I don't find this info meaningless. Of course our tanks will never be equivalent to the natural system which they mimick, but isn't that the goal? How can you have a goal if you can't quantify it? Thanks for the information Glouglou!
No, that is not the goal, why would you even think that?
Is farming and aquaculture about re creating nature?
Are all your critters/plants etc and everything that is part of the ecosystem in your tank?
Horticulture and aquaculture are far different than natural systems.
Restoration and creation of aquatic ecosystems in the real world is extremely
difficult. I work on restoration of submersed plants and we are looking at Vernal pools and various rivers in CA. Plants are fine after maybe 10 years, the inverts sure as heck are not, and thus neither are the fish, takes decades if not longer.
You think you are going to do it in that little tiny box with haphazard routines?
I've heard way too many folks try and suggest that nature is optimal for our tanks, it's not and any farmer knows it and anyone in livestock also knows that.
Aquaculture and horticulture are not natural.
Even the hippy organic loving folks, not even close...................it's more natural than industrial levels, but trying to make the case for natural systems is impossible for the aquarist.
You will not add CO2 if that is the case, why are you not out arguing against adding high levels of CO2 "pollution" to our tanks?
Whose's goal are you trying to copy?
It's one thing to learn about our natural systems and what impacts we have on it and how they work, but it's quite another to ensalve such systems for our own sense of aesthetics and use.
Do dog breeders go out and study the wolves?
Do Rice growers go out and study the habitats of wild rice?
Do shrimp farmers try and emulate the habitats shrimps come from?
No, no and no.
So why should we?
If you want to improve your skills and knowledge about aquarium systems, then stick with those. The fish we remove from the Amazon are not going to be provided with a natural system, it's artificial and we need to focus on improving that and seeing what will help there, not from their natural habitats.
Also a key issue and every ecologist know this:
What is optimal in nature is not necessarily optimal for the critter/plant etc, it's just where that critter can exists and pass it's genes on to the next generation in that particular space and time.
We can take various plants/fish/shrimp and give them more nutrients/food and they do much better, produce far more offspring, have faster growth rates, better development than in many natural systems.
Why is that?
Is nature the optimal model for horticulture?
Many of the "ecology challenged" (which is not to suggest you personally, but many authors are simply clueless and do not make such distinctions) love to argue and belabor that point without even considering basic foundations of ecology and the environment.