll give up now. The patient is dead anyway: the glandulosa is dying, by the
look of it. Thank you for your time.


----------



## defdac (Dec 28, 2003)

After rereading of your original post I realized that you only had 9 ppm of PO4 for a couple of hours. I'm pretty sure you don't get curly responses and discoloration in such a short amount of time.

The curling have probably been going on quite some time whithout you noticing it.

What Tom Barr says is CO2-deficiency is the most probably cause to you deficiency.



> You say "low KH- waters". Actually I thought you were talking about the Calcium of the GH?


No I meant low KH and I was writing "calcium deficiency" with quotation marks as "it is something that looks like calcium deficiency".

Low KH usually means that the antagonizing and toxic effect of chemicals are greater than in high KH. For example: The precise amount of copper that leads to LD50 of snails in low KH will not lead to LD50 in a high KH tank.

LD50 where half of the population have died.

This is probably because free copper tends to combine with hydroxide, and bicarbonates means higher pH which means more hydroxide ions.

In the same way it tend to take more iron to fertilize an aquarium with high KH.

Even if you have low KH and have exposed your plants to 10 ppm PO4 for a short period of time, I'm now quite sure your "calcium deficiency" is not due to po4-toxicity...


----------



## Nix (Mar 7, 2006)

Hello defdac!
As I did my reagular waterchange and pruning session just three days before the accident, I find it safe to say there were no curling leaves (as 
there were no GSA). Quiete the other way around the plant was from going well to spectaculaer in the two or three weeks prior (after starting do dose
Excel as an experiment. I have the feeling the real culprit of all the sudden problems is Excel. I didn't make the connection before just now). Perhaps the PO4 overdose just pushed it from overexertion into death.

And there was no CO2 problem, or I have always a CO2 problem. The rest of the tank is doing very well, pearling starts around two hours of lights on.
They would all have suffered if I have had a longer lasting CO2 problem, won't they.

This particular plant went with me through years of real problems and its reaction to insufficient CO2 or ferts or light is just small leaves and dull color and getting algae. But no curling, no dying. And it doesn't die inside three hours because Co2 was too low or it would die every week when doing wc . . . 
You see, it's hard for me to chew a verdict of too low CO2. 

But I accept you don't have the answer to this mysterious death neither, and I'm all right with that. 

Thank you for trying and taking the time to explain it to me a bit better.
Have a good weekend!


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

*I had a very hard time proving to myself a low CO2 issue *in the past.
I am no different than many of you about not thinking something is CO2 related.

I did not want to believe it.
I'm more critical about proving things than many in the hobby 
It's not like that is fun, I just hate not knowing why things are working or not.

I had to do many tanks and deal with a lot of issues before I saw the patterns, could I be certain that I really and truly ruled out all nutrients issues?

Both too low concentrations and too high levels?
Did I have enough light, good filter cleanings, large water changes, basically was everything else in line so that the only real variable left was CO2?

Now.....I need to measure CO2 accurately as well(ugh).

Then once I do this, I need to go back, take a tank that's otherwise growing well and mess the CO2 up a little and see the effect on plant species.

I cannot for example, fairly gauge a tank that's already got a bad case of algae or stunted plants to start with. That shows a lack of control in your test. 

Many aquarist apporach problems from this angle and it's just a bad method all the way around, still, many do not have the control and can't do that, so they try to do it without and feel like they often do a good test method.

You have to have the control prior and then test the variable of interest by doing it on purpose.

A few times I've done it inadvertantly as well, but the tank was doing well to start with and had good EI dosing, water changes, filtration, pruning etc. Adding more CO2 as predicted solve the issue.

I use the plants, much like I use the algae, to assess the issues with growth problems. The plants do not lie.

You can see them actively improve their growth and form when they have all the right componets for growth.

I can rule out nutrients fairly confidently through good water changes+ dosing thereafter. I can rule out lighting using a light PAR meter. I can rule out general maintenance. All that remains is the CO2.
I can now test that parameter very precisely using a DO membrane and KH ref solution inside.

But even without the accurate measure, I still had a relative measure using the pH probe to make the determination.

I know many are skeptical about CO2 being a cause(I was no different, but at a basal level as well as a practical matter, it makes a lot of sense), if you have decent water surface movement, add a bit more than you had prior and *slowly raise it up*, you will most likely see the plants improve, often a great deal.

It cost you nothing to try this out, a little more work and tweaking of your system.

The worst it'll do is rule out possible variables(Do not assume too much about past readings, focus on the ones on your plate now and be critical of them and test them) and help you focus real good on nutrients and proper maintenance. Thus it's far from bad advice if all you want to do is solve your issue also, rather than test and fiddle.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Nix (Mar 7, 2006)

Dear Tom,

I do not doubt your CO2 thesis in general. 

But I don't feel you have read my posts at all? 

I have no problems with my plants, almost everything is going very nicely.
The "almost" being just the Ludwigia glandulosa. No other stunting, no
curling, no nothing. I can prove the general look of my tank, if needed,
with fotos.

I have no general problem with algae. The two or so leaves with GSA of
last week are pruned away and that was it.

I just have had one problem with one sort of plant, and this problem is not
solvable anymore through upping the CO2 -- because the plant, meanwhile
all five stems of it, is dead.

And nobody here could give me an anwer of why this happened inside of 
three or four hours. The lights went on, I found everything alright, I 
misdosed ferts, I went shopping, I came back, and the L. glandulosa 
was dying. End of story.

Sorry, I don't get the involvement of CO2 in this case. 

Regards
____________________
340L, 0,5W/l, EI dosing (3/4), CO2.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Nix said:


> Dear Tom,
> 
> I do not doubt your CO2 thesis in general.
> 
> But I don't feel you have read my posts at all?


Yep.
Have you read all of mine? haha



> I have no problems with my plants, almost everything is going very nicely.
> The "almost" being just the Ludwigia glandulosa. No other stunting, no
> curling, no nothing. I can prove the general look of my tank, if needed,
> with fotos.


That's exactly my point, it's CO2, nothing else will do this I am aware of to this plant.

As a new tissue grows in, the availability of 40-45% of it's entire biomass is critical.

This is not a competitive plant when it comes to CO2 like many other better adapted weeds.

It's the wimpiest plant you have in terms of CO2 uptake, thuis all the other plants get enough, but this one.

Development vs growth.
You know the difference?

You can have poor development in the tips of this fairly slow growing plant, and still have growth and growth with other plants.

But it takes awhile for that stunted growth to show up and also move out through new growth once the issue is corrected.
You need to maintain good conditions for several days/weeks before this plant will show signs like the other plants.



> I have no general problem with algae. The two or so leaves with GSA of
> last week are pruned away and that was it.


No issue here either, I'm not basing my analysis on your algae here, I'm basing it solely on a plant I have had for many years and grow very well.
You do mention GSA, now if the CO2 is truly high, which might be true, but does not sound like it, then adding high PO4 will increase the CO2 uptake if the tank was limited with PO4 prior to the overdosing.



> And nobody here could give me an anwer of why this happened inside of
> three or four hours. The lights went on, I found everything alright, I
> misdosed ferts, I went shopping, I came back, and the L. glandulosa
> was dying. End of story.
> ...


Well, inside 3-4 hours?
The only thing that could kill a plant that fast would be high salt content given what you have said you added from the PO4, but it'd take a lot, more than 9ppm to do that.

Seems like the plant was on the way out and then it crashed.
Are you certain the KH2PO4 was KH2PO4?

I added a lot of KH2PO4, 2-3 ppm ranges as do many other without issue.

You suspect the Ca, but what is the Ca from the tap? Called the Tap water company? Have you added CaSO4 or GH booster to rule it out?

That's a simple process, but the signs on the plant suggest poor CO2 near as I can tell and the plant was not doign well prior, then it melted after not being happy for awhile.

I've neglected this plant and it melted on me also and it seemed like the same type of deal. Ity happened very fast after it'd been abused.
It does not like replanting, if you move it around alot, that will not help either.

You did something else beside the KH2PO4 in otherwords.
We add that, not as such high levels, but that should not do this effect you saw.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Nix (Mar 7, 2006)

Hello Tom,

thanks for talking to me directly at last.

Why are you laughing? No, I can't say I have read all of your posts. You must have hundredth of posts around the net. Inside _this thread,_ I tried, but you lost me in theoreum about Ca deficiency. It didn't seem to apply to my problem anyway. And the CO2 didn't seem to apply either, not really, not in a way I can understand as this plant has never shown that symptoms when there was really too little CO2 in my tank (!).

I have it for, I don't know, three years now, and it went through every hardship, looked lousy, had algae, had leaves no longer than half an inch. It survived it all and I would have said: what a hardy plant! 

And now, when everything is going right for a long while it starts to go amok in growth and than dies in a blink of an eye.

Yes, to my amateur's eye, it does seem a case of too fast too high and not having the substance for it. 

It seems a bit like this plant is _not good for a tank with too much nutrients_ as it is too greedy and can't cope with the salts accumulated in it's tissue (?).

Oh no, *I* did not suspect Calcium. That was *defdac's* idea. And I never really understood your dialogue with him about it. I did not read the links you two were throwing at each other. I did get he was pro and you were contra. Did not help me much in my understanding of things while making me frustrated as you were talking over my head. 

What *I* suspect, knowing no other factor that was drastically changed in the time, is now Excel, which dosing-start approx. coincidents with the glandulosa getting from good looking to utter beautiful. If that was no coincidence as well, it does show a certain C defiency, right? But not of a kind CO2 gas can correct, as Excel says its effects are directly on the photosynthesis apparatus of plants (phyto-hormones?). My miniscule understanding of it.

If I am to crank up the CO2 another notch for future tries of culturing this plant, I might be forced to decline the temptation. 

Perhaps I should go _down_ instead with my dosing regime, as the plant did well enough when the times were lean...

KH2PO4 is correct. I have used this particular pot of it for most of the last year. I'm not aware of a PO4 deficiency. I have not much light, my plants never use up the amount I dose (which I dose in that amount for algae prophylaxis only). By chance I did some testing the week before the accident and there was little uptake at all in that week -- I took it as showing the plant's stores were filled up. 

And sorry, as you certainly already found out, you can't talk science with me, I have no background in it and just try to understand it the normal, mediocre human way.

Regards,
Nix


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Hi Nix, no sweat here, sorry you got left out there.
Folks say things often time and get ahead of themselves, I'm guilty of it, perhaps more than most.



> I have it for, I don't know, three years now, and it went through every hardship, looked lousy, had algae, had leaves no longer than half an inch. It survived it all and I would have said: what a hardy plant!
> 
> And now, when everything is going right for a long while it starts to go amok in growth and than dies in a blink of an eye.


My question for you, did you move it around recently?
Hurt it or were not gentle replanting it?
I personally do not believe the high salt idea, we add different ranges of salts(Both KNO3, KH2PO4 are both salts) and this does not affect the plants like this.

The original post shows a twisted meristematic region, a growing tip.
Most would try and say Ca++, I argue against that notion.
Some might suggest Traces are too low.

I do not think anyone would suggest high PO4............

I find no reason to suspect that a high PO4 dose would either......a number of folks mistaked KH2PO4 for KNO3, thus added 10-20ppm of PO4..........

I've done it inadvertly by not looking.
Never saw any relationship, but then again, I was not specifically testing this plant either at very high PO4 ranges.
Such ranges are impractical and unless you made a huge dosing mistake like those above, it's not an issue.

What I can tell you, is that a PO4 of 2-3ppm is fine and will never harm this species.

It should never affect the meristematic region of any aquatic plant I know of in that range or less(within a lower rnage reason).

What can affect the region is low NO3, CO2.

I've consistently seen many broad leaf aquatic plants respond exactly like that phot to both low KNO3 and low CO2, holes even etc, much like supposed "K+ deficiencies".

If you lack a critical nutrient at a specific point in a plant species development, you can get bad, twisted leaves.

You can easily rule out things like enough PO4, K, NO3, Traces, Ca/Mg.
Add a bit of each via EI and keep thing stable for a few weeks.
Make sure the CO2 is good.

CO2 is tougher to be critical on, it can enter and leave very fast in the tank and is required 40-50X more than any other nutrient,
It makes sense it's 90-95% of most folks issues.

I keep this same species at high nutrient EI dosed tanks, well loaded fish populations. It's not a picky plant, grows slower etc, needs care cutting and replanting more than many species.

Some cleints have issues and fiddle with their CO2 or the CO2 tank runs out for a few days etc till I get over there to check, the plant will show the same type of patterns.

That does not rule out other things, but the rest of the plants, such as the Myriophyllums did fine during that same time.

Some species cannot handle variation as much as others, but if you approach things from a holistic approach, supply all the needs for the plant and give it good overall conditions, then you will not have many plant specific issues.

You also had GSA on the glass, also a very good algae indicator of poor CO2, since it's safe to assuem that the PO4 was plenty high right?

CO2 and PO4 are about the only 2 issues I'm aware of that induce GSA.
There may be more, but I've never seen any tank that was not corrected by focusing on CO2 if the PO4 was high already. 

What can happen if your tank was low on PO4, you add a bunch, then the plants really go into overdrive in terms of their growth and uptake.

This increases the CO2 uptake since the plant upregulates the Carbon uptake now that it has plenty of PO4 to drive photosynthesis.

It's not a direct pattern.
One thing is intregrated into the other, they are linked.

Folks have chased one nutrient to the next for years, that's a frustrating method 

Your light is a bit on the low side for this species, it'll grow, but if those are normal output FL lights, this plant is pretty close to being at the light compensation point. This plant loves high light, it's rare that a plant really likes more to the degree that this species does.
It's also somewhat substrate picky also.

It does okay in plain sand, I grew it well, but it did better in Fliourite certainly, and a little better than flourite in the ADA aqua soil.

Try and keep it in high light areas, add more light(one more FL tube ought to do it), add a different substrate if possible and add more CO2.
I think that's about all.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Nix (Mar 7, 2006)

Hello Tom,

thank you very much for taking the time and effort to answer my questions. 

You asked if I moved the plant around. Yes, I did. Three days prior I did. Actually I do so almost every week when it's time to prune and replant - the curse of stem plants and having a bit of scape to maintain. But I didn't move it around from one end of the tank to the other, it was more two or three inches to the left, or fore or back etc.

I was rather certain I dosed all ferts as usual, but as there obviously was something wrong I must have an error somewhere. 

You say it wasn't PO4. It was just a coincidence, or the last drop to overflow the barrel, that is understood now. Calcium, or traces it shouldn't be neither. And I would agree that those very plenty or enough all the time: I'll add 2mg/l PO4/week, the tap water has 40mg/l Ca, and I use the normal recomented (by the manufacturer) dose of iron & traces. I also add Mg because there is very little of it in the tap water.

NO3 or CO2 then. All right. I will look into my dosing routine of these two and up them both a bit. Or all the fertilizers, as you said I should.

My light is not what most here put over their tanks, right. 
I have contemplated for a long time to change my four 38W T8's to T5's.
But I'm rather content with my tank in the moment. All in all it seems to be in balance with growing things like Hermianthus callitrichoides Cuba, Glossostigma and so on and doing so (almost) without algae. 

I'll send a you a picture of my tank as a pm, if you don't mind, so you may have an idea.

Thanks again for explaining things to me in such detail, it is very, very much appreciated!

Regards,
Nix


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

I PM you some additional info.

When you trim this plant, use _sharp_ scissors, wait till you see nice roots above the gravel line to trim.

Trim right below those, this way there's some root development for the new stem. I try to leave the plant intact for 2 week time frames, this works well even in the higher light tanks as it's slower growing than most other stem plants.

If yiou have the out flow from the CO2 reactor, enriching system/methodm blow water directly on to this plant, that will also help. Just try this and see, that will tell you if it's CO2 pretty easily.

I've moved this plant around a bit too much and a few days later it all melted and I was trying very hard to save some of the tops, they all where lost:icon_mad: 

IME, the NO3 is fairly resilent with this plant over a wide range, it's not that picky at lower levels/ranges. It's a slower grower so that will make sense.

It's fairly cheap and available in the USA so replacing it with fresh healthy stems is not problematic. Just be a little more careful pruning/moving, keep the plant in a hot high growth spot.

I'm not an advocate of higher light, but just understand that this one will grow fast with high light, I had a little trouble, it made it tougher to grow just this one plant with NO T12 FL's at 2/w gal w/reflector.
They did okay, but did not thrive.

I know of no other plant that I can say this about, but there are likely a few such as Tonias perhaps, most plants do exceptionallky well at lower light in the 2w/gal range using plain old T12/T8 lighting and no plant should have issues if the light is T5 and 2/w gal with a good reflector in most normal depth tanks.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------

