Going from Excel to actual C02 would make a big difference, or in your case raising the C02 level. Excel is marginally effective and only if you use it daily. There are some plants that do not seem to respond to it very well. I always had the most trouble with foreground plants, and Glossostigma can be finicky.
Several years ago I went from Excel to a Carbo Plus C02 system. I don't think it is even still around, but it was a device that extracted C02 from the carbonate hardness in the water. At most it would give you around 10ppm of C02. Much better than Excel, but still not the 20 to 30 ppm that people shoot for. I had Glossostigma and Micranthemoides on opposite ends of the tank. The C02 from the Carbo plus made the Glosso grow much faster and thicker than the Excel did, but the Micranthemoides grew even faster and eventually over took the Glosso. A few months later I cut the plants back and upgraded to pressurized C02. The Glosso took off like a rocket and over took the Micranthemoides. My lighting was always the same, one 55 watt power compact fluorescent over the 20 gallon tank.
The watts per gallon rule is not "myth". It has always been a general rule of thumb based on the average lumen output of a standard fluorescent and meant only as an easy way to gauge lighting, not a scientific measurement. That hasn't changed.
Inject C02 at the maximum level and you will see a huge improvement. Glossostigma is a light demanding plant. In lower light levels, or light that would be fine for many other plants, it will grow taller instead of shorter. The higher the light intensity, the shorter it stays. It is more difficult to grow the plant in tall tanks. The shorter the distance from surface to substrate, the faster and more compact the growth is.
Robert Paul Hudson
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Kindness like love is unconditional