The Estimative Index Of Dosing, Or No

Need For Test Kits

  AuthorJason King 
  Publish dateJul 13, 2017 
  Tags
estimative index   fertilization   planted tank   tom barr


 Articles
 Fertilization
 Estimative Index
Article Gallery (4) Discussion (22)

The Estimative Index - What is it?

The Estimative index is a simple method to dose nutrients for any tank without test kits. In a
nut shell, the aquarist doses frequently to prevent anything from running out (plant deficiency)
and does large weekly water changes to prevent any build up (Plant inhibition). In this manner,
we can easily maintain a close approximation or an “estimation index” of the nutrient levels
during the week, not too high, not too low and…..no need for a test kit because the accuracy is
close and in most cases closer than a test kit. This uses a common habit that most aquarist
already are doing and are familiar with, the weekly water change. I’ve done numerous test runs
over a week or three week time period using very high light (450 micromoles/m^2/sec @ 8 cm
from light source) and many different species of fast growing stem plants. This will give an
assumed “maximum uptake rate”. This rate is important in setting the upper limit of the needs
of the plants. Once the aquarist knows this rate, they can be confident that they are not going
to run out of any nutrient at most any lighting variable. This “rate” of uptake or dosing is what
is truly important rather than maintaining some static “residual” level. A stable range is all that's
needed for good healthy growth. This range concept is supported by observations from many
people all over th world with a variety of tap water qualities, as well as review of the relevant
research in the Barr Report volumes 7 and 8, 2005. This range has proven to be quite large on
the upper limits. With a general 50% weekly water change, the aquarist will build up a
maximum of 2x the dosing they add per week. So if you want to maintain 10-20ppm of NO3,
this is quite easy to do with out ever picking a test kit (see figure 1 below and the example).
Similar ranges can be targeted for the other nutrients and narrower ranges can be achieved
using the fertilizers diluted in water.

These maximum rates are also variable, but the rates I am suggestion are only a guideline,
different plants and different set ups may use more, but the plants will not run into deficiencies
at these rates. The aquarist is not limited to 50% weekly water changes, they can change more
precentage, for example 75% and this re sets 75% of the water volume just like making a
standard solution for measuring and calibrating a test kit. More frequent water changes can
also be performed, but hitting the target set by the aquarist can be achieved relatively easily for
those less confident of 50% weekly changes.

Plants can take up more than they need for growth, something called "luxury uptake". The
other issue is that a plant might be starved for a nutrient and the uptake rate may be very rapid
in the first few weeks then taper off later. This is referred to as “surge uptake”.

Some Typical uptake rates at high light and CO2 levels per day (24 hours):

NO3 1-5ppm
NH4 0.1-0.8ppm (if you use this in place of NO3)
PO4 0.5 ppm

These rates do not assume that you will show deficiencies if you dose less than this, but adding
more than these rates will not help further plant health.
This is a point that the aquarist needs to understand. Basically, it is extremely unlikely your
plants will ever need more than these rates even at high light intensities. Adding enough
nutrients to prevent anything from becoming deficient is the goal, not precise uptake and
growth requirements.

Note: these ranges and test in this article used Hach or Lamotte test kits and where checked
against known standard solutions. Most hobby grade cheap test kits often are inaccurate and
create many problems for aquarist. While some may work, it is always a better idea to check the
test kit against and known standard. This way you verify the accuracy and this is what is done in
research science. Do not assume that a test kit is accurate. This causes a great deal of
frustration, confusion and poor horticulture and was one of the main reasons I suggested this
idea for dosing.
The need for such precision is not needed as plants have a very wide range of nutrient
concentrations (BarrReport volume 5,7 and 8, 2005) that are above the deficiency level before
excess nutrients level become problematic (see figure 3). Today I use a much more
sophisticated testing method than a Lamotte or Hach test kit, I use a colormetric
multiparameter spectrophotometer that is over 100X more precise and accuracte over wider
ranges, self test, uses a blank and autocalibrates. This is a very user friendly device and is used
to answer specific questions rather than monitoring a "routine" as a matter of practice for the
average aquarist but it will not hurt the aquarist in doing so.

I truthfully do not know what levels of NO3 and PO4 (for example) cause problems for plants or
induce algae in a fully planted tank. NO3 levels above 40ppm can cause fish health issues. PO4
at very high levels can influence alkalinity (KH) above 5ppm-10ppm.

Clearly these are far beyond the needs of plants and the range makes for a very large target to
dose even if the aquarist is off by a factor of 2X.

Lighting is very expensive to measure correctly in an aquarium(I use a PAR meter that measures
light in micromoles/m^2/sec) . It is one of the biggest unknown variables in keeping planted
tanks, watts/gallon does not tell you much, but rough guides are fine if the aquarist maintain
the CO2 and nutrient levels well. Dosing can be done using dosing pumps if the aquarist
wishes, but it is relatively easy to do with a good routine. They can later tailor their routine to
add “just enough” and further maximize their nutrient dosing to their individual tank’s needs.
An important aspect of this method is the knowledge that excess nutrients do not cause algae
blooms as so many authors in the past and many today still maintain without having tested this
critically in aquariums with a healthy plant biomass. It is a welcomed relief knowing that
“excess” phosphate, nitrate and iron do not cause algae blooms.

For many years this has been the assumption but it is incorrect. Ammonium (NH4+) at low
levels have been the primary causative agent for algae blooms in terms of an "excess" nutrient.
This is why a planted tank using CO2 with moderate to high lighting cannot have enough
nitrogen supplied by adding progressively more and more fish to the tank without getting
algae blooms. It does not take much ammonium to cause the bloom. If you add NO3 from
KNO3 you will not get any algae bloom, if you add even 1/20th of the ammonium you will get
a very intense algae bloom. This test can be repeated many times and ran again and again with
the same result. Adding NO3 will not induce the bloom. See if you can prove this to yourself.

With the exception of NH4 and urea, higher levels of PO4 (phosphate), K+, potassium, and
NO3 to large extent as well (to 20-30ppm or so) and Fe (iron) can be maintained without any
negative effects even at extremely high light wattages (e.g. 5.5 w/gal at 30cm depth, using
mirrored reflectors, U shaped power compact lamps-450 micromoles @ 8cm distance from the
lights, most submersed aquatic plants fully saturate photosynthesis at 600micromoles/m^2/sec
or so, at least the one's that have been tested at non limiting CO2 values, other species may
have different levels).

The reason I chose this high light intensity was to reduce the time before an algae bloom
would occur and prevent competition for light. This is similar to taking a "test drive" at high
sppeed in a new vehicle. If algae was to occur due to higher nutrient levels, if would occur
when the light, CO2 and nutrients were non limiting for both sets of variables. With less light,
down to a point (Light compensation point, the LCP), we can assume less uptake and less issue
maintaining a “stable range” of nutrients. It is much more difficult to tease apart the
relationships when the rate of growth is slower (e.g. less light), it takes more time to note
differences in plant growth and places less stress/growth rate on the system. It also reduces
error since the uptake rates are high enough to get good test kit resolution whereas at 1.5-
2.0w/gal with normal Fluorescent lights it takes much longer for 5 ppm of NO3 to be removed.
Good test kits like Lamotte were used also to increase accuracy in the results. These test kits
were tested against a series of known standards to confirm the accuracy. In this manner I could
test the ideas with much more confidence. If I chose to test a non CO2 plant tank, this would
have taken a very long time with very expensive test kits and methods. Additionally, many of
the nutrients would be used up quickly before I had a chance to measure them.

Returning back to non CO2 planted tanks after gaining this knowledge at high light and CO2
enrichment allows some fairly good predictions/correlations of uptake rates for non CO2
planted tanks as well. The rate of uptake is reduced due to less light and less CO2. I generally
use about 6 to 1 slower uptake rate ratio for non CO2 tanks but the fish loading can change
this ratio. Basically the non CO2 tank grows 6-10x slower than a CO2 enriched tank.

This method is specific for CO2 enriched systems with higher light but works even better with
lower light CO2 or SeaChem Excel dosing for carbon enriched tanks or salt water and other
tanks needing a certain amount of nutrients. I suggest 30ppm of CO2, while a tank with 2 w/gal
might be okay with 15-20ppm, many with power compact bulbs and reflectors need to have
their CO2 levels higher, 20-30ppm range is optimal for the lighting period. This was found by
adding more CO2 until there was no net gain in plant growth while keeping the nutrient and
lighting levels consistent during the testing period. Research on three aquatic weeds showed
that the plants will reach and carbon fixing maximum at around 30ppm of CO2 no matter what
light intensity is used (Van et al 1976). The maximum CO2 level no matter what light set up you
might have is about 30ppm for these three very fast growing weeds, which we can assume
have higher CO2 needs/demand than slower growing aquarium plants subjected to less intense
lighting than sunlight. While the needs of some plants might exceed some of these parameters,
it’s very unlikely that this will occur and I’ve found no evidence to support otherwise having
grown close to 300 species of submersed freshwater aquatic macrophytes. The CO2 level is
enough to support non limiting growth, just like PO4, NO3 and traces. So in a sense, CO2 is
over dosed since it's an easier target to hit and measure. Adding more will not harm plants and
is only limited by fish health and O2 levels.

While many have discussed the merits of nutrients, fasr too many new people fall victim to low
CO2,even the expert often gets caught trying to keep a good CO2 level in their tanks from time
to time. No nutrient routine will perform well without good stable CO2 or Excel(Seachem).

Using tap water

Tap water is cheap and water changes take less time than the testing (salt water is the
exception perhaps, salt mixes cost a fair amount money). Water changes also cost less than test
kits/testing and are more fool proof method of estimating the nutrient levels in your planted
tank when dealing with NO3, Fe and PO4. It's also simpler and requires less knowledge of
chemistry and testing against known standards. Plants are most often starved of nutrients and
inaccurate test kits are largely responsible. Many people feel tap is unsuitable for plants, this is
simply not true. Old myths still abound claiming excess PO4 in tap water causes algae, this has
clearly been shown by many hobbyist to be patently false. The tap water has nutrients in it,
then you do not have to dose these nearly as much, this is actually a good thing! Why take
something out and then add it back again?

Have hard water?

Great, you do not have to add any baking soda and GH builder to your tank. Adding enough
GH to bring the levels to 3-5 GH degrees will address higher light tank needs over a week's
time. You can use SeaChem Equilibrium for this or a mix of CaCl2 (or CaSO4 although it is not
as easy to dissolve into water) and MgSO4 at a 4:1 ratio to increase GH. You can add this
without knowing what your GH is by adding 1 degree's worth after a weekly water change (or
slightly less with less frequent water changes)

Plants prefer soft water? Not so, neither myself or other experience aquarist have found plants
that are soft water dependent, although there may be a few exceptions out perhaps 300
species, it is safe to say that plants prefer harder water and there is research to show this is
true, (Bowes 1985), (T. Barr, C. Christianson observations of clear hard water springs in Florida,
USA and in Brazil). A few plants, about 5 or 6 or so species do seem to prefer softer water, but
this is due to KH, GH seems to have little bearing as long as there is enough Ca and Mg. So the
GH can be dosed a little higher if in doubt or if you want to check to see if that is causing an
issue or not. KH on the other hand does seem to influence these specific plants(most are not
affected) to about 5-6 degrees. There is really no limit on how low the KH can be for good
plant health, but it can make CO2 measurements trickier. There is a way around that though.
Still, any plant can be grown at a KH of 5 and a GH of 5-10, or less. This would not be
considered "soft" water, actually it would be ideal. Thus unless you desire to grow a few eclectic
species, there is no need for RO, nor DI, carbon filtration of the tap water, but doing so will do
no harm to the plants as long as there is enough GH for the plants and KH to determine CO2.

Water changes: use Python like bucket less water change systems, or DIY garden hose systems
that attach to a faucet for draining a filling. Large diameter drain hoses make quick work for
large tanks. Dedicated plumbing also can make the water change very easy. If the tank is far
away from the faucet, a longer hose is all that’s needed. Hard plumbed systems and automatic
water changers are commonly detailed on the web.
The Problem

#1 Dosing.

This can be very tricky when dealing with many variables. Often the suggestion is "buy a test
kit" and test to see what your nutrient levels are.
I suggested this almost ten years ago:

http://www.sfbaaps.com/reference/barr_02_01.shtml

This works well for CO2 (but folks should double check to be sure before proceeding on) and
GH but the other nutrients like NO3, K, PO4, iron as a proxy for the traces are more
problematic. Often times the poor aquarist chases one nutrient to the next and spends a small
fortune and time as well carefully testing each week, or several times each week trying to figure
out what is missing. Generally many never find what is wrong after doing all that.

95% of the time is was CO2 levels were too low and the issue had nothing to do with the
nutrient dosing routine. Simply doing a large water change removes all the variables, and
dosing known amounts back in to the tank of the nutrients effectively re sets the tank each
week. Even if you are off by a little, you do not have to worry about running out since the levels
I’ve suggested are for high light tanks and you know if the CO2 is in good shape there is no
fear of algae from these levels of nutrients in the water column either. Knowing this allows
great flexibility and a very simple method to keep a fairly constant level of any nutrients in your
tank and no need to test. You can guess the doses for the reminder of the week and then
repeat. Chuck Gadd's dosing calculator works well for the chemistry challenged and those
wanting to know how much of what to add. See
here: http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua/art_plant_aquacalc.htm

update: new calculators can now be found here

https://barrreport.com/pages/planted-tank-calculators/
There is no hard and fast rule here when dosing or doing 50% weekly water changes. This
method can be applied to water changes once a month or once every two weeks, better more
consistent results will be obtained when doing 50% weekly water changes, but a well run tank
can go longer without a water change. The aquarist can note plant health and dose slightly less
as they gain experience of their individual tank's needs. As they get a feel for the dosing they
can tailor the tank's needs further.

This is an exampled for folks using 10ppm of NO3 dosed each week and assuming 0, 25, 50,
75% uptake by plants/bacteria. the maximum build up in this case is 2x the weekly dosing rate.
This shows the range in a mathmatical model (thanks Gomer) so that while no test kit is needed
by the EI user, a very accurate test has verified these curves and ranges and match well with
observations, models and testing methods.

So this begins to get very close to stable nutrients level and much less merely "guess" work.

#2 Testing

This is huge issue for most folks. Test kits cost as much as a filter or much more in some cases.
Some folks can afford nice Lamott/Hach kits, most cannot nor wish to invest 300$ in this.
Cheaper kits are not offered for K. NO3 kits are very problematic and color reading scales are
difficult to assess with cheaper kits. Some folks are color blind. Many folks don't ever want to
test and/or feel there's no need to test. I could not get some hobbyist to ever test no matter
what I told them to do! I fell into that group for many years. I did as well as I do today but I am
much more consistent now and I also know why it works! I know the rates of uptake and have
done a lot of testing since my bad old days. I also did large weekly water changes so if I
messed up dosing, I always reset the tank each week. I have a relative simple methodology to
side step much of the drudgery especially with testing iron and NO3. At issue here is the
maintenance of the nutrient levels within a certain range. The focus will be on 2 groups, nitrate
(NO3), phosphate (PO4), potassium (K), the so called macro nutrients and the trace elements
represented by iron (Fe) as a proxy for the other trace elements that are included in trace
nutrient mixes. There are a few specialized test kits and meters available for many of the trace
metals and Boron, but virtually no hobbyist ever measures these. So everyone is guessing
about the traces as it is, even the most ardent proponent of testing for dosing!

Using teaspoon (Dry powders) and milliliter measurements (liquid solutions) we can be very
accurate.
Perhaps a better question is how close to a good range of nutrients do we have to be to have
excellent plant growth and no algae?

Using an "estimative index" the accuracy can be as follows for teaspoons and liquids for the
traces, note, further accuracy can be achieved by diluting grams of each of these nutrients into
DI water and adding mls of a concentrated liquid into their tanks in place of dry powder, but
thios does not gain the user much in terms of plant health and growth, which is the main
reason to help improve a routine:

(+ or -) 5ppm of CO2 is fine in a 20-30ppm range.

(+ or -) 1ppm or so of NO3 is pretty reasonable.
(+ or -) 2ppm of K+ is pretty reasonable.
(+ or -) 0.2ppm of PO4 is pretty reasonable (?)
(+ or -) 0.1ppm of Fe is reasonable (?)

CO2 range 25-35ppm

NO3 range 5-30ppm
K+ range 10-30ppm
PO4 range 1.0-3.0 ppm
Fe 0.2-0.5ppm or higher (?)
GH range 3 degrees ~ 50ppm or higher

Note:

PO4 and Fe are two nutrients that are difficult to assess without first assessing the other
nutrients. If the NO3, K, and CO2 are in good shape, you can add a fair amount of these within
a wide range. I have added to almost 3ppm of PO4 consistently week after week. Plant's
response is incredible.
Green spot algae has never been an issue when high PO4 levels are maintained even under
high light with Anubias. Adding traces has been a focus for me lately. Many have stuck with the
old standby of a residual of 0.1ppm of iron(namelt from the work done developing PMDD).
Well what does this residual tell us? Does it tell us what is available to the plants? Is this
enough? Do higher doses cause algae?

Setting up a test
I can tell from my own experiences that high levels of traces (Fe) have in no way contributed to
any algae presence. I double checked the other nutrients before drawing a conclusion. Few
hobbyists and it seems no aquarium companies bothered to look at it from this controlled
perspective. In order for the aquarist to draw a conclusion about a nutrient, it must be isolated
and you must test only for the dependent variable. This is relatively easy using the Estimative
Index; essentially they are making a reference solution each week of the proper nutrient levels
and guessing closely till they perform another water change. This gives the aquarist a powerful
simple and easy to use tool/method to provide a more controlled environment without nearly
as much work. At some point the plants will not take up any more traces. Same can be said for
PO4. Adding more simply will not improve plant growth any further. Many plants will take up
excess, often called “luxury uptake” of nutrients like PO4 and NO3. So it may not improve
growth even if the plants are taking in these nutrients. We must be careful not to assume that
uptake=growth/need.

This is where the top end of a range should be. No need to waste expensive trace nutrients.
Aquarists that have had issues with algae prior may want to try adding the PO4 and then
adding more traces in conjunction. This works well even at the very high light levels. If an algal
bloom was to occur, it will express itself more rapid and intensely at higher light. I had been
dosing large amounts of traces all along since my reference sometime ago had been Karl
Schoeler's 0.7ppm recommendation and I felt like a little more might help if the tank was doing
well as many recommendations seemed middle of the road. Karen Randall has suggested a
number of aquarist in the past found levels of CO2 higher than the commonly suggested 10-
15ppm of CO2 although few have come forward to suggest this recently. Although I had tested
numerous times and tried to look for some correlation with the test kits for uptake, I became
less focused on the testing aspect and came up with what I think is a better method for the
traces. I still contend most aquarist under dose the traces a great deal. I was never scared of
algae blooms due to in large part all the battles I’d done with algae in the past and then went
on to study and induce algal cultures in marine and freshwater. Few hobbyists are willing to
destroy their tanks with an algae bloom to figure out why algae are really there. That is what
was required to figure out what causes algae and then this process must be repeated to make
sure the results are not an isolated case and can be repeated by other researchers elsewhere.
Often times, we only test after the algae is already there, often missing what really caused the
algae to begin with. So knowing how to repeat the bloom and induce it, is a key role in
understanding of the cause of the algae in our tanks.

The estimative part

Aquarists simply add a set amount of traces to a known volume of water (mls/day/liter of tank
volume). If the tank has less plants, low light, this can/may be reduce in frequency but not
dosage. A similar pattern can be done for the macro nutrients. In this manner you essentially
are making a "reference solution" each time you dose and you assume a certain amount of
uptake the other one or two times prior to making a large water change at week's end. If you
have low plant density or have low light (two watts or less Normal output FL's) you can get by
on once a week. By knowing what the tap water is comprised of and giving the water company
a call to find out what the PO4, NO3, K, and Fe levels are, you can replace the water with water
changes and use plain old chemistry or Chuck's calculator to figure out what you need for your
nutrient levels without a test kit. Even if you are off a little that's okay (see above pluses and
minuses). The water utility will have some variation but if you are close to the middle ranges it
should still come out fairly close. So imagine a tank where you don't test except for CO2 (pH
and KH) and only that once in a while. Everything grows well. No guessing. Sound good? The
results certainly are. Tanks never seeing any algae are quite common, 10 years ago, this was not
the case.

Aquarists have tried the substrate dosing only method for many years with hit and miss results.
Eventually the substrate runs out of the nutrients, then the plants suffer. While you can either
tear the tank down and start completely over each year or so, or re-enrich the tank, you
generally are left with having to wait till something goes wrong before you do something
about it rather than keeping a close level maintained like the water column. Some tanks with
moderate/low light and good fish loads can support the plant’s needs without adding macro
nutrients for extended periods but that is still dosing, just the rate is slow enough to maintain
the plant needs for that lighting/CO2 level, but the algae are far from limited. Anyone with a
bloom that has tried to water change the algae away knows that is not true. The other issue
about folks that often do not add macro nutrients/traces etc, is many do large water changes.
These folks often do not know what their tap water has in it. If it is rich in NO3 and PO4 like
many regions of the USA and Europe, then each week they do a large water change, they are
adding nutrients and CO2. People wondered why my plants did so well with the water changes
I did each week and when they tested found high levels of PO4, I was adding KNO3 and lots of
traces and high light and high trace dosing and had no algae and dramatic plant health and
growth. Several methods suggest substrate fertilization in the start up phase followed after a
period of a few months of slowly adding water column fertilizer. Any long term method
eventually becomes a water column dosing method unless the substrate is re enriched or torn
down and re fertilized. Substrate nutrient content is extremely difficult to measure while the
water column is much easier to measure and dose consistently, providing a more stable
nutrient level for the plants.

You can extend this method out to include all the other nutrients like traces and PO4 even KH
and GH. You can try whatever you feel is "perfect" for plant growth and experiment around.
Good sized weekly water changes are an excellent way to do this and avoid build up and any
**dosing** errors or **testing** errors. Test Kits (good ones) are not cheap and many are too
inconsistent or do not want to be bothered to use them. This method used KNO3, KH2PO4 and
Trace mixes and you can use a variety of trace mixes to try out your own routines. KH2PO4
(Fleet or generic enemas can be substituted, these are sodium phosphate based) and KNO3 are
very cheap and traces are relatively cheap unless you have a very large tank, there are cheap
dry mix traces available as well. The good thing about this method is that the fertilizers are
available the world over, cheap, consistently the same, not brand name aquarium products and
thus much cheaper. When I suggest to Wu in Singapore to dose ¼ teaspoon, 1.67 grams of
KNO3, he can dose the same thing I use here, he might not be able to get some brand I like
here of some aquarium product. So this method can be used the world over, not just in the
USA.

A Typical TankA typical routine for a high light tank with low fish load:
Volume 80 liters (20 gal high standard tank)
5.5 watts/ gal. - two 55watt 5000K/8800K lamps
CO2-25-30ppm (I turn my CO2 off at night)
Canister filter
Fluorite (any porous iron rich material will do) about 7-10cm depth

A Typical Dosing Routine

1/4 teaspoon of KNO3 2-3x a week (every other day)
1/16th teaspoon of KH2PO4 2-3x a week (every other day)
Traces added on off days as the macro nutrients, so 3-5x a week, 5mls each time.
SeaChem Equilibrium or GH BOOSTER 1 teaspoon after water change

See GH booster again, many overlook this part.

So the aquarist dose only 3 things really, KNO3, KH2PO4 on the day of the water change then
every other day there after, traces of the off day till the next week rolls around. Do a 50-70%
water change, dose the macro nutrients back, add the traces the following day and repeat. You
can slowly back off this amount till you notice plant growth differences to tailor your individual
tank’s need, but all you will do is waste some macros and traces by adding more than the plant
needs. You should give each change in your routine about 3 weeks before making another
change. This will take time but is worth the time spent. It will not cause algae unless you over
look something, namely CO2 or under dosing KNO3 which both of these account for about
95% of all algae issues. If you focus on the plant’s needs, the algae will no longer grow. I hope
this helps and ends much frustration for the aquatic gardener so then aquarist may focus on
aquascaping and growing plants rather than asking how to kill algae. The aquarist does not
have to stick with merely a weekly routine with the water changes or accept 50% as their
volumes. This will level off the dosing at 2x the dosed amount so that nothing will ever be
overdosed beyond 2x the target range.

The math behind this is as follows:

http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plan...1/msg00416.html

Example #1
Suppose you dose 10ppm of NO3 total to a tank per week. Assume you do a 50% weekly water
change. If you do the math, you find out that:

If you assume that NONE of it is used up, you can build up a maximum of 20 PPM

f you assume that 25%of it is used up, you can build up a maximum of 16 PPM

If you assume that 50%of it is used up, you can build up a maximum of 13.3 PPM
If you assume that 75%of it is used up, you can build up a maximum of 11.4 PPM

The concentration will not be 15ppm with 25% weekly uptake because of the previous week’s
build up if factored into the equation.

Typical model nutrient removal experiment graphical data of concentration versus time
 Types of uptake experiments: Problem: cells become saturated w/time so uptake is
underestimated at low concentrations. Uptake depends heavily on light, this unit is
poorly measured in the aquarium hobby and presents challenges in the field for
researchers due to changes over time, seasonal, monthly, daily, minute by minute,
second by second (Clouds, sun flecks etc).
 There is a distinction between uptake from the medium and assimilation into organic
compounds, especially Nitrogen [NO3-] and [NH4+] and amino acids. This depends on
the ability to store inorganic ions, the rate of the enzymatic steps and the cell needs.
 Cells can adapt and acclimate to chronically low nutrient levels by surge uptake
capacity (Vm)
 2 basic models: Monod model: based on external concentrations, which maybe below
detection limits but still biologically relevant and the Droop Model which is based on
internal concentrations which is often more important and easier to measure since the
concentration is higher than the instanenous external concentration. External
concentration is a scale problem as well: micro algae may perceive micro patches of
nutrients in microliter volumes whereas we measure integrate typically in then milliliter
ranges. Put another way, comparing a the elephant and mouse model, both are
herbivores: but we are measuring only large scale plant mass(say trees), not the small
patches of short lived herbaceous plants that can feed the mouse but if the elephant
has to rely on solely, would starve. Some plants are better than others at this uptake
also due to surface: volume ratios.
  Myriophyllum has much high surface: volume ratio than Anubias, The surface area to
volume ratio allows Myriophyllum to be a much better competitor for nutrients than
Anubias in the water column, but the Anubias makes up for this by growing slower and
can withstand lower light levels. Adding excess nutrients and CO2 allows both plants to
grow well together without competition.

This is typical generalized model for growth and uptake of a variety of autotrophic organisms.
Based on Figure 3 above, from a horticultural perspective, it is more productive to provide non
limiting conditions (green box-good target range) for aquatic Macrophytes as the target
concentration is much wider as well as higher associated growth rates. Maintaining a set static
concentration continuously through time is difficult and impractical to most horticulturists, but
a useable range is rather easy to accomplish. Aquatic macrophyte limiting can be useful when
exploring individual species differences and responses, but this is hardly a good method for
stable horticulture. Non limiting nutrient and light levels need to be quite high before
inhibition occurs. These inhibitory levels are unknown for many nutrients as far as aquatic
Macrophytes are concern and are generally bounded by toxic concentrations to fauna such as
fish and invertebrates (see table 1 for more on the maximum ranges tested individually in
isolation1). This range provides an enormous useable range that is relatively easy and simple to
target to provide stable levels for horticulture. The limiting range is much narrower and more
difficult to provide a stable range from a practical standpoint by not providing much error in
dosing and loading rates. Since light typically drives uptake rates, lower intensity of light will
provide for less error at low limiting nutrient levels as long as the light compensation point is
still being met. Generally, lower light intensities near the LCP have a lower range when non
limiting nutrients are provided as well. The study done by Tropica showed this with Ricca and
Van et al (1986) showed this same result with three submerged aquatic Macrophytes. In both
cases from a horticultural perspective, non limiting nutrient levels are superior with more
robustness in stable culturing methods with lower light intensity.

The end result is dramatic macrophyte growth and low algae presence with a simple to use
method that allows the aquarist a wide range of dosing routines and healthy growth.

While many books and articles will suggest otherwise, higher nutrients levels and relatively low
light can provide dramatic growth. All you need to do is test and try it for yourself to see that
this is the indeed the case. The theoretical suggestion for the support of their contentions does
not follow, nor does the practical experimentation.

Once applied, EI can be very easy to do and cost very little. It is a simple procedure and
basically only CO2 related issues affect the tank and plants, effectively ruling out all the
nutrients other than CO2.

Additional References:

Bowes G. 1991. Growth in elevated CO2: photosynthetic responses mediated through rubisco.
Plant, Cell and Environment, 14: 795-806 (invited review)

Madsen TV, Maberly SC, Bowes G. 1996. Photosynthetic acclimation of submersed angiosperms
to CO2 and HCO3-. Aquatic Botany, 53: 15-30

Additional reading:

Canfield, D.E., Jr., K.A. Langeland, M.J. Maceina, W.T. Haller, J.V. Shireman, and J.R. Jones. 1983.
Trophic state classification of lakes with aquatic macrophytes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 40:1713-1718.

Canfield, D.E., Jr., J.V. Shireman, and J.R. Jones. 1984. Assessing the trophic status of lakes with
aquatic macrophytes. pp. 446-451. Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the North
American Lake Management Society. October. Knoxville, Tennessee. EPA 440/5-84-001.

Canfield, D.E. Jr., and M.V. Hoyer. 1988. Influence of nutrient enrichment and light availability
on the abundance of aquatic macrophytes in Florida streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 45:1467-1472.

Canfield, D.E. Jr., E. Phlips, and C.M. Duarte. 1989. Factors influencing the abundance of blue-
green algae in Florida lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46:1232-1237.

Agusti, S., C.M. Duarte, and D.E. Canfield Jr. 1990. Phytoplankton abundance in Florida lakes:
Evidence for the frequent lack of nutrient limitation. Limnology and Oceanography 35:181-188

Bachmann, R. W., M. V. Hoyer, and D. E. Canfield Jr. 2000. Internal heterotrophy following the
switch from macrophytes to algae in Lake Apopka, Florida. Hydrobiologia 418: 217-227.
Bachmann, R.W., M.V. Hoyer and D.E. Canfield, Jr. 2004. Aquatic plants and nutrients in Florida
lakes. Aquatics: 26(3)4-11

Bachmann, R. W. 2001. The limiting factor concept: What stops growth? Lakeline 21(1):26-28.

Van, T. K., W. T. Haller and G. Bowes. 1976. Comparison of the photosynthetic characteristics of
three submersed aquatic plants. Plant Physiol. 58:761-768.

I would like to thank Neil Frank, Karen Randall and especially Steve Dixon for their input over
the years as well as Paul Sears and Kevin Conlin, Claus from Tropica, SFBAAPS folks, each added
to the development and understanding of EI. It was team effort to address the many algae
issues we had at the time.

Copyright Tom Barr 2005

1 Note: this is for individual inhibitory concentration level, not combinations or two or more