Excellent List Of Plants For Low Light Tanks - Page 2 - General Aquarium Plants Discussions

James From Cali · 12-17-2007, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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."

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 · 12-17-2007, 09:32 PM

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.

Homer_Simpson · 12-18-2007, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AQUAMX

...
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.

You make some excellent points and I don't necessarily disagree with a lot of things that you have stated. I apologize if my post came across the wrong way or offended you in any way. Keep in mind that sufficient beautiful low light plants exist to create a beautifully scaped tank(Lol, not by me as my aquascaping skills totally suck). I have seen some excellent low tech beautifully aquascaped tanks with nothing more than a collection of low light plants, many of which are identified in James list. What I would love to see is for John(APC Admin) to give some thought to creating seperate planted tank competition categories involving low light and natural planted tanks. It would be interested to compare winners from all categories: High Tech, Low Light Low Tech, and Low Tech Natural Planted tank.

These are leaves from my apongenton bulb. I have to prune the leaves weekly as they would otherwise totally choke out my tank. This bulb was not appropriate for the tank but I had no idea what the bulb would do until I threw it into the tank. The leaves are from a bulb in a 5 gallon low tech tank with only 10 watts(as low light as you are going to get for a 5 gallon) coralife colarmax 6500K compact fluorescent in the canopy. If someone could identify what type of apongenton that these leaves are from, I would definitely say that the apongenton bulb would make a good addition to the low light plant list.

BryceM · 12-17-2007, 11:50 PM

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 · 12-18-2007, 10:28 AM

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.

BryceM · 12-18-2007, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James From Cali

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"

I think the light levels listed for those species included in the Plant Finder are pretty accurate, but it would be interesting to see if people agree or disagree.

James From Cali · 12-18-2007, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guaiac_boy

I think the light levels listed for those species included in the Plant Finder are pretty accurate, but it would be interesting to see if people agree or disagree.

Well they would be under 2wpg in my list. I think thats where debates will start.

James From Cali · 12-18-2007, 10:49 AM

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.

James From Cali · 12-18-2007, 12:16 PM

To me it looks like Aponogeton Ulvaceous if it comes from the plant pack. If so then it deffinitely is.

Homer_Simpson · 12-18-2007, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James From Cali

To me it looks like Aponogeton Ulvaceous if it comes from the plant pack. If so then it deffinitely is.

Thanks James

That plant is definitely for a 55 gallon + tank if you don't want to prune as much and enjoy the beauty that the leaves would add to the tank if allowed to grow out. Not for anything smaller.

Interesting info on Apongenton Ulvaceous - it can grow into a show plant in 25 days.
http://aqualandpetsplus.com/Plant,%2...0ulvaceous.htm