"Plant Life" experiment results

[beaslbob]

Bang: Just wondered what happened to say nitrAtes? Of course over an 11 day period perhaps not much difference would be noticed anyway.
Over: sure you can do other things to increase gass exchange, just that the simplist is to consume the carbon dioxide and therefore suck in the air. no need for circulation for that process to happen.
Sure bang's controll tank simulated a lrls system teaming with corraline. But it did not simulate a lr/ls where there is not corraline or other plant life on the lr. By emphasizing plant life especially during the initial cycle, I am attempting to make the system less dependant on the unknown condition of the newbie's LR.

 

[overanalyzer]

Originally posted by beaslbob
By emphasizing plant life especially during the initial cycle, I am attempting to make the system less dependant on the unknown condition of the newbie's LR.
true - but I would suggest circulation should also be an option offered (not saying to NOT offer plant life)- as almost 99% of corals need some sort of circulation to thrive and a tank bare of coralline covered LR tank woudl be a tank with LS and Base rock ... but would hate to rely on that......
OK Bang - what is your next experiment?

 

[125intx]

Originally posted by Kip4130
outside of any conclusions ... i would just like to say thanks to bang... and people like bang.. that take the time to conduct experiements.
Thats a BIG 10-4 from me as well.
Thanks!!!!

 

[bang guy]

Originally posted by ReefNut
Guy, does excess CO2 cause other problems other than low PH levels?
I think so. My understanding of gills is that they work by osmosis. The higher the concentration of CO2 in the water the less effective an animals gills are in removing it from their system. If you consider that some of the animals we keep have copper based blood that is fairly inefficient to begin with and stress them with excess CO2 I would think that they would suffer.

 

[bang guy]

Originally posted by overanalyzer
A couple of questions:
Bang - Lighting varies along tube length - so that might be a question if you were worried about the growth of the algeas.
ALso - did you use Tap or RO/DI water to set-up your initial reef tank that provided you with your water?

You've found one of the flaws... The middle tank without the Caulerpa probably received slightly more light than tanks 1 & 3. I don't believe this would skew the results significantly.
My initial reef was set up with RO/DI water. After about 1.5 years I switched to Well water and that's what I am running now.

 

[bang guy]

Originally posted by beaslbob
Finally bang's experiment only tested tanks with plant life in them. There was no control plant lifeless tank.
I agree the experiment wasn't pure. I do believe tank 2 was an accurate control tank though. I wanted to compare a typical display tank vs a display tank with added Caulerpa. I do not believe the typical display tank is void of all algae. I believe the typical display tank has Diatoms, Coralline and some microalgae.
I have a tank void of all algae...my saltwater mixing bucket. The PH is rock steady at 8.2 and will stay that way for weeks as long as I keep the water circulating.

 

[jbstuart]

I only have 2 questions, #1 anyone #2 Bang.
#1 Which is more beneficial, 24/7 lighting, or opposite photo period for a fuge setup?
#2 Did you maintain your "style points" during your lab? IE: not spilling any water, bumping into anything, did you take your goggles off?:thinking:
Jarod
Most who've been through a chem lab would enjoy hating #2.

 

[bang guy]

#2 - Nope. I'm not a very careful scientist. I guess that's why I work for a Bank :scared:

 

[reefnut]

Originally posted by Bang Guy
I do believe tank 2 was an accurate control tank though.
I think any rational person would agree. A typical tank will have Diatoms, Coralline and microalgae to some degree.
I also think it's great that you care enough about this hobby to conduct such a test.

 

[iceburger]

I have a few friends that i consider plant life...

 

[neoreef]

Originally posted by 007:
Are you implying that caulerpa produces CO2 in the dark?
according to my biochemistry book (Lehninger 1975, yes, I am old):
"more than half of all the photosynthesis on the surface of the earth is carried out in the oceans by micoscopic algae, diatoms and dinoflagelates, which together constitute the phytoplankton."
In photosynthesis 6 molecules of CO2 + six molecules water in the presence of light are converted to a molecule of glucose and 6 molecules of oxygen. Thus the caulerpa consumes CO2 and produces O2 in the daytime, and stops doing so in the dark. The fish, however, continue to respirate in the dark, thus increasing the CO2 in all the tanks.
This explains why the pH swung in the macro tanks, but not the stability of the middle control tank. All the tanks had micro algae and fish. I'm going to look at the data again....
Nevertheless, I don't think Caulerpa produce CO2 in dark.

 

[007]

I dont believe that there were fish in the tanks in the experiment.