James From Cali

I been reading up and when your plants start to close up shut the lights off. They had their photoperiod. The rest of the light goes to the algae.

Homer_Simpson

Cool Learn something new everyday. Thanks for sharing that;I would have never guessed.

AQUAMX

Hi James

Your list has been causing a great conversation point on my local forum in Australia.

I would like to ask a few questions if thats ok.

Can you tell me what exactly what you call low light/low tech?

A low tech tank to me has always meant low light (1wpg), diy substrate and perhaps using fish as a means of fertiliser. Perhaps its borderline, but d.i.y co2 may be added into this. Although d.i.y or pressurised still equates to high tech in my opinion. Adding co2 is adding co2.

Doesnt cranking up co2 and adding more ferts such as iron take you out of the low tech area and into high tech?

Many of the plants on this list, while can be grown in low light, will not present the form people are expecting. For example downoi/little star, while can be grown under low light will show its true leggy form and become unsightly. Higher intensity light is needed to bring out the compact growth that people are used to seeing pictures of on the internet. So while it can be grown in low light i would think it should still be recomended as a high light plant.

HC has also been added to your list. Is this really a low light/low tech plant? From personal experience i have grown it in lower light shrimp tanks but with minimul success. Again, perhaps its not a plant that should be offered on this list. New comers to keeping plants will only find themselves being dissapointed.

Finally, i would like to ask about Iron being used to bring out the red in plants. Is it simply a case of adding iron to do this? Can a lack of nitrates and phosphates also bring out red in plants.Can sunset hygro or Hygrophila polysperma 'Rosanervig' attain their true color and potential in low tech tanks simply by adding iron?
I beleive to get the proper look ( like you seen in magazines) they need high-very high light, a correct balance of nutrients, temp and co2. Hardly low tech. But sure, you can grow it.

In the case of the H. polysperma is it the intense light that brings out the veining or the iron? Many will agree, this is one of the most beautiful plants of all time.

I think lists compiled by plant growers are great, especially for people getting into the hobby. It takes alot of time to grow plants and learn these things. I try to spend alot of time with a good local grower here in Oz. Ive been at it now for 15 years and feel i have barely scraped the surface.


If i were new to the hobby and came across your list, i would be so excited thinking i could grow almost anything. Much of what i have read through plant libraries/lists such as tropica and books from authors such as kasselmann contradict what you are saying with some of the plants. As does my own experience.

But then, i think the meaning of low tech has dramatically changed. Your idea of low tech may be 2wpg and d.i.y co2 including a fert regime. But this is not low tech, at least not to me. Perhaps it is me who is out of touch. I may need a refresher course on whats what.

When i have some time i would love to add some plants to your list, but for me its time for work. I hope you take no offence to my opinions.

H. Polysperma

James From Cali

Low light is anything under 2wpg. It causes for slower growth of many plants and lowers the needs for CO2 and other nutrients. High Tech IMO would be where you have amzing equipment that runs up your bill and you have reactors, fans, valves, and the works. Low tech can be none of that. Adding nutrients to a take with plants is still needed. Fish produce MAcros(Nitrates mainly) where I add Micros(Trace elements) to the tank. Adding CO2 is not nessecary but adding DIY CO2 does not make it high tech. It would be insufficient on a high Tech set up IMO since it does not produce enough CO2 to support every plant in a sufficient matter. Alot of these plants may start to die off in the beggining but with patience they will ocme back. As long as they are producing the roots the plants do well. I have even got some of these plant on the list from people who have grown them in lowlight. Almost all of those plants I have personally grown under a 15 watt bulb in a 10g aquarium with a light fish bioload and no co2 and just weekly Flourish addition. Most sites grow these plants under these conditions after seeing it 1 day in a different lighting setup. Once they see a plant cannot live a day in low light they move it on into a moderate light tank and they say well they need medium high light. But if you really do provide light, some form of fertilizer then your plants will come back. That has always been my experience. I go against everything a site says because that is your starting point. They tell you that you need this much light but in reality you can definitely go lower.

Me personally I have 1.5 wpg on my tank, no co2, and no "real" fertilizing regimine. My lotus plant is growing great as well as my onion plant. I am in the works of adding more plants as I am in the middle of a total revamp of the tank. Please add plants all you want. This list was created to help people so they didnt go through hell to find the right plants. Although the plants will not show the form that they do in higher light tanks they do show nicely. They are all wonderful in any way and its personal preference. I found with Nitrates around 5ppm(which I keep mine out and plants seem to do well with higher fish load) and Iron being added the pinks/reds come out on plants greatly. Low Nitrates + High Iron = Pink Plants. I have grown Rotala rotundifolia, Hygrophila polysperma 'Rosanervig', Ludwigia sp. and all have gotten red in my aquarium with low light, no co2, Iron addition, low nitrates. On the H. polysperma I got veins and everything. It came out just like in a high light tank.

Its all about the balances in your tank. Light, nutrients, CO2. You still need the balance and no matter what lighting you have the plants will look amazing. Now this was in my experience as well as many others and I love the fact that you brought these questions up as I could give an idea of how I created the list. I enjoy reading comments like yours because we all have something to learn. And please feel free to add to the list and if you can find something more debatable on my list I will definitely do more research on this and see what I can find and correct it. Being only 17 I learned from many older more knowledgeable people and I just tweaed what they said and found my own thing. And what I found is that those guidlines can be followed but with patince they can be ignored.

Homer_Simpson

Aquamx, I know you directed your questions to James, and I hope that you don't mind me adding my 2 cents worth. Although I am still relatively new and still learning and experimenting, I have taken both the high tech and low tech methods for a test drive. While I cannot speak for other peoples' experiences, for me high tech is like walking a tight rope and I found it far more difficult to address nutrient deficiencies, and ensure appropriate c02 levels, and constantly tweaking fert dosing, not to mention keeping up with weekly water changes to maintain balance and stability and prevent algae formation. Like others when balance and stability in the high tech tank were dirupted, it meant tons of work to fix the issue and attempting expensive fixes like Fluorish Excel. While I am not saying that stability and balance are not important in a low tech tank, I have just found it much easier and less effort to maintain balance and stability in a low tech tank.

I think that masters such as Tom Barr best sum up why a low tech tank would be desireable as per this link.
http://www.barrreport.com/articles/4...2-methods.html

It really boils down to how much time, effort, and money someone wants to invest in this hobby. Going high tech is a lot more expensive over the long and short term than going low tech with low tech plants. And again from my experience, it takes much less effort to maintain a low tech vs high tech tank. But then, I guess everyone's goals are different so I cannot speak for everyone.

As far as form and growth are considered, I guess it is really a trade off. Personally, I would gladly take slower plant growth and slightly faded colors if it means better algae control, less money invested, and less effort looking after the tank. For me Diana Walstead best said it when she stated: "After all this is a hobby not a job."

James From Cali

I agree with you on everything but "...have just found it much easier and less effort to maintain balance and stability in a low tech tank.". In a low tech tank it is very easy for things to get out of hand if you do not keep things stable and balanced. Wether it is high tech or low tech stability and balance is the key to a successful planted aquariums. PBS is what I say when it comes to Planted Aquariums, Patience-Balance-Stability.

AQUAMX

Hi guys and thank you both for your responses.

What you yourselves have discovered is a balance, from there you have grown plants. But it has still taken considerable time to find that balance. But have shown it can be done, or said it can be done.

I also keep low tech and high tech. Forgive me if i lead you to beleive i am just pro high tech. I love both and use advanced co2 aswell as diy. Everything from single low tech 4x2x2 plant tanks to high tech 30 tank sump systems running co2.

I applaud you for creating such a list, i just dont think the average entry level aquarist will be able to grow some of those plants in their low tech setup without considerable experience. Of course it happens.

Homer, saying you would glady take faded colors and slower growth to avoid algea suggests its harder to maintain a plant tank with higher light. As James pointed out its about balance and control. I personally dont think it is any different it just has a different balance point.

Anyway, dont want to take this off track. I wasnt sure it was a thread to say low tech is better. I just wanted to point out that adding things like HC to a list that you say is for low tech could be misleading. If average jo reads it he will go yes i can add HC to my goldfish bowl. Not only will he fail but he will be put off.

Suggesting that we can grow HC in 1.5wpg, no co2 and a little ferts is a stretch for me. But im glad it has worked for you.

We certainly dont want our hobby to feel like a job, but some thrive in the work it takes to create a CAU type masterpiece. Infact many aspire to it. Those tanks, i imagine would be hard to create in a low tech world. But at the end of the day its our own decision.

We can relax and enjoy low tech, or work hard to create a competition style masterpiece.

Either way, you get nothing for nothing.

Good work guys.

BryceM

I like the idea of producing a list of low-light plants, and I agree with much of what has been said concerning the definition of "low tech". It is absolutley essential to realize that people have very different goals and approaches to almost all things "planted". Keep a couple of things in mind here. Simply put, the exact plant species that qualify for a "low light" list depend greatly on one's definition of "low light". 1 wpg over a 10g tank is different than 1 wpg over a 90g tank. CF is different than T-8, T-5, etc. Broad, generalized statements such as "low light is anything less than 2wpg" do not allow for commonly encountered equipment variations.

I think that instead of producing a bulk list in no particular order, it might be more useful to rank the plants according to their adaptability to low light conditions.

It's pretty safe to say that almost all Anubias, Ferns, mosses, and Crypts will do well in low light. Even in low light these plants will attain the same traits that they will exhibit in high light conditions. Growth will be healthy and full, but not rapid. Once you add stem plants such as the easeir Bacopas, Hygros, and Hydrocotyles to the list you'll need a little more light to keep them in reasonable form. I really wouldn't recommend P. helferi (Downoi) or HC for the average low-light setup, even with CO2.

There are a few important groups of plants that are mostly absent from you list that can also do quite well in lower-light conditions. These include large numbers of Echinodorus (sword plants), Vallisneria, and many of the easier Aponogeton species (not madagasgariensis). Still, these would need a bit more light than the Anubias, Crypts, and ferns to produce healthy growth.

James From Cali

Made good points. What Im going to do is add the minimum low light level. So It would be in this form "Common Name-Scientific Name-Light level". HC was actually brought to me by someone else. So Im going to ask for specific statistics of the tank and a picture.

James From Cali

I been reading up and found some sites that concur with low light levels:

HC
http://www.tropica.com/productcard_1.asp?id=048B
This site has other people, including Tom Barr, who have grown HC in low light levels.
http://www.barrreport.com/general-pl...ht-demand.html
http://www.aquaticcommunity.com/tr/H...trichoides.php

They do believe that lighting is not as important as CO2 levels. HC can be grown in a low light tank with CO2. That may be the plant that requires more work.