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? |