The Planted Tank Forum banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I came across some chemicals analysis of some Rivers.

Example: Amazone

Debit: 6450 km3/year (this the bigger debit compare to other major rivers)

in mg/l

Na = 1,9
K = 0,8
Ca = 5,4
Mg = 0,9
Cl = 2,2
SO4 = 4,5
HCO3 = 21
SiO2 = 6,9
PO4 = 0,02
N03 = 0,17

Somebody see something interesting?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,174 Posts
you talking about the 17 parts N to 2 parts P to 8 parts K ratio of the water? very similar to the dosing in our tanks... only problem is where from the HUGE river the sample was taken. that area might be all mud and murk and completely barren of submerged vegetation. Interesting data in any case.

Oqsy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,235 Posts
:) True this, we manage puddles of water in comparison. Problem with those figures in comparison with our tanks is the river system in it self creates several micro climates, let alone volume differences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,984 Posts
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!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
757 Posts
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!
It's hard to mimick that human/animal (cow) waste-loaded muddy runoff the lower Amazon endures every time a hard rain occurs!

That is some pretty soft water though! Couple of questions:

Is the SiO2 meant to be silicates (SiO3)?
Is the mg/L for the polyatomic species based on the mg of the whole or a specific atom (like ppm NO3 vs ppm N~NO3)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,609 Posts
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?
Get real.

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.



Regards,
Tom Barr
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top