Plantbrain
Aquarium Advice Freak
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2006
- Messages
- 284
Wizzard~Of~Ozz said:
Does not mean that it causes anything.
Just that there is a relationship/correlation.
That's all it says.
But you can make the hypothesis and then test for it.
A hypothesis needs to be testable and falsifiable.
I do not think that's the issue personally, but it rules out one other potential issues and will lend itself towards making things easier in the harder water tanks.
If I have high CO2, light, over dose K+, low on Ca, and ideal system for showing if this is true or not, then pick and sensitive plant, say Ammannia, then that should skew all the potential towards the expression of this stunting of growth correct?
I did it twice carefully and never saw any effect.
Folks have dosed excess K+ for many years without issues, suddenly a few folks, I think it was Ghori who insisted it was possible cause based on an endogenous signaling by Ca++ inside cells, as opposed to external fertilization, a reference comparison that is radically different between the situations.
Regular internal endogenous pathways are far different than the external environment. Such references are non supporting of his claim.
If I was limiting say K+ to some degree prior, and I add more, the the upregulation of CO2 demand will increase.
You can measure this at the gene and transcript level even.
A plant will down regulate CO2 demand to match the most limiting nutrient. This is very clear with respect to P, N and Carbon.
It might be CO2, it might be K+, etc.
None of these folks have accounted for the other causes.
They went directly to their conclusions, then went looking for evidence to support that conclusion.
Then the support was wrong on top of that to boot.
I tested their hypothesis, detailed the method and rational, they did not.
Big difference.
Then I act crotchety and ream them good for not doing the work themselves and still wanting to argue with me about it.
If you do the work and show that it's not, they need to prove me wrong and detail out the methods/rational and do the work themselves.
But few do, they are too lazy to test their own hypothesis, are unwilling to address their assumptions, and lack the control to begin with. Hey, some folks are not into it as much, nothing wrong with that, but do not come down on me because you are not willing to do the work and are still speculating rather than trying to see what test you can do to see if the hypothesis is falsifiable or not.
That's what makes me different and why I can figure out more relationships and get them right consistently.
If you have enough control to grow the plant fine, then add the substance/treatment that they claim causes the effect, and you get no effect, then you can safely say that it's not the cause.
Note: this does not say what that cause might be, just that it cannot be this reason.
So you do this again and again till you are left with a few possible candidates or one etc.
Yes....this takes work and labor.
It's not just this issue, it's the same with PO4, NO3, CO2, tap waters, hard vs soft, sediments, water column, toxicity, algae of most every sort.
Every one said excess PO4 causes algae in planted tanks(some clowns still do), I added PO4, I had no algae bloom and excellent plant growth. The process and logic are the same here. But I used a tank that was in great shape and had no algae to start with.
The same must be done here.
The healthy plant/tank etc is the standard and control, not some loused up plant/tank full of algae etc.
Everyone makes mistakes but some realize that to start with and try to account for them. Then at least they are further along than the person who has not. You learn by doing and making mistakes, if all you do is sit and speculate and never test, then you learn far less.
Same deal with aquascaping. You learn by doing, not sitting there thinking and typing.
Regards,
Tom Barr
