"Craig Brye" wrote in message ...
Yeah... I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I've done "a ton" of research
as I have kept aquatic plants for several years now. I've always heard/read
about red plants requiring more light. It's also been my experience that
red plants I've kept in the past (such as Diandra and E. Rubin) have always
faltered when the lighting wasn't strong enough (while other plants were
able to prosper).

Are you sure that they just did not need more nutrients instead vs the
other plants? The lighting was not it after all?
What kind of research are you referring to?

I've heard all sorts of claims over the years that folks have written.

Things like:
Plants prefer soft water..........not true.
PO4 causes algae(or excess), not true, I add PO4 liberally, I do not
have algae
Fe causes algae(or excess) Again,. I add it liberally, no algae.
NO3 causes algae(or excess) as above
15ppm is the optimal CO2 level(not true, it's 2x this amount, 30ppm
for common aquatic submersed plants, this concentration comes from
Bowes in various research papers and personal communications)

Just because 95% of folks say it, DOES NOT MAKE IT SO.
I question it because I had findings that certainly suggest otherwise.
No one has suggested any reason or mechanism that refutes the
observations I have stated.

**I think one thing that folks have trouble with is isolation of an
issue.
You have to isolated it and then mess with a range of units that
interest you.

**The other thing is if someone says excess PO4, let's say 1.0ppm
causes algae, why do I not have algae then with high light and
NO3/K/Fe etc?
If this causes algae, where is my algae? Can we still say that is
true?
Why is it true in some cases and not others? Lighting is no
different.

This is a similar situation.
You crank the CO2/NO3/PO4/GH/Traces etc, low light tanks work great.
The Best Eustralis, the best Rotala macrandra, the best D diandra, a
Rubin "Tree", Gloss, Chain swords, Hair grass, mats of Riccia etc, all
did super are 2w/gal of NO FL lighting in a 24" deep tank with 5" of
substrate and good parameters.
The other big issue with lighting, it is the one thing that we cannot
really get a good measure on so it is indirectly measured or grossly
estimated at best. So getting everything else correct and in a good
range that you have chosen will allow you to see how the spectrum and
the intensity influence plant growth.

We went down this about 5-6 years ago on the APD on high light= red
plants.
Neil, myself, Roger Miller, Karen Randall and many others talked about
it.
NO3 at low stable levels seems to be the main trick to redden plants,
not more light was the general conclusion most came to that tested and
tried things out.

You name the plant, I've grown it at 2w/gal of NO FL lights with a
reflector.
There's a few newer stem plants I have not tried, but 99% of the red
plants I have grown very well in moderate to low light by today's
standards.

Take any Ludwigia, or Rotalas and see what color they are when they
break the surface and have far more light.

Karen Randall agrees on this and tells folks that most red plants are
in fact shade low light understory plants. She and I have been at it a
few years too.

The chemical in red, the anthocyanin is mainly considered an anti
herbivory agent in most red plants by Plant Ecologist. The tender tips
of plants(the softer part with the most nutrients) are often red for
this reason.
Some have said the chemical will help protect the plant from high
light also as a possible secondary usage, namely from UV radiation.
Most desert plants are green.....

Regards,
Tom Barr