12-02-2004, 01:16 AM
|
|
|
algae affected by temp?
wrote:
Now, Bio 1, not even 101, teaches... "A Species will
But that is in an _ideal_ situation in order to show the concept, not
to be applied without consideration of many other variables.
Nope, actually, "consistently applied" would be the thing.
Now, human processes are always subject to error,
miscalculation, observational limits, and oversights. For
example, one might miss "fish" as a mid-point between
plankton and seal control - but one would never, willingly,
ignore "fish" simply to dispatch with well formed process in
"consideration of many other variables".
and still here and there but no one contends that excess PO4 causes
algae.
Oddly, you still dwell on PO4 as a sole and distinct "cause".
There are also many exmaples of folks telling how well their plants
grow by adding PO4.
Hey, plants like PO4.
You have not supported your contentions, I have.
Eh?
The proof is in the pudding, why don't I have algae like you seem to
want to claim?
Magic water?
Crystal powers?
No, but I'd surly have difficulty with the notion of macro
sensibility through the "observational" powers of BGA
regarding relative health of local higher plants.
Actually I have proven quite definitively that excess PO4 that is
available for both plants and algae equally, not not cause algal
blooms in planted tanks with good plant biomass, CO2, moderate-high
light, good dosing of the other nutrients.
Anecdotal. If I can limit via P (in the world where 0 means
0), or I can limit via Fe (also in world where 0 means 0),
or I can limit via "Factor X", then...
If I choose P, and you choose "Factor X" (knowingly, or
not), then by your science, you can "prove" P is "wrong" all
day long.
If you want to talk about causual mechanisms, you need to be able to
isolate the issues and deal with PO4 in a controlled manner.
No, you have to deal with BGA in a controlled manner. PO4,
in science-pure water, won't support any form of life, at
all. You simply cannot control for P, alone, in the life
cycle of BGA.
Steve Dixon and I were some of the first people to do this in planted
tank context regarding PO4. I also showed that NH4, not PO4 or NO3
caused Green water and staghorn algae blooms in FW planted tanks.
Regardless of lighting levels? You sure you want to say that?
Absolutely. I've never, ever, reduced lighting on the reef
tank. BGAs are periodic, and routinely resolvable.
Anecdotally linked to DI breakthrough (and not Zeolite
breakthrough) in the input waters. Persistent NH4 is not
very likely anyway, considering the massive bio-area, water
movement, age of that rock, and unchanged populations of the
tank.
Plant tank is VHO, high PAR, low P. Same size tanks, same
wattage, both reef and plant.
Uhm, I did in the last post, I gave multiple plausible causes.
I reread, closely. Mostly "ain't it". Maybe I missed your
causes for your style.
You can believe want you want, you are still wrong.
Research shows this, I can show this in a plant tank, you can show
this to yourself in a planted tank.
Anecdotal, and the lake study is ill controlled.
The AGA contest winners, all the plant clubs have got it all wrong and
you are the only that's right?
Anecdotal.
Humm you might want to actually try it and see about this, maybe read
some of the references, ask around.
I live it. I limit P, provide high-light, dose PMDD, and
have very few problems with BGA/Algae. My plants out pace my
eagerness to prune, I surely care not to "improve" their
status any further.
Hey, you can believe what you want to believe, but your still wrong
about PO4.
Ain't it! Fine.
|