CO2 and Low Lighting?

[jbarr]

I was just wondering what the effects are of CO2 on a [very] low light tank??

I have 18 watts over my 20 Long. I can't afford much more, although I've looked into DIY fixtures. My friend has had good luck with a 17Watt over his 20(normal), so I figured I'd give it a shot.

I recently was gifted a "Nutrafin Natural Plant CO2" System which is essentially a played up DIY co2 system. I've yet to set it up and I'm just wondering if I should even bother (any experiences with this product?)

I have wisteria and pygmy chains in it, I'm hoping for more foreground plants, but I'm guessing not til I've got better lighting..

Could foreground plants (carpety type) live in this lighting, + CO2?
What would the effects of CO2 be given that my lighting is so underpowered?
Lastly,
Any low-light plant reccomendations?

Any help works wonders.

 

[Wizzard~Of~Ozz]

The overall effects of Co2 in lowlight tanks according to tropica is that it has more of an impact then increasing the light. I posted a link to the article in the Co2 Sticky a while ago.

As for carpet plants, you would need to up your lighting. (they are typically more demanding), Thereare some exceptions, but in low light they tend to grow leggy..

Here is the link.

 

[rkilling1]

I love how fast it is to make things in Excel. I also program in VB.. hobbies hobbies, where do they end.

I would leave the thresholds for each level up to you, I just went up in standard "WPG" steps.. as for what the plants require. well "moderate" doesn't mean much when you see it on a card.. and I can find no difinitive "this is moderate light" range.

I recommend Co2 for any planted tank, even low light. the plants gain an extra 7% growth per day? (can't remember time frame) but it's compounding..

Is the threshold really that close? The lack of rotala Macranda in my tank would lead me to believe 3.7 is approx the threshold since magenta will grow.. Just my thoughts from my experience.

Any Idea at what Low level you would gain this 7%?

http://www.aquariumadvice.com/viewtopic.php?t=72491&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=51

EDIT: I just read that tropica article. Nice.

"The overall effects of Co2 in lowlight tanks according to tropica is that it has more of an impact then increasing the light. I posted a link to the article in the Co2 Sticky a while ago."

No, the increase in light generated more growth by a factor of 6 over a 2 week period and the CO2 generated more growth by a factor of 4 over a 2 week period, but the point is, that CO2 is benefical to a low light tank. (well according to that acticle)

 

[Purrbox]

As to the Nutrafin Natural Plant CO2 System, you are correct that it's basically just DIY CO2. The biggest problem is that the CO2 generation bottle is only about 1 Liter. Using the ladder that comes with the system for diffusion, simply isn't going to be enough CO2 since it's a passive diffusion method. If you want to use it your best bet would be to increase the number of bottles to a total volume around 4 Liters. You can hook the additional bottles together with the system by using airline T connectors. This way they can all use the same diffuser. Having multiple bottles would also allow you to rotate when you change out the mix to get more consistant CO2 levels.

 

[rkilling1]

and to add to what Purrbox has all ready mentioned. (as always )

If you are going to install multiply bottles, it is a good idea to install check valves between the bottles and the 'T' connectors. That way you will not loose CO2 production when you are changing bottles.

 

[7Enigma]

To add to what was said above I have a 20gallon and also use 2 2L bottles. I have a simple T-connector between the two. I don't have check valves installed since my bottles are ABOVE the level of the tank (so no chance of backflow unless you put a really hot bottle inline which will draw a vacuum as it cools but I digress). I simply use a hemostat (what you see doctors always calling for that are basically just metal clamps that lock in place to cut off flow). When I need to change out a bottle I just clamp the hose near the bottle, remove it, replace it, and after reattaching the line, then I remove the hemostat. This way while I'm making up the bottle there is no stoppage of CO2, and when I go to reconnect I don't lose all the CO2 pressure. Simple and works well.

In your case though I would recommend increased light IF you decide to do CO2. For you size tank and light level I think you would have better and easier results simply dosing Flourish Excel if you don't have sensitive plants (wisteria is fine but I'm unsure about the pygmy chain). Your going to be limited to most likely crypts if looking for a ground cover plant and I believe those ARE NOT compatible with Excel (or at least at a normal level).

If it was my tank I would save up for better lighting and in the meantime use Excel. Then after getting better lighting, do DIY or pressurized CO2 and THEN get some nice ground plants.

I basically did just that over the past 6months. Started with the stock light on my 20gallon high (same as yours). I had some java fern and anubias. They were fine but really didn't grow. Then I upgraded to a 65w CF setup by corallife (~$60) and got a bunch of plants from czcz on this forum, then I did 1 2L CO2 bottle (DIY), then more recently added another 2L bottle to get more steady production, and now this christmas I'll be investing in a pressurized CO2 setup because I'm sick of the time and effort and algae problems I'm seeing from most likely CO2 fluctuations.

HTH

 

[rich311k]

That is an interesting question. Does fluctuating CO2 in a low light tank cause algae? Since its just a supplement and not a requirement for plant growth and algae control in low light environment.

I wonder what other people have discovered with this.

I have never heard or crypts having problems with Excel. Just vals and anacharis. My corkscrews do not like it, my jungle vals don't seem to mind it in the least. I have two different crypts in my tanks no problem with the excel.

 

[7Enigma]

Rich I keep making that same mistake saying for some reason crypts dislike Excel. It's probably because I've never personally had a crypt, and I keep hearing about their finicky "melting".

 

[Wizzard~Of~Ozz]

The point I was trying to make is, increasing the light will NOT be as productive as adding Co2.

Also, Adding Co2 will result in far healtier plants, less likelyhood of Algae and an overall cleaner aquarium. Adding light will often create problems (green water, or other imbalances that consume the gains in growth)

the reason I stated that adding Co2 results in more growth then adding light is simple.

Co2 = healthy plants.
High light = healthy algae.

Also, if you start at the top left of the chart on page 3 of that article. go one mark each way, which one shows more growth? this is a minor change to the system, it's not like he would be going from low light to extremely high light, nor from no Co2 to High Co2.

I would say I was quite correct in saying an increase to 3.8% is greater then an increase to 3.3%. or is my math wrong?

From any of the top line levels, growth always increases more with Co2 then with light.

In moderate lighting, increasing the Co2 yields 7% increase (Top to bottom of the middle line)

 

[jbarr]

Wow that's great, Wizard

As an update; I have added the Nutrafin fancy DIY CO2 at about 4:30pm today.
It started to actually bubble at around 8pm.

The bubbles are having a hard time traveling all the way up the ladder, stopping at about the middle in one big bubble. Any way to circumvent this? Or will time straighten this out?

I'm saving up for a better fixture, aye do I need a job...

 

[rkilling1]

The point I was trying to make is, increasing the light will NOT be as productive as adding Co2.

(in low light)
Gotcha.

From any of the top line levels, growth always increases more with Co2 then with light.

No, the increase (3.3% to 6.5%) from medium to high light (3X) is quite a bit more then the increase(3.8% to 4.1%) of CO2 (5X).

I get what you are saying about in low light levels, CO2 being a better option. I kinda missed that the first time.

Co2 = healthy plants.
High light = healthy algae.

You don't think algae can use C? plants and algae are the same thing.

 

[Wizzard~Of~Ozz]

Plants and algae are similar, not the same.

Algae can thrive with a deficient requirement.

If you have no C, plants cannot grow, so Algae takes over (since it can thrive with a deficiency), You Add C, and the plants can thrive, starving out almost any algae when they do.

Every algae can be attributed to a deficiency/abundance.

Green spot = Low Phos.
Beard Algae = High Iron I believe. The jury is still out on this ones cause, but adding Pressurized Co2 to my system eliminated it from my tank.
Cyno = Low Nitrate
Green water =Low C, excess light and phos.

the list goes on. but with a good supply of C, keeping the others in check is quite painless.

That graph was from the tropica article I posted a link to earlier on this thread (Page 3)

 

[7Enigma]

Green water =Low C, excess light and phos.

I believe this is incorrect. GW is generally a result of AMMONIA being present in the water with light. Phosphate levels do not create this, low carbon also doesn't. Now if your saying that low carbon levels create a situation where ammonia builds up in the tank and then GW forms I'll somewhat agree with you. In a new tank this can definately be the case (since at that time your plants are basically your biological filter), but once the tank is established you should not have ammonia levels even if you removed all the plants at once, since the bacteria will take over the biological filtering.

As for the chart you posted we have no idea how the data points were decided upon. Why not use 10ppm CO2 for each data point, or 10000lux for each data point. You can easily then see how we can "massage" the numbers to support either position. I think we can clearly see from this data that BOTH light and CO2 play a major role in plant growth, but from the little data this graph shows, I do not believe you could say EITHER is the better method.

jbarr,

Give it a bit of time and it should improve. Just like when you start up a new tank and add water you get a ton of bubbles on the glass, then after a couple days/weeks you get that bacterial coating on the glass and then subsequent PWC's you don't get a single bubble sticking. Same thing with the CO2 ladder. The surfaces have not yet had time to build up a film, once that happens the bubbles should move more smoothly through the ladder and work better.

Bottom line is its better than before you installed it. What you can do in the meantime (or permenantly like many of us have) is to have the bubble coming out of the ladder go into another holding area or reactor. I have a small PH that the CO2 goes into and gets chopped up into a mist, many people (I used to do it this way) run their CO2 line directly into the intake of their filter. Since you already have the ladder I would just have some thing connected to the ladder so when the bubble comes out it gets further processed. HTH.

 

[Wizzard~Of~Ozz]

Where did you hear that Ammonia was to blame for green water? some very well established planted tanks that suffer from an over abundance of light (sunlight or some other source) get green water. Never have I heard of ammonia causing anything but grey water (bacterial bloom).

A link would be nice.

Best I could find.

The situation that causes GW (Green Water) is usually a combination of high nitrates, phosphates, and mixed in some ammonia/ammonium. Substrate disturbance is usually the culprit. Water changes alone will usually not rid a tank of GW. Nutrients can be reduced very low in GW and fairly quickly by the GW algaes, but they can scavenge other nutrients...iron and trace elements. So, it's very common for the GW to solve the situation that causes it to begin with, but that won't eliminate the GW. Five methods exist to eliminate GW. Blackout, Diatom Filtering, UV Sterilization, Live Daphnia, and Chemical algaecides/flocculents. The first four cause no harm to fish, the fifth one does.

Taken from Here

It says that we are both correct. I stated that Co2 helps resolve this because it is typically why the nutrients are not being taken by the plants.

 

[rkilling1]

Where did you hear that Ammonia was to blame for green water? some very well established planted tanks that suffer from an over abundance of light (sunlight or some other source) get green water. Never have I heard of ammonia causing anything but grey water (bacterial bloom).

A link would be nice.

We were just having this same dicussion (well, close anyways)a couple days ago, wizzard.

here is what Tom Barr had to say about it:

That list was just a quick response, not a whole list. The GW should have had a NO3 to PO4 mismatch instead of just low NO3.

I've never been able to do this with every sort of PO4/NO3 ratio.......ever, nor have a dozen others.........
This has been going on for well over 10 year..............

I think it's safe to say this can ruled out............
I see no controls, few aquarist ever do controls or attempt to show causation, ....merely correlation at best without controls.............

There might be a few aquarist out that do, but I've not met many, I think I can count them on one hand.

Green water is related to iron, but only as all plants need iron
for growth. Right there is where I must differ in opinion.

Please entertain me on your "iron theory" here.
I've been extremely liberal with Fe for well over 15 years now.....never have I again, ever been able to show this nutrient plays any role in a tank with plants that relates to algae of any sort, much less GW.
I've used ETDA, DTPH, Gluconate chelators etc

I think based on your theory, I've been adding perhaps 2-20x as much as you suggest for nearly 15 years on clients, my own personal and other folks' tanks.

Where is my GW?

Why cannot I not show any GW for all my hard work?

Green water seems to grow, but only when the conditions favor it over
other plants. In aquariums where nitrate is the limiting nutrient, and
phosphate is in excess, green water (unicellular algae) does great.

The question is what causes a GW bloom, not where it does great.
It'll do great in many situations once you have bloom(That does not tell you much).

Both can be un-measurable by test kits, and here is why: With nitrate
being limiting, this asserts that everything else is present in larger
quantities. Phosphates only need to be in slightly higher quantities.
They can still be below test-kit range be being used up as soon as
nitrate becomes present, even in the most minute amount. In addition to
a constant presence (however low) of phosphates, the depletion of
Nitrates puts the higher plants at a disadvantage. Higher plants are
better at competing when nutrient levels are more "balanced".

Do mice and elephants compete for food in Africa?
Both are herbivores.

The Alga, this one in particular is about 2-3 microns across, very motile, can live on less than 3-8ppb PO4(The best reslution has an error of +/- 5ppb.

A plant?
Huge, billions of cells, often has roots, has much more defined boundary layers for diffusion, much much higher nutrient demand.
Even the best low PO4 plant can only handle 20-50ppb possible removal range.

That's as good as you are ever going to get with a plant.

Sorry, you are comparing two organisms that exists in vastly different scales both in time, sexual reproductive cycles and simply put, size.

It's like comparing one person to a contienent of people.
These two organisms are in two entirely different ecological niches.

The plants clearly need far more PO4, NO3, Fe to survive than GW ever does.

You need to ask a better question that is much more likely:
What induces the growth in the presence of plants that are otherwise doing well?

Add high light(faster response times)
Add NH4 over a wide range
Add progressively more and more fish
Add urea over a wide range
Lower /vary CO2 in conjuction

So now knowing that having nitrate being a limiting nutrient supports
green water growth, it is easy to eliminate it without filters,
additives, medications, etc. Just add nitrates to the tank (KNO3 works
well). By SUSTAINING a low level of nitrates (3-5ppm) in the tank, you
force the nutrient balance to shift. This will cause phosphates to
become limiting. Given time, this will cause the plants to thrive and
green water to fail. Be patient, as it does normally take a little
bit.

2 months?
6 months?
No one has solved it with this method I've ever met.
Nor has anyone induced it this way I've ever met.

A lot does depend on how turbid the green water is, how many
plants you have in the tank, how much you fertilize (and what you
fertilize with), and the bioload of the tank.

This would also explain why some tanks just seem to "automatically fix
themselves." Here I would suggest that the biomass has contributed to
rising levels of nitrates, causing the balance shift I talked about."

read the whole article here:

http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Algae/green-water.html

FWIW, this is not the only source I have read this from.

That's some "old stuff".

Lower light tanks seldom have GW issues, higher light tanks cannot get rid of it for months without UV/diatoms filters etc, many have tried, and failed. Daphnia works well in low light tanks also, so do blackouts.

But those levels teeter on the light levels for GW to grow, the rate of growth is much lower, at higher levels, the GW is far more agressive, at poor CO2 levels, the GW is also much more agressive.

I've gone through and made sure that PO4, NO3, K, Fe etc did not cause/induce spores to bloom.

NH4 was added and this induced a bloom in 30 hours, pea soup in 48-72 hours at .5ppm at 4w/gal.

10 ghost shrimp per gallon also had the same intensity.

As did similar urea dosing.

The same tank was limited with Fe/K/PO4/NO3 individually with no impact at all on GW, large water changes, no impact either, higher fertilization: no impact.

Still have never been able to induce GW with any combination of NO3/PO4.

So if that causes it as you suggest, where's in my GW bloom?

I know I can repeatedly induce GW with the above methods, but cannot with the suggestions here.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Plantbrain]

I've tried and tried to induce GW without some organic N or NH4 and have been woefully unsuccessful

Sunlight hitting the tank is like adding lots of light
Lots of light plus NH4 makes it much easier to have a GW bloom.

Much like CO2 and light.

Adding lots of light without CO2= not good plant growth.
Adding lots of CO2 with little to high light = excellent growth, more with higher light.

The same type of dynamic is true with GW.
You need less NH4 to induce the bloom with higher light.

So the most sensitive systems will be those that the highest light. This is safe assumption for GW.

So saying that 0.20ppm or 20ppb of NH4+ is the minimum amount that will induce algae is not true, just for a particular light intensity

Which is why I do not tell folks how much induces a bloom, it's also tough to estimate what is in the water column as it's used up so rapidly and I do not know how much the plants get and how much is left for algae.

I can get at the concentration for a measured light intensity if I am careful and use a decent method, but so many things yet to do

Your question, you answer it

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Wizzard~Of~Ozz]

Tom, I can agree that perhaps NH4 or "Organic N" may be a trigger, but that doesn't really narrow down the conditions much. Organic N is present in any tank that has a plant and NH4 is present at some point when there are fish. It's not instantly converted to Nitrite or consumed by plants.

Have you been able to induce it without PO4? Would a GW algae bloom happen if there was no PO4 and excess light?

I'm not sure if you've mentioned it, If there are sufficient nutrients in the column (C included) + plants, could you induce it by simply adding Ammonia? I would think it would take something else to be deficient to allow algae to grow over the plants.

Jbarr, sorry to make a mess of your thread, but I think it's conclusive that adding Co2 to any planted tank regardless of light level is beneficial.

 

[fish_4_all]

I can agree that CO2 in any tank is going to beneficial. I would also add that adding CO2 and taking concentrations from 3 up to 30 and trying to make a comparison of going from 10 watts to 100 watts is almost impossible. The only way to tell is if your plants were struggling or dying and you add CO2 and they grow then it works for those plants.

That is an idea for someones next experiment: Take the common plants we have and use in our tanks today and put them all in the same light tanks and see which ones will survive at that light level with 30ppm or more CO2.

Plants need a light source to grow, how much is only relevant to the plant if they don't grow or die under the current lighting. If you add CO2 and it will help, even adding an airstone has helped my plants more than not using one.