Plant deficiency diagram

[lauraleellbp]

Anyone know the original source of this diagram?




I ran across it on another forum and it looks vaguely familiar but I can't place it...

[sewingalot]

It is either the one Zapins drew over at APC or the one in Peter Hiscock's Encyclopedia of Planted Aquariums.

[lauraleellbp]

I'm thinking it's in Peter Hiscock's book, but my copy is buried somewhere ATM...

[Nymsley]

I think this is the original thread (unless Zapins posted it elsewhere):

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/f...e-diagram.html

[AzFishKid]

Great diagram!

Now i know what's wrong with my sunset hygro. Potassium deficiency.

[itrack4u]

Can someone please explain the meaning of "reabsorbed" used within this diagram?
Thanks for the post. It should be quite helpful...

[JDowns]

For our application thats pretty darn useless without including Carbon. You can search the net and see handfulls of the same charts drawn and redrawn focusing on terrestrial plants (and more often then not dealing with horticulture), but you are ignoring one very large essential backbone of growth that while terrestrially would not normally become limited (exceptions can be greenhouses, sealed terrariums/vivariums, etc) but most certainly can be aquatically.

If we break this down a little further I'll note why I think this is extremely misleading and useless.

As a generalization for terrestrial purposes Carbon, Oxygen, and Hydrogen are considered non-mineral nutrients, and make up the largest percentage. Terrestrial plants are free to take these up via the air and from water. With elevated lighting aquatically Carbon can and does become a limiting factor, and will mimic the above deficiencies. Deformed and/or gradually smaller new growth is a good example. Ignoring an element that is responsible for nearly half a plants mass and an initial building block is IMHO a vital mistake. We see far to many examples of folks chasing nutrient deficiencies and blatently ignoring Carbon when in most instances is the root problem.

Here is a decent breakdown and you may also recognize another chart on this site that is involved in another recent thread.

I would think something that constitutes at least 45 times more mass in a plant would get a little more thought than it usually does. Also most deficiencies tables out there are quick to note that not all plants exhibit the same characteristics, note the importance of what a healthy plant looks like, and are careful to illustrate that many nutrients work together so a lack of one may cause a deficiency in another.

[sewingalot]

Originally Posted by itrack4u

Can someone please explain the meaning of "reabsorbed" used within this diagram?
Thanks for the post. It should be quite helpful...

I think it means the leaf starts to 'melt' away from the tip back. However, I am not sure. I'll send Zapins a quick note and ask him to stop by and help with the terminology.

[itrack4u]

Originally Posted by sewingalot

I think it means the leaf starts to 'melt' away from the tip back. However, I am not sure. I'll send Zapins a quick note and ask him to stop by and help with the terminology.

Your answer makes sense to me. Thanks for your help.

[Hoppy]

Originally Posted by JDowns

For our application thats pretty darn useless without including Carbon. You can search the net and see handfulls of the same charts drawn and redrawn focusing on terrestrial plants (and more often then not dealing with horticulture), but you are ignoring one very large essential backbone of growth that while terrestrially would not normally become limited (exceptions can be greenhouses, sealed terrariums/vivariums, etc) but most certainly can be aquatically.

If we break this down a little further I'll note why I think this is extremely misleading and useless.

As a generalization for terrestrial purposes Carbon, Oxygen, and Hydrogen are considered non-mineral nutrients, and make up the largest percentage. Terrestrial plants are free to take these up via the air and from water. With elevated lighting aquatically Carbon can and does become a limiting factor, and will mimic the above deficiencies. Deformed and/or gradually smaller new growth is a good example. Ignoring an element that is responsible for nearly half a plants mass and an initial building block is IMHO a vital mistake. We see far to many examples of folks chasing nutrient deficiencies and blatently ignoring Carbon when in most instances is the root problem.

Here is a decent breakdown and you may also recognize another chart on this site that is involved in another recent thread.

I would think something that constitutes at least 45 times more mass in a plant would get a little more thought than it usually does. Also most deficiencies tables out there are quick to note that not all plants exhibit the same characteristics, note the importance of what a healthy plant looks like, and are careful to illustrate that many nutrients work together so a lack of one may cause a deficiency in another.

Bravo!!

Another problem with seeking which particular nutrient deficiency causes which particular plant problem is that it implies that you need to carefully supply just what each plant needs and no more. That just isn't true. If you provide non-limiting concentrations of all of the nutrients you will never have a nutrient deficiency plant problem, so you won't need the chart at all. And, don't we all know by now that there are no consequences for providing non-limiting nutrient concentrations?

Let's focus on getting good CO2 concentration and distribution in the tank, providing non-limiting amounts of all of the mineral nutrients, and providing the appropriate light intensity.

[Jeff5614]

Originally Posted by Hoppy

Another problem with seeking which particular nutrient deficiency causes which particular plant problem is that it implies that you need to carefully supply just what each plant needs and no more. That just isn't true. If you provide non-limiting concentrations of all of the nutrients you will never have a nutrient deficiency plant problem, so you won't need the chart at all. And, don't we all know by now that there are no consequences for providing non-limiting nutrient concentrations?

Let's focus on getting good CO2 concentration and distribution in the tank, providing non-limiting amounts of all of the mineral nutrients, and providing the appropriate light intensity.

Got to give a well said to Hoppy on this one. His post is dead on.

[Zapins]

Yes, I did draw this a few months ago. It is meant as a rough guide to what happens when all nutrients are kept at the same concentration (non limiting) and then one is decreased to the point of deficiency. This diagram assumes good CO2, O2, light, etc... are all there except for the indicated nutrient which results in the deficiency shown. I made it by combing literature on terrestrial plants, aquatic plant observations from hobbyists, and personal experience.

Reabsorbed means the plant either destroys certain cells (or structures inside cells) and absorbs the nutrients and components that make up those cells back into the plant for use in new growth.

[Franzi]

I saw that pic in the Encyclopedia of Plants book mentioned above.

[elihanover]

This should be a sticky.

[slowride]

Originally Posted by lauraleellbp

Anyone know the original source of this diagram?




I ran across it on another forum and it looks vaguely familiar but I can't place it...

thanks for this