Study
Article database
Relevant scientific articles and books
Here, I will try to build an extensive knowledge base from scientific publications (articles and books) covering topics of relevance or interest to aquarists (hobbyists). In the first step, I will put here all relevant articles I have collected during my self-study (500+). In the second step, I will gradually add more detailed content to it (i.e. descriptions of individual findings). This database will also be unique in that you will have access to all the full texts with links to the source documents (where available).
|
Usual structure of
a scientific paper |
|
| title | concise and clear naming of article content |
| authors | list of authors and their workplaces |
| abstract | brief summary of the whole article |
| introduction | describes the problem under study (its context and significance) |
| methodology |  brief but concise description of the experimental methods, on the basis of which it should be possible to replicate the experiment |
| results |  objectively (dryly) presented experimental results without their interpretation |
| discussion |  interpretation of the results (usually in the context of other published work) |
| conclusion |  summary of the main results of the work in the context of the whole subject and previously achieved results |
| references | cited literature (if you are interested in this topic, you can find other similar works here) |
| minimum | = | value at which plants stagnate (don't grow/photosynthesise) |
| optimum | = | value at which plants reach 50% of their maximum growth/photosynthesis rate |
| maximum | = | value at which plants reach their maximum growth/photosynthesis rate |
My goal is not extremes, but to find the optimum. So I do not want to achieve the greatest possible biomass gain in the shortest possible time (= the state referred to in the scientific literature as the „saturation point“ aka maximum, which Tom Barr approaches with his EI method), nor to grow plants with the minimum amount of light and nutrients at the limit of their survival (= the state referred to in the scientific literature as the „compensation point“ aka minimum, which is probably closest to Martin Langer's [Maq] ascetic method), but I would like to find a kind of „golden mean“ (= a state referred to in the scientific literature as the „half-saturation point“ aka optimum) at which plants would reach excellent condition and adequate growth without the need to supply them with extreme doses of nutrients or light. While the first state (= saturation point) could be compared to bodybuilders and the second state (= compensation point) to ascetics, my state (= half-saturation point) could be compared to healthy people who prefer regular exercise, a moderate diet and overall vitality.
Supersaturated levels of nutrients (especially CO2) for plants are like anabolics for a bodybuilder. Take this extreme supply away from overbred plants and they collapse, and the entire aquarium ecosystem usually collapses along with them. In contrast, an ecosystem in which plants are grown under more or less natural conditions (i.e. with naturally low levels of CO2 and other nutrients) is much more stable & healthier and therefore will hold up much better in the long run. ↗
→ In addition, most aquatic plants and animals have adapted perfectly to life in clean water. Such water is natural to them. In contrast, water to which aquarists add quantities of fertiliser (and which is generally unprecedented in nature) is unnatural for most plants and animals. While living in such water may not pose an acute risk to them, a number of scientific studies confirm that it may not be optimal for them. More sensitive animals may begin to suffer from higher fry mortality or deformities of internal organs, symptoms that no aquarist will notice at first glance. I would liken this to heavily polluted areas where people „normally“ start families and „normally“ have (and raise) children. But compared to other, cleaner regions, it turns out that birth rates, respiratory disease rates, and life expectancy vary dramatically in these regions.
Therefore, I could not [in good conscience] recommend the use of unnecessary amounts of nutrients, especially higher concentrations of CO2 (> 10 ppm). Plants, animals and microbes are perfectly adapted to natural conditions, so why not learn to respect that.
As you can see in the graph on the right, as the concentration of nutrient or energy (light) supplied increases, the yield (efficiency) decreases. This means that a relatively small (almost negligible) amount of nutrient is all the plants need to "bounce off the bottom" and "jump up" to 50%. If you increase this initial dose 2-3 times, the plants will "jump up" to 90%. However, if you want to "squeeze" the maximum (100%) out of your plants [at all costs], you will have to provide them with nutrient levels that are not naturally occurring anywhere in nature. But [as with humans] abundance never leads to long-term health and vitality. On the contrary, abundance makes humans (as well as plants) delicate, pampered, flimsy, and prone to disease. Only diet (a moderate, balanced nutrition), hardening and strengthening [under naturally harsh conditions] leads to overall resilience, fitness, flexibility and strength of the organism. Therefore, if you want to have healthy and vital plants, the solution is not to provide them with the maximum (abundance), but with the optimum (golden mean). The "optimum" is therefore the recommended value to ensure long-term plant health and vitality.