# Here's a BAD way to start an aquarium



## solarz

And it's from the WWF: (no, not the wrestling guys...)

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/teacher_resources/project_ideas/balanced_ecosystem/

No mention of filters or cycling. Introducing fish that eat each other? WTF?



> If the population of one species goes down dramatically, try and find the reason why this has happened.


The reason will be Ammonia/Nitrite poisoning.

It's sad that an organization that's supposed to be dedicated toward preserving wildlife doesn't do its homework properly and disseminate this kind of wrong information.


----------



## Will

Send them some feedback on the right side link!

At the very least they should have linked to some info sites and mentioned that there is more to it than listed, and that the success lies in the science of an aquarium, not their 6 simple steps.


----------



## solarz

I sent them my thoughts on this article.


----------



## Alexpatrascu

Why don't you post here a copy of that email/comment  ?!?!?


----------



## solarz

Alexpatrascu said:


> Why don't you post here a copy of that email/comment  ?!?!?


pretty much the same thing I said in the first post, just re-worded a bit.


----------



## Zebrapl3co

Let's not be too hasty. Wild life experts have a different philosophy. They see animals by the thousands or even millions. We see our fish as an individual.
Now being a hobbiest, I obviously don't agree with the way they approach education. If anything, it's misleading at best and animal cruelty at worst. They do need to improve on this 1960's point of view.

*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## solarz

Zebrapl3co said:


> Let's not be too hasty. Wild life experts have a different philosophy. They see animals by the thousands or even millions. We see our fish as an individual.
> Now being a hobbiest, I obviously don't agree with the way they approach education. If anything, it's misleading at best and animal cruelty at worst. They do need to improve on this 1960's point of view.


Except that this article is a project idea for a "Balanced Ecosystem", but they did not mention the most important component of such an ecosystem, the nitrifying bacteria. This tells me that they (whoever wrote the article and those who allowed it to be published) do not really understand the science behind ecosystems.


----------



## solarz

Just got a response from them:



> Hi there
> Thanks for writing in. We would love to hear any respectful suggestions you have especially if you can back your thoughts with evidence. What specifically needs improving? How would you write the article?
> Thanks for helping us improve our website
> Jackie Janosi
> WWF International
> Global Response Team


Reads like a standard automated response. I have a thought on how to respond, but I'd like to hear some suggestions first.


----------



## Web Wheeler

Anyone who attempts to create a "balanced ecosystem" in the way that WWF suggests is DOOMED TO FAILURE! However, the "advice" given is typical for organizations such as WWF, PETA, HSUS, et. al. It's no wonder that such organizations oppose the keeping of aquarium fish as pets, given their level of "expertise". And, I agree that anyone attempting to set up a balanced ecosystem, as WWF suggests, should be charged with animal cruelty.


----------



## aeri

The reply doesn't sound too automated.

I would point out the key items with links to reference. ie: nitrogen cycle, the need for water changes, selection of aquatic species and compatibility, a filter, dechlorinator, types of soil, etc.

Don't be too aggressive, Jackie said 'respectful suggestions' so it sounds like he/she was offended by your initial e-mail. I'm sure the author dumbed it down since he/she is trying to encourage teachers to bring it to the classroom. But they're missing a lot of essential information. Dead fish won't be very interesting to kids.


----------



## solarz

aeri said:


> The reply doesn't sound too automated.
> 
> I would point out the key items with links to reference. ie: nitrogen cycle, the need for water changes, selection of aquatic species and compatibility, a filter, dechlorinator, types of soil, etc.
> 
> Don't be too aggressive, Jackie said 'respectful suggestions' so it sounds like he/she was offended by your initial e-mail. I'm sure the author dumbed it down since he/she is trying to encourage teachers to bring it to the classroom. But they're missing a lot of essential information. Dead fish won't be very interesting to kids.


The reason I think it's automated is because the message does not mention anything specific about the article. The fact that you can use this message to respond to any "negative" feedback on articles is a big giveaway. Why is he asking "what specifically needs improving", when I already told him about the nitrogen cycle?

Here's my original message:



> Subj: Your article is poorly researched and gives out false information.
> 
> http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/...
> 
> Please look into the Nitrogen Cycle and research how to set up an aquarium properly. The steps that you describe in the above article will lead to dead fish 95% of the time.


I think I was pretty specific on what "needs improving"....



Web Wheeler said:


> Anyone who attempts to create a "balanced ecosystem" in the way that WWF suggests is DOOMED TO FAILURE! However, the "advice" given is typical for organizations such as WWF, PETA, HSUS, et. al. It's no wonder that such organizations oppose the keeping of aquarium fish as pets, given their level of "expertise". And, I agree that anyone attempting to set up a balanced ecosystem, as WWF suggests, should be charged with animal cruelty.


I wonder what PETA will think when they hear that WWF is recommending putting fishes in an aquarium that will eat each other.


----------



## Zebrapl3co

Well, as far as WWF is concern, a big fish eating small fish is a part of the natural occurance.
I tried to post my own comment on the website, but I don't think I was sucessful because you need to login as a google mail and I don't have one. By the time I created one, I accidentally delete my 1 page long complain. *sigh*

But I would go along the line that focusing on cycling the fish tank which will help the student understand the micro-biological nature of the ecosystem as well. Teaching them to cycle a fish tank before they put the fish in is a great start. Their current process is a fish cycle; which is outdated as there is a better medium of fishless cycle to start up a fish tank. There is nothing wrong with the orginal article but it is simply an outdated project that is reminicient of the 1960's ideology.
Water change may not be needed if it's a Walsted setup. Which I believe is was this project was aiming for in the first place.
They need to mention the proper lighting or that the tank much be in direct sunlight (which I think was mentioned).
Instead of teaching the child to watch one fish kill another, it would have been much more educational if we teach the child balance the ecosystem to save the fish from dying.

*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## ubr0ke

Adding plants eliminate the need to cycle a tank...plants use nh4 as well as no3...So the article is not that far off...but they should of also suggested a power head or some kind of pump to keep the water moving..thats the only difference between a walstad and this article....


----------



## Will

Actually I got the same response word for word. It's not nessescarily a bot, large companies often have response protocols so that their org appears as a corherent consistent unified group. Like call centres, they usually read responses from a guide based on the convo.

For an article about 'ecosystems' they sure skipped over all the nessescary info about growing an _balanced _aquatic ecosystem. Is the article directed at learning institutions or something? reminds me of a teachers lesson plan.


----------



## mrobson

it does sound a bit out dated but i think they are talking about a true balanced ecosystem with a working food chain, most of us try to make a harmonious tank were they only eat what we feed them. To get a true eco tank you would need a far larger tank than suggested to sustain any sort of food chain, the article seems kinda slap dash to me. If they are suggesting you use river silt them maybe they expect you to use river water also, i get the feeling who ever wrote it was hired to do so and isnt a hobbyist


----------



## BettaBeats

i see some errors. but many people will put plants into a tank and then fish in pretty soon after. sometimes the same day! depending on how many fish and how many plants, but the plants should absorb the ammonium created by ammonia linking with hydrogen to create ammonium. many aquatic plants can utilize ammonium just like nitrates. its dependent on the pH of the water though.

The whole fish eating other fish thing doesn't work for me. I think a person should at least research what fish go well together before even going to the store. the filter thing is pretty wrong too. for someone like me who has had 'dead spots' in my tank killing things, good circulation/good is key.


PS. people feed other fish to other fish all the time.. carnivorous fish ARE part of the natural ecosystem


----------



## solarz

BettaBeats said:


> i see some errors. but many people will put plants into a tank and then fish in pretty soon after. sometimes the same day! depending on how many fish and how many plants, but the plants should absorb the ammonium created by ammonia linking with hydrogen to create ammonium. many aquatic plants can utilize ammonium just like nitrates. its dependent on the pH of the water though.


Actually, not quite. It's not enough to have plants to absorb ammonia, you need *healthy, growing* plants, and that entails a whole other can of worms, as we all know.


----------



## BettaBeats

I have heard many times, that having plants can speed up, or eliminate the cycle completely.


----------



## Zebrapl3co

A silent cycle (cycling with plants) does not mean your tank is cycle. It's actually the opposite because it will take you months to cycle your tank. The whole concept is to allow the plants to absorb ammonia, hence eliminating the nitrifications bacterias from converting the chemicals to nitrite or even nitrate. But because of this, it's in direct competition with the bacteria, there is very little nitrification bacteria in your tank or filter for the first month or two. You'll go like this for several months until your bacteria can colonize itself based on the excess of ammonia avail in the water colomn. You can do this by slowly removing the plants to allow the switch over to bacterias. But until then, your tank is in a semi-cycle state.
Also, (this is from my experience), you'll still need to grow your plants at least a week before you add fish. This is because for the first week, you'll want your plants to propertly develope a proper root system. After about a week, you can start adding fertilizers, which will promote the growth of leaves, which is where the ammonia absortion takes place. This will help alot in eliminating algae blooms.

*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## ubr0ke

Zebrapl3co said:


> A silent cycle (cycling with plants) does not mean your tank is cycle. It's actually the opposite because it will take you months to cycle your tank. The whole concept is to allow the plants to absorb ammonia, hence eliminating the nitrifications bacterias from converting the chemicals to nitrite or even nitrate. But because of this, it's in direct competition with the bacteria, there is very little nitrification bacteria in your tank or filter for the first month or two. You'll go like this for several months until your bacteria can colonize itself based on the excess of ammonia avail in the water colomn. You can do this by slowly removing the plants to allow the switch over to bacterias. But until then, your tank is in a semi-cycle state.
> Also, (this is from my experience), you'll still need to grow your plants at least a week before you add fish. This is because for the first week, you'll want your plants to propertly develope a proper root system. After about a week, you can start adding fertilizers, which will promote the growth of leaves, which is where the ammonia absortion takes place. This will help alot in eliminating algae blooms.


no quite...but way to use logic...

the truth is here....so read this http://www.rexgrigg.com/cycle.htm


----------



## Zebrapl3co

ubr0ke said:


> no quite...but way to use logic...
> 
> the truth is here....so read this http://www.rexgrigg.com/cycle.htm


I did and make it ever better with the mentioned method. He has to go through algae issues, I don't ....

All these have been mention in our sticky back in 2009:
http://gtaaquaria.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8458

I've been experimenting with a better method ever since...

*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## ubr0ke

what does algae have to do with the silent cycle?..

I have "silent cycled" many tanks..I do not get algae or fish deaths for that matter..


----------



## solarz

ubr0ke said:


> what does algae have to do with the silent cycle?..
> 
> I have "silent cycled" many tanks..I do not get algae or fish deaths for that matter..


I bet you fertilize nitrates when you silent cycle, right?


----------



## Zebrapl3co

ubr0ke said:


> what does algae have to do with the silent cycle?..
> 
> I have "silent cycled" many tanks..I do not get algae or fish deaths for that matter..


Because I find that Rex's method of leaving only 2 or 3 days for the plants to establish their root system is insufficient. When you add fertilizers in to the tank at the 3rd or 4th day, ammonia and nitrate absortions is not that much. I can see traces of ammonia in the water. This results in extra fertz that causes algae issues or bacteria bloom (depending on your setup). If I remember correctly, I do believe Rex did mentioned of algae issues when using this method. By extending that 2 or 3 days to 7 days, you allow a better root system development and therefore better leave development after ward and healthier plants. This helps eliminated the algae issue due to extra ferts because the plants can't deal with leave growth with weak root developement.

*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## ubr0ke

yes i dose nitrates as soon as plants are in the tank..

these are not terrestrial plants were talking about...the rules dont apply..
aquatic plants absorb nutrients from the substrate or the water collumn..
Roots mean very little...with some exceptions...crypts, swords etc...
Plants uptake of ammonia or nitrates depends on light and co2..not roots..
photosynthesis works in this order...light->co2->nutrients...
the more light the more co2 the more nutrients..
people usually run into algae because of light and co2 inbalances..algae and plants compete for light..co2 is plants advantage not algaes..or they run into algae by limiting nutrients..this only hurts plants since algae is not limited by low nitrates or phosphate or any other nutrient..0.1ppm is enough for algae to grow..

There are some other triggers that cause algae to start its life cycle but they only result in growing algae if tank conditions are not optimal..low oxygen, ammonia spikes, organics..etc..all are triggers...

algae free tanks are simple...supply both nutrients and co2 at non limiting levels, keep filters clean, have lots of flow and use light as the limiting factor..


----------



## solarz

ubr0ke said:


> yes i dose nitrates as soon as plants are in the tank..
> 
> these are not terrestrial plants were talking about...the rules dont apply..
> aquatic plants absorb nutrients from the substrate or the water collumn..
> Roots mean very little...with some exceptions...crypts, swords etc...
> Plants uptake of ammonia or nitrates depends on light and co2..not roots..
> photosynthesis works in this order...light->co2->nutrients...
> the more light the more co2 the more nutrients..
> people usually run into algae because of light and co2 inbalances..algae and plants compete for light..co2 is plants advantage not algaes..or they run into algae by limiting nutrients..this only hurts plants since algae is not limited by low nitrates or phosphate or any other nutrient..0.1ppm is enough for algae to grow..
> 
> There are some other triggers that cause algae to start its life cycle but they only result in growing algae if tank conditions are not optimal..low oxygen, ammonia spikes, organics..etc..all are triggers...
> 
> algae free tanks are simple...supply both nutrients and co2 at non limiting levels, keep filters clean, have lots of flow and use light as the limiting factor..


Exactly, in order to have a successful silent cycling, you need to dose ferts and inject CO2, not to mention adequate wattage of light. Otherwise, you run the risk of algae blooms and/or ammonia/nitrite spikes.

It's not really something that beginners would know about.


----------



## ubr0ke

dosing nitrates has nothing to do with it...ammonia is a nitrogen source..
you can't just dose nitrates and expect plants to grow...they need P, and K as well as fe, mg, etc...
I did a silent cycle in a non co2 tanks as well..i also dose nitrates, phosphates etc...in that tank...I only do water changes monthly...It has wormcastings capped with sand and has a huge bioload.. 1wpg of t12 light...the plants grow really slow but thats the limitation in light..no algae..healthy fish..

It all comes down to light in most cases...If you look up on these forums the number 1 suggestion when some one asks why my plants are not doing well?..
is... add more light..then 2 weeks later there back asking why they have algae with there new t5ho fixture..

The answer should be dose fertilizer...after when they get comfortable with that..it should be add co2...then lastly add more light...Light is only a good idea after your comfortable with nutrients and co2 since light drives the demand for both of these..

Newbies are always lead to believe more light=beautiful tank but low light non co2 tanks can be just as nice they just take longer to grow..


----------



## ubr0ke

for any newbies following this thread and struggle with plants..
read this article...If you follow this method you will have success..
http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/2817-Non-CO2-methods

I have used this many times so if you have any questions..just ask..


----------



## Zebrapl3co

Let me try to make sense of what you're saying:


ubr0ke said:


> ...these are not terrestrial plants were talking about...the rules dont apply..


Wha!? Except for a few plants, I think I can safely say that a majority of the plants used in the fresh water planted tank aquarium trade are terrestrial. These plants just happens to be able to survive submersed.


> aquatic plants absorb nutrients from the substrate or the water collumn..


Don't understand that, but to make it clearer. Roots absorb nutrients from the substrate while the water column provides nutrients for the leaves.


> Roots mean very little...with some exceptions...crypts, swords etc...


Emmm no, if that's true, flourite, eco-complete, ADA and a host of other planted soils are all just expensive rocks to suck money from your pocket. Or it's because they produce such a nice looking plant than sand substrate that every planted tank guy and gals uses them as a prefer substrate? This I think, indirectly answers your statement of roots being unimportant.


> Plants uptake of ammonia or nitrates depends on light and co2..not roots..


See above reply.


> photosynthesis works in this order...light->co2->nutrients...


What order? there is no order, they are all used in combination during the photosynthesis process. If one ingredient is missing or not enough, then all others are will not be used. Hence leading to fert inbalance and algae issue.


> the more light the more co2 the more nutrients..


err ...OK I agree with that ... I think.


> people usually run into algae because of light and co2 inbalances..algae and plants compete for light..co2 is plants advantage not algaes..or they run into algae by limiting nutrients..this only hurts plants since algae is not limited by low nitrates or phosphate or any other nutrient..0.1ppm is enough for algae to grow..


People usesually run into algae because of light, CO2 and *fertilizer* inbalances.
And I don't know about the rest, but algae is limited by nutrients too. That's how plants can mussle out algae, but using up most of the nutrients, hence leaving little else for the algae to grow on (well, that's the common theory anyway. I could be wrong, it might have been a chemical release by the plant that inhibit the grow of algae for all I know.)

*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## ubr0ke

Do you just make this up on ur own or did you read this false info somewhere?

Difference between terrestrial and aquatic plants and how roots only play a role in terrestrial plants not aquatic..http://www.eoearth.org/article/Aquatic_plants?topic=58075

Ill post a link regarding substrate analysis but the sites currently down..
Ada has nutrients...flourite and eco are inert...other then some iron and calcium..
A rich substrate is not needed if you dose ferts in the water collum...how do you think floating plants survive?. How do people grow plants in play sand? look around on other sites..theres tons of example of plants grown in inert substrates..

photsynthesis has an order..light drives co2 demand which then drives nutrient demand..heres a link so you can educated urself on pretty much everything discussed in the post..This .pdf discusses the limiting light method but also discusses fert dosing and photosynthesis..Its wrote by Tom Barr..The guy who came up with ei..

http://www.siliconvalleyaquariumsociety.com/Downloads/Light_limiting_talk_for_SVAS.pdf

heres an article from Tropica on light and co2..also a good read..
http://www.tropica.com/advising/technical-articles/biology-of-aquatic-plants/co2-and-light.aspx

And lastly heres a discussion that explains why algae and plants do not compete for nutrients but light
http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plants/month.200107/msg00080.html

here is some forum disccusions

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/general-planted-tank-discussion/79107-how-can-plants-outcompete-algae-nutrients.html

or this

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/algae/55767-why-increase-macro-nutrients-supposed-help-2.html

If you understand the science then you can give sound advice..


----------



## Hitch

not to get myself into the discussion. 

But you guys do realize that the term "plant" encompass MANY different specie spanning over MANY different ways in which they obtain nutriment, O2, CO2, light etc?

So both statements of "aquatic plants need roots" and "aquatic plants dont need roots" are correct and incorrect at the same time...


----------



## ubr0ke

Yes ur correct..but for our use plants do not need roots...people test this all the time...by cutting the tops off stem plants and replanting..without roots they still grow don't they....Swords which are said to be huge root feeders are no exception..you can remove the roots and they still grow..
terrestrial plants are also capable of feeding from the leaves but not capable of surviving in a submersed location.... co2 limitation I assume is part of the cause. Even in a co2 injected tank there is still a difference of about 650ppm compared to the atmosphere.


----------



## Hitch

the fact that they constantly regrowing their roots is in itself support to the idea that roots are still necessary for the plant. 

If you take a branch of an apple tree, put it in a pot with good soil, it will grow and eventually re-grow its roots. The fact that they do survive without a root right after its cut, doesnt "prove" an apple tree doesnt need roots.

I do agree that if you take clipping from a stem plant and it will survive, but eventually they will regrow roots. It brings to mind a question of why would nature select for having a root if these plants dont need a root. 

Kinda wish we had a botanist on this forum...


----------



## BettaBeats

ubr0ke said:


> no quite...but way to use logic...
> 
> the truth is here....so read this http://www.rexgrigg.com/cycle.htm


Did anyone miss this part:

"Then it was discovered that by _setting up a tank and filling it full of fast growing stem plants that *one could add a medium to large fish load all at once* and never see the traditional ammonia or nitrite spikes._ The reason for this is simple. _The plants love ammonia._ So it never gets a chance to kill the fish. Also *the plants come covered in beneficial bacteria that will start the traditional cycle.* One advantage of this is that you are going to have a lot of stem plant trimmings to trade at the local fish store or send to your friends."

Even then, this page is wrong because plants love Ammonium - ammonia linked with a hydrogren molecule, not ammonia.


----------



## ubr0ke

Im not saying the roots cannot uptake nutrients..I am saying they are not needed for plants to grow...roots grow to anchor the plants...these plants typically live in streams or rivers where without roots they would never survive..they would just get washed away..

heres a botanist saying the exact same thing I just said to you...
plant brain is Tom Barr..
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/general-planted-tank-discussion/140546-do-aquatic-plants-use-roots-feed.html


----------



## ubr0ke

plants uptake ammonia..http://www.springerlink.com/content/j000gk612203k4vg/

i could post links all day de-bunking whatever myth you have...so fire away


----------



## BettaBeats

ubr0ke said:


> plants uptake ammonia..http://www.springerlink.com/content/j000gk612203k4vg/
> 
> i could post links all day de-bunking whatever myth you have...so fire away


that paper specifically says dry ammonia, with similar characteristics with wet ammonia (ref 2). Since we are talking about aquatic plants, and water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen, the ammonia would quickly, but not always, turn into ammonium. so you can try to debunk what I'm saying, but we're pretty much saying the same thing in different context.

Anyways, i just agree that people should be knowledgeable when starting up a tank. Read, plan, and learn, and be prepared too. The WWF telling people to plant plants, pour in water, drop in fish and 'observe what happens' is definitely not a practice I agree with.

And that ends my input in this discussion.


----------



## ubr0ke

betta..depending on ph and temp you will get either high nh4 and low nh3 or vise versa...both can be used by plants..
nh3 in higher concentrion is toxic where nh4 is not..so nh4 is prefered

I agree 100% about people need to research before getting into this hobby. If anything it will save them money..


----------



## Web Wheeler

ubr0ke, obviously you have done a lot of research on planted aquaria. Thanks for sharing!


----------



## ubr0ke

I have spent probably too much time...but thats why i post..
Growing plants is sooo easy but people make it hard. You come on these forums to find answers. You ask a question and you get 50 different answers..
how can anyone learn?..I blame petsmarts, bigals, and countless generic websites not the people who post...False info is a lot easier to find then the truth..it also sells a lot more chemicals to band aid a problem then to fix it..


----------



## J-P

Unfortunately, I have a feeling, that the intended audience is not going to get into ferts, T5s or CO2. Fish tanks and planted tanks are 2 *totally* different beasts.

"Pouring the water directly will disturb the soil bed; so pour it over a plastic plate that floats over the surface of the water.

This way you will not disturb the bed or any other plants or fish when you pour water."

eh? There are fish in there before you pour the water? Obviously not, but that section should be re-phrased.

I do like the fact that they recommend a 30gal + system. Those smaller 10 gals are just little boxes of death. Too many common fish need larger set ups.


----------



## BillD

If we get back to the article in question, the purpose was to set up a tank to observe some of what happens in an eco system not the keeping of fish as pets. Hence the need for fish eaters, as it occurs in nature, rather than populating with fish that get along, as we do in the hobby. If you don't stock with predator and prey you have an unrealistic model. 
So, while it may not fit into what we try to do as hobbyists, I don't see that article as being aimed at hobbyists or even someone who wants to set up a tank to keep fish as pets. While there may be mistakes I have seen something similar done for a science fair in high school, and on a smaller scale did it with a number of organisms in containers when I was a child. Over the years I have kept tanks without heating or filtration (killies) with out any difficulty.
We all know from experience that the so called "balanced aquarium" that was touted in many aquarium books over the years is virtually impossible. We, instead try for a natural looking tank and use various means to maintain water quality. This of course does nothing to educate about species interaction in nature.


----------



## Web Wheeler

The approach advocated by the WWF does not include any kind of water movement or filtration, and thus is DOOMED TO FAILURE by that alone. The entire bottom half of their 24 inch high aquarium will be anaerobic, and, when placed in sunlight or warmed by the overhead light, there will be thermal gradients which would be detrimental for the health of any fish placed into this aquarium. Furthermore, even if a fish could live in this aquarium for its entire lifetime, I doubt it would support more than one or two very small fish, such as Endler's Livebearers, without supplemental feeding.

On the other hand, I do believe that an interconnected system, such as the one pictured below, except on a larger scale, does have potential and would better demonstrate the various aspects of aquatic life in a balanced ecosystem. Think a container of single-celled algae, e.g. Chlorella, and another container of infusoria, e.g. Paramecium, that leads into a container of small feeder animals, e.g. Daphina, that leads into an aquarium containing a few small fish, some snails and aquatic moss. Add to that, a container that has a terrestrial plant, e.g. Pothos, along with an anaerobic de-nitrification chamber, and if you're lucky, you may get a somewhat self-sustaining ecosystem that contains a few healthy fish.









Cultures and Photo by Victor Freeman

P.S. sorry about the large picture. Perhaps a mod could scale it down somehow.


----------



## Zebrapl3co

OMG the materials I have to plow through!

This one says roots are not important.
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Aquatic_plants?topic=58075
But I believe this example is so wide off it's mark that I don't feel it propertly identifies all the "aquatic" plants out there as Hitch have said. It was talking about Aquatic Vascular Plants. ie., water lily and lotus plants. These plants are not widely used in the aquarium hobby so it does not apply. Also, Rex is talking about stem plants. Not water lily or lotus plants.

This one by Tom says roots are just as important as leaves, see page 23, 24 and 25
http://www.siliconvalleyaquariumsociety.com/Downloads/Light_limiting_talk_for_SVAS.pdf
I tend to agree with those pages, but because it's a slide and I don't know what Tom said during his presentation, I can not draw a conclusion based on a few words and a few slides.

I do not agree with slide 20 though. Which is this order you keep talking about. There is no order. But again, I can't judge base on a few words and a diagram, it would not be a fair to Tom.
... *sigh, took a deep breath* fine I am droping this, it's off topic anyway.

Edit:
Just a correction on my part. Most of the plants in the aquarium trade are aquatic plant, not terrestrial.

*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## Hitch

I really think there are like 3 diff conversations going on at the same time...lol

Anywho, in regards to the original article. I think, again, we are missing the point Bill was trying to raise. This article is NOT meant for someone to start an aquarium and come into the aquarium hobby. It is just to observe the interactions between fish (ie. predator and prey).

If we just look at the advantages section (which in my opinion is their "purpose" section):

* You can observe how different species interact with each other
* Study the natural cycle of each species
* Understand the relationship between different species- producer, predator, prey

It states nothing about wanting to set up a good aquarium for a hobbyist. It is simply to observe the interactions between fish. Since the purpose of setting up this system is not for long term enjoyment of looking at a tank like the rest of us do, it is merely a short "experiment", we are really wasting our time fixating on the idea that this article did not talk about cycling/nitrogen cycle etc. Plus if the purpose of this is to get kids interested in biology and animals, do you think any of them would want to learn about nitrogen cycle?


----------

