Bill Kirkpatrick wrote in message ...
Hey, great, I'll take you at your word. But, in the future,
you should be more careful about science like ...

"Many/most species of algae can store PO4 for up to 100
generations..."

100 generations, you got "mom", then 2, 4, 8, 16 ... 1.6E30
cells, that's tons of material, literally. That's one good
lot of PO4 storage for dear 'ol mom.


As promised: here's the reference that posted sometime ago.

http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plant.../msg00087.html

It's not a question of being MORE careful, it's a question of putting
every one of your assumptions and questions at bay here. You asked a
lot of questions but the time is over for that and time for you to see
the observations for your self.

I suggest:
Take a look at the AGA contest winners, ask on the APD, see what folks
add to their nice tanks that are looking good.
Ask over in Singapore, ask in the UK, Ask down in Dallas Fort plant
club, Ask out in the Bay area www.sfbaaps.com.

Look at Paul and Kevin's assertions, they are by no means backing up
much, eg no control, questionable testing methods(how good accurate
are their test kit?), and 2 low light plant tanks.

I would not base generalizations based on 2 cases studies.
It would warrant further investigation and it did make improvements to
keeping plants.

Which is what I and others did........

So now it's your turn to do some digging.
Please, do some seraching and asking around.

Regards,
Tom Barr

Bill Kirkpatrick wrote in message ...
Hey, great, I'll take you at your word. But, in the future,
you should be more careful about science like ...

"Many/most species of algae can store PO4 for up to 100
generations..."

100 generations, you got "mom", then 2, 4, 8, 16 ... 1.6E30
cells, that's tons of material, literally. That's one good
lot of PO4 storage for dear 'ol mom.


As promised: here's the reference that posted sometime ago.

http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plant.../msg00087.html

It's not a question of being MORE careful, it's a question of putting
every one of your assumptions and questions at bay here. You asked a
lot of questions but the time is over for that and time for you to see
the observations for your self.

I suggest:
Take a look at the AGA contest winners, ask on the APD, see what folks
add to their nice tanks that are looking good.
Ask over in Singapore, ask in the UK, Ask down in Dallas Fort plant
club, Ask out in the Bay area www.sfbaaps.com.

Look at Paul and Kevin's assertions, they are by no means backing up
much, eg no control, questionable testing methods(how good accurate
are their test kit?), and 2 low light plant tanks.

I would not base generalizations based on 2 cases studies.
It would warrant further investigation and it did make improvements to
keeping plants.

Which is what I and others did........

So now it's your turn to do some digging.
Please, do some seraching and asking around.

Regards,
Tom Barr

I said I'd leave this, and probably should live up to my
word, but I can't accept having words put in my mouth.

I originally used the word "cause", and promptly recanted
use of the word as overly strong. For the mistake of ever
answering a simple question, without perfectly refined
scientific word smithing, I'm sorry, again. I restated with
higher specificity, namely that P is one nutrient which can
serve as limiting. I offered Fe, "perhaps", to highlight
the non-exclusive selection of P.

Now, Bio 1, not even 101, teaches... "A Species will
proliferate unless, or until, it encounters a limiting
factor". A proper biological argument, surely any regarding
population control, is framed in terms of what "limits" that
species, and that species directly. When you do otherwise,
you open wider and wider ranges of potential causality.
Ignoring this "rule" is particularly dangerous in population
control, as you can end up putting multiple species in harms
way, caught between your problem population and it's true
limiting factor. In being non-specific you end up with
logic like - "If you kill Plankton, seals dwindle." Sure,
but I'm sure the Plankton is none too happy about your
choice of analysis, may they suggest you should just kill
the fish directly. From your office, you should know this.

You focus on your target and, culling from its requirements
alone, determine what can be limited. Work from there. So,
maybe we do have to kill the Plankton, but the argument is
properly stated "To limit seals, you can limit their food
(fish) or, perhaps, mating grounds; we can't control the
mating grounds well enough; so to limit fish you can limit
their food ..., etc."

Algae/BGA exists. If, as you claim, higher plants are
limiting, they are doing it through bio-chemistry. Name the
link. We know it is resolvable, routinely, in various
media, without nutrient starvation of the higher organisms.
Resolution/limitation (in tank) rarely depends on
predation, need not depend on antibiotic toxicity, and can
be accomplished regardless of lighting levels. Whine all
you want about PO4 "ain't it", Fe "ain't it", XYZ "ain't
it", but until you form a proper biological argument,
spelling out what factors ARE "it", I'll go with the
nutrient limitation, thank you.

Lighting is surely limiting, less light less stuff, but silk
plant tanks still do end up infected so "low light" is
hardly the complete answer. Temp is limiting, range
depending on species, but does the range 68-80 matter to
"our" species? Redox seems implicated, but a well lit,
reasonably clean, plant tank tends to maintain a serviceable
redox on it's own, and I've had BGA at high redox in my reefs.

Regardless, we all control light, temp, and less so redox as
a matter of routine. BGA/Algae comes and goes. It must be
resolving because 1) something in the water is killing it;
or 2) it is failing to find something else it needs (nutrients).

******************************************
wrote:

I feel I have spent enough time and supported my own arguments and
assertions, it's now time for you to look into things for yourself and
prove that adding PO4 to a planted tank causes algae.

Bill Kirkpatrick wrote in message ...
I'm going to leave this with...

For all you said, what you haven't answered is the riddle,
other than to say "wrong". Ok, well, maybe we collectively
are, that's fine...

Well the scientist are not wrong, we can see that if you add
nutrients, P or/or N to a lake with 50% or more surface coverage with
macrophytes, the lake stays macrophyte dominated. Adding nutrients
makes the plants grow faster.
If the levels are less than 30-50%, often you will get algal pea soup
domination.

That's one reason we have such bad aquatic weed problems in Florida.

But, if, as you say, higher plants need so very much more of
"everything" v. algae, just to survive, and all of that must
be in the water at all times, else our higher plants are
just dead beyond redemption... then...
How is it anyone, ever, controls algae? Shouldn't it simply
explode, killing everyone, and everything?

There's many ways, not just one way we control algae and it's
controlled in nature. Algae is tasty and nutritious and grows back
fast so this supports a large herbivore population, wereas there are
few aquatic plant herbivores(Grass carp etc). Submersed Plants grow,
but it takes them more time to establish.

Algae and macrophytes occupy different niches/environments.
High O2 level;s in lakes, aquariums seems to have a negative effect
likely due to photorespiration to _some_ algae species.

In our tanks we remove the algae, start off the tank with loads of
plants, we always remove the algae and do water changes etc.

Macrophytes main competitive advantage is light.
Macrophytes grow fast enough to out pace the the algal colonization.
We trim off the older leaves, replant thew tops.

Something must be limiting them. You seem to propose
nothing, other than the mear physical presence of healthy
plants. Surely algae do not inspect their environment,
approve the health, state, and quantity, of the higher
plants, and give up.

Why not?
Plants do. Seeds will not grow unless precise environmental conditions
exist, the same is true for algae spores.
Try and induce green water without NH4, use NO3 for example, then try
using NH4, you'll see quickly that algae do respond fast to this.

(Aside - some higher plants to emit various biocides. Let's
assume our swords do not.

You'd be hard pressed to show this. See APD for more on allelopathy,
I've made some very strong arguments against this happening.

Further, reefs and silk plant
tanks are known to exist w/o higher plants at all, yet are
also subject to acute, resolvable, algae infections.)

Reefs are not the same as planted tanks. There are marine planted
tanks, but these are not reef tanks. Not all corals use algae.
Silk plant tanks don't have higher lighting(why add more light?)

People have gone from no apparent infection, to acute
infection, and back. I have, even somewhat routinely on my
reef tanks.

I keep marine planted tanks, but like the FW plants, if the corals are
not feed and kept healthy/ actively growing, the nuisance algae will
bloom.
We see this commonly with refugium folks, their macro's grow like
gangbusters, peter out due to nutrient limitations, go sexual(in
response to what? low, not high nutrients) and then afterwards, the
bad algae come in.
The conditions in marine tanks are more subtle, but many of the same
issues still apply.

If, as you seem to claim, all higher plants
must fail before nutrients can limit the algae, then what IS
doing the limiting?

See above, there is likely a few things going on. Few researchers have
really looked at this in terms of a planted tank, there's no grant
money

Something is allowing routine
reclamation of all these obviously inoculated tanks? (and
not everyone is pumping their tank full of anti-biotics,
particularly on the reef side.)

I feel I have spent enough time and supported my own arguments and
assertions, it's now time for you to look into things for yourself and
prove that adding PO4 to a planted tank causes algae.

I can easily and handily prove that excess PO4 does not cause algae in
a planted tank. You need to prove to me that it does. The research is
against you, the practical experience is against you, even Paul Sears
concedes otherwise about PO4. Just about every contest winner I know
has used PO4 or has a lot in their tap water.

It is rather easy to prove what something is not, it's tougher to
prove what is going on, often it's several things.

I'm not saying what precisely it is that causes plant domination, but
it does exist and I've given several good plausible nmechanisms for
this to occur.
There are other mechanisms I have not listed but look around first.

Regards,
Tom Barr

Bill Kirkpatrick wrote in message ...
I'm going to leave this with...

For all you said, what you haven't answered is the riddle,
other than to say "wrong". Ok, well, maybe we collectively
are, that's fine...

Well the scientist are not wrong, we can see that if you add
nutrients, P or/or N to a lake with 50% or more surface coverage with
macrophytes, the lake stays macrophyte dominated. Adding nutrients
makes the plants grow faster.
If the levels are less than 30-50%, often you will get algal pea soup
domination.

That's one reason we have such bad aquatic weed problems in Florida.

But, if, as you say, higher plants need so very much more of
"everything" v. algae, just to survive, and all of that must
be in the water at all times, else our higher plants are
just dead beyond redemption... then...
How is it anyone, ever, controls algae? Shouldn't it simply
explode, killing everyone, and everything?

There's many ways, not just one way we control algae and it's
controlled in nature. Algae is tasty and nutritious and grows back
fast so this supports a large herbivore population, wereas there are
few aquatic plant herbivores(Grass carp etc). Submersed Plants grow,
but it takes them more time to establish.

Algae and macrophytes occupy different niches/environments.
High O2 level;s in lakes, aquariums seems to have a negative effect
likely due to photorespiration to _some_ algae species.

In our tanks we remove the algae, start off the tank with loads of
plants, we always remove the algae and do water changes etc.

Macrophytes main competitive advantage is light.
Macrophytes grow fast enough to out pace the the algal colonization.
We trim off the older leaves, replant thew tops.

Something must be limiting them. You seem to propose
nothing, other than the mear physical presence of healthy
plants. Surely algae do not inspect their environment,
approve the health, state, and quantity, of the higher
plants, and give up.

Why not?
Plants do. Seeds will not grow unless precise environmental conditions
exist, the same is true for algae spores.
Try and induce green water without NH4, use NO3 for example, then try
using NH4, you'll see quickly that algae do respond fast to this.

(Aside - some higher plants to emit various biocides. Let's
assume our swords do not.

You'd be hard pressed to show this. See APD for more on allelopathy,
I've made some very strong arguments against this happening.

Further, reefs and silk plant
tanks are known to exist w/o higher plants at all, yet are
also subject to acute, resolvable, algae infections.)

Reefs are not the same as planted tanks. There are marine planted
tanks, but these are not reef tanks. Not all corals use algae.
Silk plant tanks don't have higher lighting(why add more light?)

People have gone from no apparent infection, to acute
infection, and back. I have, even somewhat routinely on my
reef tanks.

I keep marine planted tanks, but like the FW plants, if the corals are
not feed and kept healthy/ actively growing, the nuisance algae will
bloom.
We see this commonly with refugium folks, their macro's grow like
gangbusters, peter out due to nutrient limitations, go sexual(in
response to what? low, not high nutrients) and then afterwards, the
bad algae come in.
The conditions in marine tanks are more subtle, but many of the same
issues still apply.

If, as you seem to claim, all higher plants
must fail before nutrients can limit the algae, then what IS
doing the limiting?

See above, there is likely a few things going on. Few researchers have
really looked at this in terms of a planted tank, there's no grant
money

Something is allowing routine
reclamation of all these obviously inoculated tanks? (and
not everyone is pumping their tank full of anti-biotics,
particularly on the reef side.)

I feel I have spent enough time and supported my own arguments and
assertions, it's now time for you to look into things for yourself and
prove that adding PO4 to a planted tank causes algae.

I can easily and handily prove that excess PO4 does not cause algae in
a planted tank. You need to prove to me that it does. The research is
against you, the practical experience is against you, even Paul Sears
concedes otherwise about PO4. Just about every contest winner I know
has used PO4 or has a lot in their tap water.

It is rather easy to prove what something is not, it's tougher to
prove what is going on, often it's several things.

I'm not saying what precisely it is that causes plant domination, but
it does exist and I've given several good plausible nmechanisms for
this to occur.
There are other mechanisms I have not listed but look around first.

Regards,
Tom Barr

Bill Kirkpatrick wrote in message ...
Hey, great, I'll take you at your word. But, in the future,
you should be more careful about science like ...

"Many/most species of algae can store PO4 for up to 100
generations..."

100 generations, you got "mom", then 2, 4, 8, 16 ... 1.6E30
cells, that's tons of material, literally. That's one good
lot of PO4 storage for dear 'ol mom.


As promised: here's the reference that posted sometime ago.

http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plant.../msg00087.html

It's not a question of being MORE careful, it's a question of putting
every one of your assumptions and questions at bay here. You asked a
lot of questions but the time is over for that and time for you to see
the observations for your self.

I suggest:
Take a look at the AGA contest winners, ask on the APD, see what folks
add to their nice tanks that are looking good.
Ask over in Singapore, ask in the UK, Ask down in Dallas Fort plant
club, Ask out in the Bay area www.sfbaaps.com.

Look at Paul and Kevin's assertions, they are by no means backing up
much, eg no control, questionable testing methods(how good accurate
are their test kit?), and 2 low light plant tanks.

I would not base generalizations based on 2 cases studies.
It would warrant further investigation and it did make improvements to
keeping plants.

Which is what I and others did........

So now it's your turn to do some digging.
Please, do some seraching and asking around.

Regards,
Tom Barr

Bill Kirkpatrick wrote in message ...
Hey, great, I'll take you at your word. But, in the future,
you should be more careful about science like ...

"Many/most species of algae can store PO4 for up to 100
generations..."

100 generations, you got "mom", then 2, 4, 8, 16 ... 1.6E30
cells, that's tons of material, literally. That's one good
lot of PO4 storage for dear 'ol mom.


As promised: here's the reference that posted sometime ago.

http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plant.../msg00087.html

It's not a question of being MORE careful, it's a question of putting
every one of your assumptions and questions at bay here. You asked a
lot of questions but the time is over for that and time for you to see
the observations for your self.

I suggest:
Take a look at the AGA contest winners, ask on the APD, see what folks
add to their nice tanks that are looking good.
Ask over in Singapore, ask in the UK, Ask down in Dallas Fort plant
club, Ask out in the Bay area www.sfbaaps.com.

Look at Paul and Kevin's assertions, they are by no means backing up
much, eg no control, questionable testing methods(how good accurate
are their test kit?), and 2 low light plant tanks.

I would not base generalizations based on 2 cases studies.
It would warrant further investigation and it did make improvements to
keeping plants.

Which is what I and others did........

So now it's your turn to do some digging.
Please, do some seraching and asking around.

Regards,
Tom Barr

I said I'd leave this, and probably should live up to my
word, but I can't accept having words put in my mouth.

I originally used the word "cause", and promptly recanted
use of the word as overly strong. For the mistake of ever
answering a simple question, without perfectly refined
scientific word smithing, I'm sorry, again. I restated with
higher specificity, namely that P is one nutrient which can
serve as limiting. I offered Fe, "perhaps", to highlight
the non-exclusive selection of P.

Now, Bio 1, not even 101, teaches... "A Species will
proliferate unless, or until, it encounters a limiting
factor". A proper biological argument, surely any regarding
population control, is framed in terms of what "limits" that
species, and that species directly. When you do otherwise,
you open wider and wider ranges of potential causality.
Ignoring this "rule" is particularly dangerous in population
control, as you can end up putting multiple species in harms
way, caught between your problem population and it's true
limiting factor. In being non-specific you end up with
logic like - "If you kill Plankton, seals dwindle." Sure,
but I'm sure the Plankton is none too happy about your
choice of analysis, may they suggest you should just kill
the fish directly. From your office, you should know this.

You focus on your target and, culling from its requirements
alone, determine what can be limited. Work from there. So,
maybe we do have to kill the Plankton, but the argument is
properly stated "To limit seals, you can limit their food
(fish) or, perhaps, mating grounds; we can't control the
mating grounds well enough; so to limit fish you can limit
their food ..., etc."

Algae/BGA exists. If, as you claim, higher plants are
limiting, they are doing it through bio-chemistry. Name the
link. We know it is resolvable, routinely, in various
media, without nutrient starvation of the higher organisms.
Resolution/limitation (in tank) rarely depends on
predation, need not depend on antibiotic toxicity, and can
be accomplished regardless of lighting levels. Whine all
you want about PO4 "ain't it", Fe "ain't it", XYZ "ain't
it", but until you form a proper biological argument,
spelling out what factors ARE "it", I'll go with the
nutrient limitation, thank you.

Lighting is surely limiting, less light less stuff, but silk
plant tanks still do end up infected so "low light" is
hardly the complete answer. Temp is limiting, range
depending on species, but does the range 68-80 matter to
"our" species? Redox seems implicated, but a well lit,
reasonably clean, plant tank tends to maintain a serviceable
redox on it's own, and I've had BGA at high redox in my reefs.

Regardless, we all control light, temp, and less so redox as
a matter of routine. BGA/Algae comes and goes. It must be
resolving because 1) something in the water is killing it;
or 2) it is failing to find something else it needs (nutrients).

******************************************
wrote:

I feel I have spent enough time and supported my own arguments and
assertions, it's now time for you to look into things for yourself and
prove that adding PO4 to a planted tank causes algae.

I said I'd leave this, and probably should live up to my
word, but I can't accept having words put in my mouth.

I originally used the word "cause", and promptly recanted
use of the word as overly strong. For the mistake of ever
answering a simple question, without perfectly refined
scientific word smithing, I'm sorry, again. I restated with
higher specificity, namely that P is one nutrient which can
serve as limiting. I offered Fe, "perhaps", to highlight
the non-exclusive selection of P.

Now, Bio 1, not even 101, teaches... "A Species will
proliferate unless, or until, it encounters a limiting
factor". A proper biological argument, surely any regarding
population control, is framed in terms of what "limits" that
species, and that species directly. When you do otherwise,
you open wider and wider ranges of potential causality.
Ignoring this "rule" is particularly dangerous in population
control, as you can end up putting multiple species in harms
way, caught between your problem population and it's true
limiting factor. In being non-specific you end up with
logic like - "If you kill Plankton, seals dwindle." Sure,
but I'm sure the Plankton is none too happy about your
choice of analysis, may they suggest you should just kill
the fish directly. From your office, you should know this.

You focus on your target and, culling from its requirements
alone, determine what can be limited. Work from there. So,
maybe we do have to kill the Plankton, but the argument is
properly stated "To limit seals, you can limit their food
(fish) or, perhaps, mating grounds; we can't control the
mating grounds well enough; so to limit fish you can limit
their food ..., etc."

Algae/BGA exists. If, as you claim, higher plants are
limiting, they are doing it through bio-chemistry. Name the
link. We know it is resolvable, routinely, in various
media, without nutrient starvation of the higher organisms.
Resolution/limitation (in tank) rarely depends on
predation, need not depend on antibiotic toxicity, and can
be accomplished regardless of lighting levels. Whine all
you want about PO4 "ain't it", Fe "ain't it", XYZ "ain't
it", but until you form a proper biological argument,
spelling out what factors ARE "it", I'll go with the
nutrient limitation, thank you.

Lighting is surely limiting, less light less stuff, but silk
plant tanks still do end up infected so "low light" is
hardly the complete answer. Temp is limiting, range
depending on species, but does the range 68-80 matter to
"our" species? Redox seems implicated, but a well lit,
reasonably clean, plant tank tends to maintain a serviceable
redox on it's own, and I've had BGA at high redox in my reefs.

Regardless, we all control light, temp, and less so redox as
a matter of routine. BGA/Algae comes and goes. It must be
resolving because 1) something in the water is killing it;
or 2) it is failing to find something else it needs (nutrients).

******************************************
wrote:

I feel I have spent enough time and supported my own arguments and
assertions, it's now time for you to look into things for yourself and
prove that adding PO4 to a planted tank causes algae.

Bill Kirkpatrick wrote in message ...
I'm going to leave this with...

For all you said, what you haven't answered is the riddle,
other than to say "wrong". Ok, well, maybe we collectively
are, that's fine...

Well the scientist are not wrong, we can see that if you add
nutrients, P or/or N to a lake with 50% or more surface coverage with
macrophytes, the lake stays macrophyte dominated. Adding nutrients
makes the plants grow faster.
If the levels are less than 30-50%, often you will get algal pea soup
domination.

That's one reason we have such bad aquatic weed problems in Florida.

But, if, as you say, higher plants need so very much more of
"everything" v. algae, just to survive, and all of that must
be in the water at all times, else our higher plants are
just dead beyond redemption... then...
How is it anyone, ever, controls algae? Shouldn't it simply
explode, killing everyone, and everything?

There's many ways, not just one way we control algae and it's
controlled in nature. Algae is tasty and nutritious and grows back
fast so this supports a large herbivore population, wereas there are
few aquatic plant herbivores(Grass carp etc). Submersed Plants grow,
but it takes them more time to establish.

Algae and macrophytes occupy different niches/environments.
High O2 level;s in lakes, aquariums seems to have a negative effect
likely due to photorespiration to _some_ algae species.

In our tanks we remove the algae, start off the tank with loads of
plants, we always remove the algae and do water changes etc.

Macrophytes main competitive advantage is light.
Macrophytes grow fast enough to out pace the the algal colonization.
We trim off the older leaves, replant thew tops.

Something must be limiting them. You seem to propose
nothing, other than the mear physical presence of healthy
plants. Surely algae do not inspect their environment,
approve the health, state, and quantity, of the higher
plants, and give up.

Why not?
Plants do. Seeds will not grow unless precise environmental conditions
exist, the same is true for algae spores.
Try and induce green water without NH4, use NO3 for example, then try
using NH4, you'll see quickly that algae do respond fast to this.

(Aside - some higher plants to emit various biocides. Let's
assume our swords do not.

You'd be hard pressed to show this. See APD for more on allelopathy,
I've made some very strong arguments against this happening.

Further, reefs and silk plant
tanks are known to exist w/o higher plants at all, yet are
also subject to acute, resolvable, algae infections.)

Reefs are not the same as planted tanks. There are marine planted
tanks, but these are not reef tanks. Not all corals use algae.
Silk plant tanks don't have higher lighting(why add more light?)

People have gone from no apparent infection, to acute
infection, and back. I have, even somewhat routinely on my
reef tanks.

I keep marine planted tanks, but like the FW plants, if the corals are
not feed and kept healthy/ actively growing, the nuisance algae will
bloom.
We see this commonly with refugium folks, their macro's grow like
gangbusters, peter out due to nutrient limitations, go sexual(in
response to what? low, not high nutrients) and then afterwards, the
bad algae come in.
The conditions in marine tanks are more subtle, but many of the same
issues still apply.

If, as you seem to claim, all higher plants
must fail before nutrients can limit the algae, then what IS
doing the limiting?

See above, there is likely a few things going on. Few researchers have
really looked at this in terms of a planted tank, there's no grant
money

Something is allowing routine
reclamation of all these obviously inoculated tanks? (and
not everyone is pumping their tank full of anti-biotics,
particularly on the reef side.)

I feel I have spent enough time and supported my own arguments and
assertions, it's now time for you to look into things for yourself and
prove that adding PO4 to a planted tank causes algae.

I can easily and handily prove that excess PO4 does not cause algae in
a planted tank. You need to prove to me that it does. The research is
against you, the practical experience is against you, even Paul Sears
concedes otherwise about PO4. Just about every contest winner I know
has used PO4 or has a lot in their tap water.

It is rather easy to prove what something is not, it's tougher to
prove what is going on, often it's several things.

I'm not saying what precisely it is that causes plant domination, but
it does exist and I've given several good plausible nmechanisms for
this to occur.
There are other mechanisms I have not listed but look around first.

Regards,
Tom Barr

Bill Kirkpatrick wrote in message ...
I'm going to leave this with...

For all you said, what you haven't answered is the riddle,
other than to say "wrong". Ok, well, maybe we collectively
are, that's fine...

Well the scientist are not wrong, we can see that if you add
nutrients, P or/or N to a lake with 50% or more surface coverage with
macrophytes, the lake stays macrophyte dominated. Adding nutrients
makes the plants grow faster.
If the levels are less than 30-50%, often you will get algal pea soup
domination.

That's one reason we have such bad aquatic weed problems in Florida.

But, if, as you say, higher plants need so very much more of
"everything" v. algae, just to survive, and all of that must
be in the water at all times, else our higher plants are
just dead beyond redemption... then...
How is it anyone, ever, controls algae? Shouldn't it simply
explode, killing everyone, and everything?

There's many ways, not just one way we control algae and it's
controlled in nature. Algae is tasty and nutritious and grows back
fast so this supports a large herbivore population, wereas there are
few aquatic plant herbivores(Grass carp etc). Submersed Plants grow,
but it takes them more time to establish.

Algae and macrophytes occupy different niches/environments.
High O2 level;s in lakes, aquariums seems to have a negative effect
likely due to photorespiration to _some_ algae species.

In our tanks we remove the algae, start off the tank with loads of
plants, we always remove the algae and do water changes etc.

Macrophytes main competitive advantage is light.
Macrophytes grow fast enough to out pace the the algal colonization.
We trim off the older leaves, replant thew tops.

Something must be limiting them. You seem to propose
nothing, other than the mear physical presence of healthy
plants. Surely algae do not inspect their environment,
approve the health, state, and quantity, of the higher
plants, and give up.

Why not?
Plants do. Seeds will not grow unless precise environmental conditions
exist, the same is true for algae spores.
Try and induce green water without NH4, use NO3 for example, then try
using NH4, you'll see quickly that algae do respond fast to this.

(Aside - some higher plants to emit various biocides. Let's
assume our swords do not.

You'd be hard pressed to show this. See APD for more on allelopathy,
I've made some very strong arguments against this happening.

Further, reefs and silk plant
tanks are known to exist w/o higher plants at all, yet are
also subject to acute, resolvable, algae infections.)

Reefs are not the same as planted tanks. There are marine planted
tanks, but these are not reef tanks. Not all corals use algae.
Silk plant tanks don't have higher lighting(why add more light?)

People have gone from no apparent infection, to acute
infection, and back. I have, even somewhat routinely on my
reef tanks.

I keep marine planted tanks, but like the FW plants, if the corals are
not feed and kept healthy/ actively growing, the nuisance algae will
bloom.
We see this commonly with refugium folks, their macro's grow like
gangbusters, peter out due to nutrient limitations, go sexual(in
response to what? low, not high nutrients) and then afterwards, the
bad algae come in.
The conditions in marine tanks are more subtle, but many of the same
issues still apply.

If, as you seem to claim, all higher plants
must fail before nutrients can limit the algae, then what IS
doing the limiting?

See above, there is likely a few things going on. Few researchers have
really looked at this in terms of a planted tank, there's no grant
money

Something is allowing routine
reclamation of all these obviously inoculated tanks? (and
not everyone is pumping their tank full of anti-biotics,
particularly on the reef side.)

I feel I have spent enough time and supported my own arguments and
assertions, it's now time for you to look into things for yourself and
prove that adding PO4 to a planted tank causes algae.

I can easily and handily prove that excess PO4 does not cause algae in
a planted tank. You need to prove to me that it does. The research is
against you, the practical experience is against you, even Paul Sears
concedes otherwise about PO4. Just about every contest winner I know
has used PO4 or has a lot in their tap water.

It is rather easy to prove what something is not, it's tougher to
prove what is going on, often it's several things.

I'm not saying what precisely it is that causes plant domination, but
it does exist and I've given several good plausible nmechanisms for
this to occur.
There are other mechanisms I have not listed but look around first.

Regards,
Tom Barr

I said I'd leave this, and probably should live up to my
word, but I can't accept having words put in my mouth.

I originally used the word "cause", and promptly recanted
use of the word as overly strong. For the mistake of ever
answering a simple question, without perfectly refined
scientific word smithing, I'm sorry, again. I restated with
higher specificity, namely that P is one nutrient which can
serve as limiting. I offered Fe, "perhaps", to highlight
the non-exclusive selection of P.

Now, Bio 1, not even 101, teaches... "A Species will
proliferate unless, or until, it encounters a limiting
factor". A proper biological argument, surely any regarding
population control, is framed in terms of what "limits" that
species, and that species directly. When you do otherwise,
you open wider and wider ranges of potential causality.
Ignoring this "rule" is particularly dangerous in population
control, as you can end up putting multiple species in harms
way, caught between your problem population and it's true
limiting factor. In being non-specific you end up with
logic like - "If you kill Plankton, seals dwindle." Sure,
but I'm sure the Plankton is none too happy about your
choice of analysis, may they suggest you should just kill
the fish directly. From your office, you should know this.

You focus on your target and, culling from its requirements
alone, determine what can be limited. Work from there. So,
maybe we do have to kill the Plankton, but the argument is
properly stated "To limit seals, you can limit their food
(fish) or, perhaps, mating grounds; we can't control the
mating grounds well enough; so to limit fish you can limit
their food ..., etc."

Algae/BGA exists. If, as you claim, higher plants are
limiting, they are doing it through bio-chemistry. Name the
link. We know it is resolvable, routinely, in various
media, without nutrient starvation of the higher organisms.
Resolution/limitation (in tank) rarely depends on
predation, need not depend on antibiotic toxicity, and can
be accomplished regardless of lighting levels. Whine all
you want about PO4 "ain't it", Fe "ain't it", XYZ "ain't
it", but until you form a proper biological argument,
spelling out what factors ARE "it", I'll go with the
nutrient limitation, thank you.

Lighting is surely limiting, less light less stuff, but silk
plant tanks still do end up infected so "low light" is
hardly the complete answer. Temp is limiting, range
depending on species, but does the range 68-80 matter to
"our" species? Redox seems implicated, but a well lit,
reasonably clean, plant tank tends to maintain a serviceable
redox on it's own, and I've had BGA at high redox in my reefs.

Regardless, we all control light, temp, and less so redox as
a matter of routine. BGA/Algae comes and goes. It must be
resolving because 1) something in the water is killing it;
or 2) it is failing to find something else it needs (nutrients).

******************************************
wrote:

I feel I have spent enough time and supported my own arguments and
assertions, it's now time for you to look into things for yourself and
prove that adding PO4 to a planted tank causes algae.

Now, Bio 1, not even 101, teaches... "A Species will
proliferate unless, or until, it encounters a limiting
factor". A proper biological argument, surely any regarding
population control, is framed in terms of what "limits" that
species, and that species directly.

But that is in an _ideal_ situation in order to show the concept, not
to be applied without consideration of many other variables.

There are few macrophyte periphyton competition studies.
This is not Bio 101.

I gave several mechanisms that do in fact limit growth in an aquarium
algae.
Not just one. It also works in non CO2 plants tanks and marine planted
tanks to some extent.

This issue has been discussed several years ago on the APD in depth
and still here and there but no one contends that excess PO4 causes
algae. Paul Sears was part of that discussion, one of the authors of
the paer that you have referenced to.

There are also many exmaples of folks telling how well their plants
grow by adding PO4.

You have not supported your contentions, I have.
The proof is in the pudding, why don't I have algae like you seem to
want to claim?

Magic water?
Crystal powers?

When you do otherwise,
you open wider and wider ranges of potential causality.

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.

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.
In order to say x causes y, you need to make certain that the other
parameters are not influencing your results.

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.

Algae/BGA exists. If, as you claim, higher plants are
limiting, they are doing it through bio-chemistry.

Higher plants are limiting the algae?
I do not think they do it through alleopathy, you can add activated
carbon to the filter to remove any organic compounds that cause
allelopathy.

Also, look up the APD and other sites.

Name the
link.

?

We know it is resolvable, routinely, in various
media, without nutrient starvation of the higher organisms.

Some higher organism have different niches than smaller ones.

Resolution/limitation (in tank) rarely depends on
predation,

True but it can tip the scales in a few cases, it's not something I
rely on.

need not depend on antibiotic toxicity, and can
be accomplished regardless of lighting levels.

Regardless of lighting levels? You sure you want to say that?

Whine all
you want about PO4 "ain't it", Fe "ain't it", XYZ "ain't
it", but until you form a proper biological argument,

Oh, I most certainly have spelled it out quite well and better than
those before me.

spelling out what factors ARE "it", I'll go with the
nutrient limitation, thank you.

Uhm, I did in the last post, I gave multiple plausible causes.
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.
The AGA contest winners, all the plant clubs have got it all wrong and
you are the only that's right?

Humm you might want to actually try it and see about this, maybe read
some of the references, ask around.

Hey, you can believe what you want to believe, but your still wrong
about PO4.
That does not change.
You have not supported your own arguements with a single reference
beside Paul and Kevin's.

Lighting is surely limiting, less light less stuff,

Depends, if light is limiting, then yes, but this is not always the
case.
Aquatic Plants generally are better competitors than algae for light.
Call up Dr. Bowes, the guy's studied aquatic plants and algae for 30+
years.
Ask.

but silk
plant tanks still do end up infected so "low light" is
hardly the complete answer.

I never said it was "complete".

You want a complete answer in aquatic plant-algae dynamics here?:-)

Temp is limiting, range
depending on species, but does the range 68-80 matter to
"our" species?

Not too much.

Redox seems implicated, but a well lit,
reasonably clean, plant tank tends to maintain a serviceable
redox on it's own, and I've had BGA at high redox in my reefs.

I did not say redox, but you could argue high O2 levels cause many
species of algae, BGA etc to photorespire causing large losses, up to
40-50% of the fixed carbon.

Reef tanks and plant marine tanks are different. Careful not to
compare apples and oranges, same thing goes for Northern deep minimal
littoral zone lakes used to make assumptions about planted tanks vs a
shallow warm water tropical lake packed full of aquatic macrophytes.

One is much more applicable to the questions at hand with planted
tanks.

Regardless, we all control light, temp, and less so redox as
a matter of routine. BGA/Algae comes and goes.

Mine does not come and go.
I have not had it become an issue in a decade or more.

It must be
resolving because 1) something in the water is killing it;

Well, carbon will remove organic causes, water changes also will
reduce the effects, it cannot be nutrients since we have added the
nutrients the BGa needs to live to excess.

or 2) it is failing to find something else it needs (nutrients).

Maybe it knows something else is growing, much like a seed that will
not germinate due to other plants surrounding it or until a fire comes
along and disturbs it.

Before you reply back, I'd suggest you look up and ask around about
this issue that we limit algae through PO4 or Fe limitation.

The observations all over the world and the winners in many contest
directly conflict with what you are saying, not to mention past
research.

Regards,
Tom Barr

One last thing:
I too wondered what the hell was going on when I noticed I had very
high PO4 levels but no algae, great plant growth.

It seemed blasphemy at the time as well. But the observation was
confirmed by many folks and has been for many years now.

So I did feel as you did at one point. It did not make sense at first.

Take care,
Regards,
Tom Barr

Now, Bio 1, not even 101, teaches... "A Species will
proliferate unless, or until, it encounters a limiting
factor". A proper biological argument, surely any regarding
population control, is framed in terms of what "limits" that
species, and that species directly.

But that is in an _ideal_ situation in order to show the concept, not
to be applied without consideration of many other variables.

There are few macrophyte periphyton competition studies.
This is not Bio 101.

I gave several mechanisms that do in fact limit growth in an aquarium
algae.
Not just one. It also works in non CO2 plants tanks and marine planted
tanks to some extent.

This issue has been discussed several years ago on the APD in depth
and still here and there but no one contends that excess PO4 causes
algae. Paul Sears was part of that discussion, one of the authors of
the paer that you have referenced to.

There are also many exmaples of folks telling how well their plants
grow by adding PO4.

You have not supported your contentions, I have.
The proof is in the pudding, why don't I have algae like you seem to
want to claim?

Magic water?
Crystal powers?

When you do otherwise,
you open wider and wider ranges of potential causality.

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.

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.
In order to say x causes y, you need to make certain that the other
parameters are not influencing your results.

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.

Algae/BGA exists. If, as you claim, higher plants are
limiting, they are doing it through bio-chemistry.

Higher plants are limiting the algae?
I do not think they do it through alleopathy, you can add activated
carbon to the filter to remove any organic compounds that cause
allelopathy.

Also, look up the APD and other sites.

Name the
link.

?

We know it is resolvable, routinely, in various
media, without nutrient starvation of the higher organisms.

Some higher organism have different niches than smaller ones.

Resolution/limitation (in tank) rarely depends on
predation,

True but it can tip the scales in a few cases, it's not something I
rely on.

need not depend on antibiotic toxicity, and can
be accomplished regardless of lighting levels.

Regardless of lighting levels? You sure you want to say that?

Whine all
you want about PO4 "ain't it", Fe "ain't it", XYZ "ain't
it", but until you form a proper biological argument,

Oh, I most certainly have spelled it out quite well and better than
those before me.

spelling out what factors ARE "it", I'll go with the
nutrient limitation, thank you.

Uhm, I did in the last post, I gave multiple plausible causes.
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.
The AGA contest winners, all the plant clubs have got it all wrong and
you are the only that's right?

Humm you might want to actually try it and see about this, maybe read
some of the references, ask around.

Hey, you can believe what you want to believe, but your still wrong
about PO4.
That does not change.
You have not supported your own arguements with a single reference
beside Paul and Kevin's.

Lighting is surely limiting, less light less stuff,

Depends, if light is limiting, then yes, but this is not always the
case.
Aquatic Plants generally are better competitors than algae for light.
Call up Dr. Bowes, the guy's studied aquatic plants and algae for 30+
years.
Ask.

but silk
plant tanks still do end up infected so "low light" is
hardly the complete answer.

I never said it was "complete".

You want a complete answer in aquatic plant-algae dynamics here?:-)

Temp is limiting, range
depending on species, but does the range 68-80 matter to
"our" species?

Not too much.

Redox seems implicated, but a well lit,
reasonably clean, plant tank tends to maintain a serviceable
redox on it's own, and I've had BGA at high redox in my reefs.

I did not say redox, but you could argue high O2 levels cause many
species of algae, BGA etc to photorespire causing large losses, up to
40-50% of the fixed carbon.

Reef tanks and plant marine tanks are different. Careful not to
compare apples and oranges, same thing goes for Northern deep minimal
littoral zone lakes used to make assumptions about planted tanks vs a
shallow warm water tropical lake packed full of aquatic macrophytes.

One is much more applicable to the questions at hand with planted
tanks.

Regardless, we all control light, temp, and less so redox as
a matter of routine. BGA/Algae comes and goes.

Mine does not come and go.
I have not had it become an issue in a decade or more.

It must be
resolving because 1) something in the water is killing it;

Well, carbon will remove organic causes, water changes also will
reduce the effects, it cannot be nutrients since we have added the
nutrients the BGa needs to live to excess.

or 2) it is failing to find something else it needs (nutrients).

Maybe it knows something else is growing, much like a seed that will
not germinate due to other plants surrounding it or until a fire comes
along and disturbs it.

Before you reply back, I'd suggest you look up and ask around about
this issue that we limit algae through PO4 or Fe limitation.

The observations all over the world and the winners in many contest
directly conflict with what you are saying, not to mention past
research.

Regards,
Tom Barr