I don't think it proves previous theories false at all. The problem here is most likely misunderstanding of the "more light for small tank" advice. If you have 3WPG over a 90G tank, then you would probably need 6WPG over a 5G tank to achieve the SAME light intensity produced by the 3WPG 90G. In other words, 3WPG over a 90G tank is considered high light, but 3WPG over a 5G is considered low-moderate light.Raul-7 said:Could this have to do more with light intensity? I mean everyone has been recommending more light for smaller tanks, yet this seems to prove previous theories as false.
Shalu's 3WPG 10G tank is moderately lit by today's standard. Coupled with the fact that it is a screw-in type bulb with a 2700K rating, the utility of light produced is less than that of a standard CF bulb. Add on the lack of a reflector and her tank is moderately lit at best. This places her in the province of the typical non-CO2 tank. With a non-fertile substrate, she finds herself supplementing the water column. She also regularly doses Flourish Excel (CO2 substitute); thus increasing the number of plants that can survive in such a setup. This type of tank is long advocated by Mr. Thomas Barr: moderately lit tank with CO2 supplementation.
As such, shalu's tank doesn't surprise me in that respect. However, this tank does drive home the fact that Glossostigma elatinoides (among others) does not require high light to produce a low carpet.