[plantbrain]

I think you folks might be asking a different question here............horticulture and management vs plant growth preferences.............

Plants do grow better with more CO2, more light, more nutrients, and nutrients in both(WC and the S), not one or the other location.

Management is an entirely different issues.

Growers focus on growing species etc, a scaper or a horticulturalist tend to focus more on a specific plant that fits their needs and looks aesthetic/easy to care for etc.

In that case, the non CO2 approach, something that pre dates everyone here and ADA by decades as far as time in this hobby, wins and beats every method in terms of cost, simplicity and management.

Perhaps you are just learning the virtues of slowing growth for management, but that is hardly exclusive to ADA.

You can slow growth with nutrients, with CO2 or light.
Given light is the main driver and the point where photosynthesis starts off at, it makes the most sense to limit that one first.

From there, less light = less CO2 demand.
No surprise there.

Why would it be?

That affords you all sorts of wiggle room in any method.
Not just ADA's.

Tropica tried to make this clear.
Low light(which cost less over time/initial cost) and good CO2.
So did George Booth, so have I.
So has ADA, but most do not listen..........

But many think more light and CO2 and then limiting nutrients is smarter for some reason that escapes me.

ADA does not suggest that, nor do most European growers either.
They might remove the N and P and put it in the substrate, but that's due to the belief, not the reality, that it limits algae.

That notion is easily disproven time and time again.
Simply because you can grow plants well at lower nutrient levels with CO2/light etc does not mean higher levels of nutrients are bad or anything, that's the assumption..........and it's dead wrong.

But the idea that plants can adapt to less and they most certainly can and do, it is not invalid. I'm not sure, but some seem to believe I suggest that is not the case, which is total crap.

I just know that it does not offer an advantage(lean NO3/PO4 in the water column) for algae control and I have proven it so many times as others have for a very long time now.

What do folks really expect here?
Less nutrients = less growth/slower growth.
Less CO2=> obviously less growth.
Less light = less growth.

Have issues with pruning etc?

Switch the plant species, add rocks, driftwood, etc, anything that removes fast growers and swaps them with less troublesome species.

These are not so much a method or anyones, these are more broad and common sense things.

You can limit PO4 and slow CO2 uptake, and NO3 uptake. Try it and see.
You can limit NO3 and slow CO2 uptake and PO4 uptake as well.

You can limit things in the water column and not in the substrate......or you can limit things in the substrate and not in the water column.

Merely because one works, does not imply that the other does not or is better really............even if you have personally have trouble with it............
It just means you have not mastered that balance yet and there may be many reasons for that.

I'd suggest you try to master several methods and watch how one things influences the other. Learn each method well and make sure you start out with a healthy tank or are able to induce specific species of algae that gave you trouble, remove then, then induce them back again.

I see many folks discovering another method they happen to strike a decent balance with. They think it it's superior and it is.........for them at that moment with what they happen to be doing............but there's a lot more room for improvement and many reason they where not successful with the other method.

You really should try and figure out why if you feel that urge to understand and learn more. If all you care about is nice tank, less work, decent scape etc, go non CO2, use easier plants, nice bioload, lots of herbivores, no water changes etc.

I think otherwise most run a risk of thinking/assuming correlation =-> causation.

Then someone reads it and thinks that must be the case and another round goes through the hobby............try confirming your hypothesis and falsifying it.............yes, try to disprove the idea you made..........

Folks have said and claims all sorts of poppycock for many years about how NO3, Fe, PO4, etc..........all cause algae.............at excess levels but I do not have algae, so it cannot be right..........

It might be something else, but it cannot be due to that or a combo of them.
Just try out a slow growth low light tank and see.
Then try a non CO2 tank.
Then and PO4 limited tank.
Then a NO3 limited tank.
Then a soil and inert sediment tank etc.

And for heaven's sake, use a real test kit and make sure those readings are accurate.........

This takes work, time, money and resources, I generally have no motivation to do such test for more than a few weeks.....after that I get my question answered and I go back to less test labor intensive methods. Others have done these same exact test many years before most of you started keeping plants, and such info is available...........

Do some background checking and read what has been done before you.
It'll save a lot of time for you and see what others have thought about and expected/results etc.

Regards,
Tom Barr