Robert Hudson

OK, these artistic, Amano like displays, are they confined to only high tech? Can you be artistic with a low tech planted aquarium? A couple years ago, a gentleman nameed Giancarlo Podio, (I hope I spelled his name right) claimed his tank was low tech and later incorportated some high tech aspects, and really achieved an artistic layout, using artistic principals. Is this possible with a Walstad or in general low tech type tank?

imported_russell

Robert, i feel that natural planted tanks can reach great aquascapes. i think that a nice moss foreground looks just as good (if used correctly) as a high tech glosso foreground. aquascaping is mostly creativity, and as the 2004 AGA competition proved in the Large tank devision a natural planted tank can be aquascaped well.

Robert Hudson

I would tend to agree with you Russ. I think many people presume they can not attempt an Amano like tank without C02, or use that as an excuse not to try.

Thats interesting. Can you list the 49 plants?

Miss Fishy

Sure, here is the list:

Azolla pinnata
A. filiculoides
A. filiculoides variety rubra
Ceratophyllum demersum
Chara species (possibly C. corallina)
Chara species (I have no idea which one this is)
Crassula helmsii
Cryptocoryne wendtii
Didiplis diandra
Echinodorus species (some kind of chain sword but I'm not sure which one)
Egeria species
Elatine gratioloides
Eleocharis accicularis
E. pusilla
E. species (I am waiting for it to produce some seed heads to identify it)
Glossostigma elatinoides
Hemianthus micranthemoides
Hydrilla verticillata
Hydrocotyle verticillata
H. species (possibly H. leucocephala but I'm not sure)
Hyrgophila difformis
H. polysperma "Rosanervig"
H. species "Narrow-leaf"
Landoltia punctata
Lilaeopsis brasilensis
L. polyantha
Limnophila sessiliflora
Ludwigia arcuata
L. peploides subspecies montevidensis
L. repens
Lysimachia nummalaria
Marsilea drummondii
M. mutica
Myriophyllum aquaticum
M. caput medusae
M. crispatum
M. papillosum
M. salsugineum
M. simulans
M. variifolium
Microsorum pteropus
Najas species
Nitella species
Nymphoides crenata
Potamogeton australiensis
P. crispus
Ranunculus amphitrichus
Riccia fluitans
Ricciocarpus natans
Rotala rotundifolia
Spirodela polyrhiza
Triglochin procera
Utricularia gibba subspecies exoleta
Vallisneria americana variety gigantea
V. spiralis
Vesicularia dubyana

When I actually sat down and thought about it, I discovered I had acquired a few more plant species since I last counted; I could remember 56 different plants off the top of my head, I think (not including a few plants whose names I don't know). If I actually went and counted them I might find some more but this list gives you a good idea of the types of plants I am growing.

As you can see, there aren't any "difficult" species, but neither are they all typical low-tech plants. I hope more people with low-tech tanks will try growing plants that supposedly need CO2 injection and high light levels. Don't get me wrong - I love tanks with mosses, Crypts and Java Ferns - I just think that people with low-tech tanks should not be limited to these kinds of plants simply because they believe nothing else will grow in their tanks. I know other people in "El Natural" have also had success with groundcovers and a variety of stem plants.

From Alex.

Robert Hudson

That is a lot of plant.. all in one tank? How do you have room for the Glossostigma?

So what size tank and how much lighting are we talking about with the glossostigma? Is the Glosso growing horizontal or verticle?

Miss Fishy

LOL! No, I have five tanks set up at the moment. I have Glosso growing in two of the tanks. Both tanks are 24 inches x 12 inches x 12 inches. One tank has 2.6 wpg and some sunlight, and the other tank lives outside and gets morning sunlight. In the indoor tank which has been set up for eight months, the Glosso started out horizontal, then grew about an inch high for a few months, and has now gone horizontal again! The Glosso in the outdoor tank which has been running for about two years, has always grown horizontally.

From Alex.

Mr Fishies

Without an exact high-tech "parts list" of my own, and only reading other’s posts and sites, I would say that a major defining characteristic of high-tech is the number of components the hobbyist uses to enjoy their hobby. It’s quite high…compared to low-tech as I see it.

My low tech-equipment list includes:

50G Tank, Stand, Eheim 2213 filter, 200W heater, 1 96W AHSupply CF light in DIY canopy, gravel, soil, Seachem Equilibrium & baking soda at water changes with the aim of keeping my tank at about 6 KH/GH (my local water is about 2-3 for each).

8 major components.

If it were high-tech it would likely double the WPG, add compressed CO2, regulator/solenoid/PH meter assy (not necessarily all), and I would be dosing "ferts" and "traces" a few times a week, along with weekly water changes. Maybe using water that's been treated with RO/DI and re-mineralized before use.

Most low-tech tank keepers, from my reading, are usually not using enriched gravels either.

This is where El Natural, or "Walstad tanks" come into the picture which seem to be an offshoot of low tech with 3 pre-requisites. The hobbyist will [1.] Include a layer of soil of some sort as an enriched base for their substrate. [2.] Situate the tank where it will receive sunlight. [3.] Use little or no biological filtration leaving the plants to consume the products of the ammonia/nitrate cycle. (my plants struggled and algae thrived while I had biological media in my filter, now I have only foam and about 1” of fine media).

I suppose some would contest that I am not keeping an El Natural tank since it gets no sunlight after September and only a small amount during the summer months and I use some chemicals to alter my water conditions. I even recently resorted to using H2O2 to slow/stop the algae that had continuously developed while my filter had the bio media in it. The plants are now thriving, I am sucesfully growing (in 1 tank) l.repens, h.difforms and h.polysperma, b.monnieri and b.caroliniana, s.subulata, a.nana, m.pteropus and c.wendtii. c.balansae. I recently added a.reineckii and c.crispulata balansae which seem to be doing well, but it's only been about 2 weeks. Some grow better than others, and there have been a few flops, but I think that was my inexperience and choosing plants that wanted a lot of light.

I am however, trying to adhere to the methods and tactics in The Ecology of the Planted Aquarium since I admire the notion that the El Natural method seems to be striving to build a glass encased pond rather than a "plant tank". The fish and snails and all the little critters we can and can’t see are key components, contributing "fertilizer" by way of waste, ammonia, CO2. A big plus: less frequent water changes. There also seems to be a much longer life span between tear downs of El Natural tanks.

I'd say that's my 2 cents, but this turned into a 25 cent post!

Robert Hudson

That is interesting. I would love to see pictures of what your Glosso looks like. I have had a real hard time getting this plant to do well in anything other that bright light and very high levels of C02. Even with very moderate levels of C02 using "Carbo Plus" the glosso grew and spread at a snails pace and was over taken by Micranthemoides in a 20 gallon tank I did a couple years ago.

But 2.6 watts per gallon is moderately high light, and if your tank is only 12" tall, then that is pretty good light penetration. I would like to see how thick it is growing and the leaf size without any C02 in the water.

As I see it, the major difference between "low tech" and "high tech" plant tanks is the use of C02 injection.

Without adding any C02 to the water, the most C02 you can ever achieve is around 5ppm. That includes C02 generated by decaying organic material, (soil, peat, compost) bacteria, fish and other animals. What kind of growth, photosymthesis can you expect at such a low level? There is no question that raising C02 levels increases the growth rate, makes plants stronger and more resiliant and affects color and leaf size. It also allows many plants to grow under water that otherwise would not be able to so easily.

My understanding of the Walstad approach is that it is all centered around the use of soil in the substrate. I do not think low light, or the use of sunlight is a pre-requisite. Ms. Walstad has said that she uses power compact flourescents.

The end result of either approach is the growth rate. Elevated C02 levels along with adequate NPK and trace minerals produce a much faster growth rate. No added C02 and a fertile substrate produces a comparitively much slower growth rate. We are talking about weeks compared to months, and months compared to years.

I think that is the main thing one should look at when deciding which approach to go with.

Anyone disagree?

aquabillpers

Sure, I'll disagree

The amount of light has a far greater impact on plant growth than CO2. Try injecting CO2 into a well planted, 1.5 wpg aquarium. You'll see an increase in plant growth, but not a big one.

Increase the wpg to 3.0 with the same CO2 and there will be a big increase in plant growth, along with increases in dosing requirements and other maintenance.

Alternatively, increase the light to 3.0 wpg without CO2 and dosing, and in time you will see a mess.

The amount of light is the controlling variable.

Bill

imported_russell

i think that if you upped the lighting, the plants will grow faster, but they will look worse. they will grow really tall and leggy looking. i hate that look.

i think that robert has a great point when he said the injection of co2. you can also consider flurish excel, so we can just say carbon enriched tanks. APC recently had an aquascaping contest and they had 2 prize elligable categories. co2 tanks, and non co2 tanks. the tanks were basically co2 = high tech, and non co2 = low tech.

i know my plants grow much faster when i add co2.

i wonder if diana could comment on this thread? that would be interesting.