[Alyssa]

... can we has? Please?

Sort of like the nano fish thread - but with plants that are best suited for nano to micro tanks?

Well okay maybe not as intense as the nanofish list - but just a good place for newbies to have a starting place when it comes to plants that do the best in the smaller tanks?

Or is that just a pointless kind of thread to have? Or does it exist already? lol

 

[radioman]

I think that is a good idea.

 

[Alyssa]

So like I would imagine ...

Anubias nana petite

... would be a good suggestion!

Would we want to have two classes?

Class 1: plants with a max height of say 7 inches (no trimming required to reduce height)
Class 2: plants that will require trimming to control height

Hm. Not sure what would be best - but obviously some plants will never need to really worry overmuch about growing 'too tall" to stay in scale or under water, and those that want plants to extend and continue to grow outside of the water wouldn't want to plant ones that will never get higher than like 2-3 inches tall.

 

[Rainer]

Probably anything listed as a foreground candidate would be a good option.

While we're on the subject, exactly what is a nano tank?

 

[radioman]

I consider a nano to be 5 or 6 gallons or less but I guess there is always room to go a little higher ans still call it a nano.

 

[WallaceGrover]

I consider a nano to be 5 or 6 gallons or less but I guess there is always room to go a little higher ans still call it a nano.

I thought it was 30 gallons or less. That's what it usually is in reefs...

 

[Rainer]

The reason I ask is that I see some 10g tanks listed on this subforum. I have a 10g halfmoon tank which I'd never thought of as a nano; it's roughly 16" from the substrate to the light, so some traditional background plants are possible there.

Guess it really blurs the line between nano and standard.

 

[Newman]

nano could be 30 gals or less. in reefs it can even be stuff below 100gals-its up to the person. for example stuff below 5 gals is considered pico lol.

 

[shrimpnmoss]

Moss

 

[Rainer]

nano could be 30 gals or less. in reefs it can even be stuff below 100gals-its up to the person. for example stuff below 5 gals is considered pico lol.

The problem with that definition is that nano plants could then be virtually everything except jungle vals, some swords, and nymphaea.

 

[Centromochlus]

IMO nano is anything smaller than (and NOT including) 10 gallons. But there really is no set definition...

 

[Alyssa]

I would term a nano to be 8 gallons or less. I consider a 10 gallon to be a regular sized tank.

And I own two 100 gallon tanks - so it's not like I'm not familiar with tanks on the larger end of things, but 10 gallons has been a standard size since I was like in single digits. It wasn't considered tiny then so I just can't see it being considered tiny now.

But that's JMO.

 

[Rainer]

Is there a consensus on < 10g?

If so, who wants to start collating the data?

 

[krishanu]

Any consensus on what a pico tank is? I have a 4g which is 'labeled' as a pico.

 

[Alyssa]

I think at least from a "miniature scale" in regard to plant growth ... for the sake of maybe developing some sort of a classification system, that less than 10 gallon as a nano is a good line to draw.

The reality is, if someone is playing with a 30 gallon - they can call it nano til the cows come home, but they can handle most plants for a while before having to trim them - with a few exceptions - whereas when you are dealing with anything smaller than a 10 gallon, your literal "ceiling" is going to be much much much lower, and trimming less of a demand in terms of space and scale, is my thought.

 

[Alyssa]

Hmmm I hadn't run across that term before, pico.

I googled it to see if it was a term relating to scale or brand, and it seems to refer to 3 gallons and under.

This was one link I found that was defining it: http://www.squidoo.com/pico-reef

Micro appears to be an interchangeable term for 3 gallons and less.

In scientific measurements the scale seems to run like this (though I might be mistaken): http://www.telecomabc.com/p/prefix.html

Pico
Nano
Micro
Milli
Kilo
Mega
Giga
Tera

So maybe if we were throwing around that scale it would look something like this?

Pico - 3g and under
Nano - 3g-8g
Micro - 8g - 15g
Milli - 15g - 26g

No idea about the rest. Maybe it isn't compatible past a certain point.

Kilo -
Mega
Giga
Tera

 

[radioman]

A reef nano is different than a freshwater nano. I agree with anything under 8 gallons to be a nano since I would consider a 10 gallon to be a standard tank.

 

[Alyssa]

I was wondering about that - if there would be a difference regarding freshwater and salt - and thought maybe because so much can go so wrong in a salt tank so quickly when they are smaller bodies of water ... but then I wasn't sure.

What IS the difference then?

 

[sayurasem]

A reef nano is different than a freshwater nano. I agree with anything under 8 gallons to be a nano since I would consider a 10 gallon to be a standard tank.

so why ADA call their cube garden L "mini"?
p.s. mini L is 8.5 gallons

 

[Alyssa]

I have NO idea why the industry seems to be ALL OVER PLACE with what they are "nicknaming" tanks sizes. Seems like since water volume is a measurement that the nicknames for certain sized tanks ought to match or agree across the board, but apparently - there is no actual rhyme or reason to them other than they seem to be jumping on keywords that are the hyped things to be doing right now.

Probably just some blowhards in a conference room somewhere going "we gotta sell tanks man! what would be a good sales pitch? We need something catchy, something slick, something that feeds into the current hype in tank-world ... hey those small tanks,,, everyone likes those, let's make a 10 gallon tank like this and this and this and we'll call it a MINIbox or NANOtank and the name will get them to look!"

... or something like that. Sure wish they'd all get on the same page!