I have no issues unless I have too much light and not enough CO2, nutrients had very little effect.
Same for Ammania, Neasea, and A reineckii.
They are poor competitors for CO2, so some plants will do well, others like these 3, tend not to if you are moderately limiting CO2.
You can see how little light it gets being overshadowed.
Some aquarist moderately limit a nutrient, (thereby reducing and limiting CO2 uptake by all plants). Since the nutrient is more limiting than CO2, they seem to believe that this is evidence of a direct relationship between toxicity/excess nutrients and plant health.
When they add more of the limiting nutrients, say PO4, then the aquarium goes from a a decent supply of CO2 to a limited supply, and the PO4 goes from limiting, to non limiting. Of course the CO2 demands goes up when you remove the bottle neck.
But when someone else can grow the SAME species and has high PO4 and no issues, it's falsifies the hypothesis that it is an excess issue. It cannot be.
Indirect relationships and Liebig's law of the minimum apply. Some still do not understand this when pointed out to them. Divorced from reality I suppose, easier to believe the myth and not confront the root issue.
If you add MORE light, do you expect more CO2 demand and more nutrient uptake ???
Sure, so why would this not also apply to other limiting nutrients?
What happens if you use LESS light? You'd expect less demand of CO2/nutrients etc.
So using less light, makes better sense and is easier to control and manage, reduces far more waste than any other method, since that is the root starting point for all growth and demand cascades for resources in plants and algae.