[hydrophyte]

Hydrophyte - thanks! very helpful. I see you mentioned in a couple of places (possibly here or your blog - that some plants like more "root aeration" then other. It seems this would mean adding more of the clay balls and less of the gravel? What plants benefit from this - if my understanding is correct?

Well there are certain plants that seem to do better with the planter filled mostly with clay pebbles. These include Spathiphyllum, Anubias and Acorus. But those plants will do fine planted the regular way too. If you ever plant that way it is important to put a good 1" cap of the finer gravel on top of the clay pebbles. Otherwise the clay pebbles will float away and the plant will tip out of the planter.

Also, do you find low flow or higher flow in the water area is better? I added a few floaties to my tank to see what the flow underneath is and it looks to pretty slow, turns about 3 times the volume an hour.

I don't know. Most of my tanks only have moderate flow and everything seems fine. I would probably set it up right for the fish and the plants will be fine.

Do you think adding ferts once a week on a light dose would be sufficient or too much. (I do EI on my planted tanks for a 20g and thought I would do 1/4 that dose but only add it once a week, with little extra iron)

Thanks as always! At this rate I see a small pond in my back yard by next year

That sounds like it would probably work well. If you have a good fish load then you might not need to add much else, although it can be helpful to add extra iron. What kind of water are you using? Do you have hard tapwater?

 

[plantbrain]

Ripariums and paludairums are not the same thing.

Unlike many paludarium setups, ripariums do not have any real terrestrial area, so there isn't any place to plant upland plants.

This did not answer the question.

What is a terrestrial area? What defines that?

I'm not sure how you plan to decouple the linkage between the water and the land.

I suppose one could use the definition of the wetland soil, one that is 100% lacking in air space. So any region that has air space in the soil + some submersed growth would be defined as a paludarium?
Anything with no terrestrial root area(100% saturated sediments, water column) but emergent leaf/stem/shoot growth, would be a riparium?

Thing that bugs me is the riparium definition since is means something very different than your definition here versus the Biological side of things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riparian_zone

It includes both zones and the transition itself, not just one, in other words, riparium would be a better descriptor than paludarium.

"Marsh or swamp" is the descriptor for paludarium. Futhermore, "Marsh" and a "swamp" are very different to a wetlands ecologist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paludarium

It would seem more appropriate to use the term riparium for a broader range and simply do away with the paludarium term altogether. Perhaps that should be argued for rather than changing the definitions of each around.

Riparian is a river bank/stream bank, marshes are very different, but many of the plants chosen are marsh, not river plants. A few are swamp plants. Hydrophilic plants characterize these zones and not the % saturation of the sediment or submergence.

I think it would lead to much less confusion to keep the term boarder and then do away with the paludarium term, since it is less board and misnamed in general. Marsh/swamp plants really do not define what has been often called a pauldarium.

 

[plantbrain]

I believe a paludarium has a portion of its footprint dedicated to land all the way to the bottom, while a riparium has water with no solid land areas that extend to the bottom...

This is a bad idea/definition, since it conflicts with the far more general term riparian zone.

We use river and marsh and swamp and many upland plants are so called true aquatics, for example Anubias, they are terrestrial plants, you will NOT find them in West Africa growing in or under water, I think one case or two etc that researchers who have spent a lot of time there have ever found them growing under water. Ammannia is a terrestrial plant in it's natural habitat. Most of the plants with keep are amphibious and have heterophylly.

Riparium would encompass what we keep better than Paludarium. It would be a more identifiable term to the newbie/novice.

 

[plantbrain]

Sure you can have something that is a hybrid form of a riparium and a paludarium, but for the purpose of discussion it is useful to make a distinction between the two kinds of setups.

It will generally be easier to design and set up an appealing riparium if done in the standard way and without a built-up abovewater hardscape. With a built-up abovewater hardscape a riparium will lose some of the important advantageous features, especially modularity.

Without modifications a riparium will generally be best as a habitat for fish and plants. A paludarium, on the other hand, can be very good for amphibious animals if it is put together in the right way.

I like the term riparium much better. It is more identifiable. It also describes the processes between the submersed and emergent zones between land and water. Paludarium really is not particularly useful term IME/IMO.

I have a hard time arguing for its(paludarium) existence actually, since it is define by marsh or swamp only really.

This is actually going along more with your better terminology:thumbsup:
I would prefer the term Riparium as a broad general term, and perhaps emergent growth for leaves simply poking above the water line.

I do not consider my 180 a riparium even though it has some emergent growth:

FTS

ATS:

I would suggest it has some riparium or emergent growth.

I would not call it a paludarium in either case however.

 

[hydrophyte]

These read to me like mainly scientific distinctions, when aquarium-keeping is first and foremost a hobby. I don't know if hobbyists would want to fret so much over whether a plant is technically a marsh plant, technically a swamp plant or technically a riparian plant. I have read lots and lots about these plants, including journal articles, and for many of them I still have a less than clear understanding of what their actual habitats in nature are really like. When I am planning out a setup I try to first come up with something that will have aesthetic appeal and can function as a healthy model ecosystem. Then I might also try to make a general biotope theme with plants and animals from the same general area. (But that is just me.)

I think it is a lot to ask that a planted display be such an authentic reproduction of a natural habitat, and in turn, that the terminology be so faithful to the desriptions of the natural environments. The space is just a fish tank after all which is thousands or millions of times smaller than the real ecosystem.

Considering again the hobby perspective, it is useful to use the two different terms because the basic aspects that one has to consider for setup, especially livestock and plants, are distinct for ripariums and paludariums. By explaining the differences between the two ideas it is much easier to get somebody started with a setup that will have better chance as a healthy and aesthetically appealing display.

Ripariums and (what I am calling) paludariums really are different. If you try to use riparium planters in a paludarium it will start to get in the way of the built-up hardscape and vise versa. It is better to keep the two concepts seperate (while leaving room for hybrids of the two to suit the hobbyist) and it is better to retain the two terms as hooks to hang them on.

This did not answer the question.

What is a terrestrial area? What defines that?

I'm not sure how you plan to decouple the linkage between the water and the land.

I suppose one could use the definition of the wetland soil, one that is 100% lacking in air space. So any region that has air space in the soil + some submersed growth would be defined as a paludarium?
Anything with no terrestrial root area(100% saturated sediments, water column) but emergent leaf/stem/shoot growth, would be a riparium?

Thing that bugs me is the riparium definition since is means something very different than your definition here versus the Biological side of things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riparian_zone

It includes both zones and the transition itself, not just one, in other words, riparium would be a better descriptor than paludarium.

"Marsh or swamp" is the descriptor for paludarium. Futhermore, "Marsh" and a "swamp" are very different to a wetlands ecologist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paludarium

It would seem more appropriate to use the term riparium for a broader range and simply do away with the paludarium term altogether. Perhaps that should be argued for rather than changing the definitions of each around.

Riparian is a river bank/stream bank, marshes are very different, but many of the plants chosen are marsh, not river plants. A few are swamp plants. Hydrophilic plants characterize these zones and not the % saturation of the sediment or submergence.

I think it would lead to much less confusion to keep the term boarder and then do away with the paludarium term, since it is less board and misnamed in general. Marsh/swamp plants really do not define what has been often called a pauldarium.

 

[hydrophyte]

(Please excuse the poor paragraph structure in my precedding post.)

 

[RipariumGuy]

Okay, then how are they different again? What defines a paludarium?
You cannot define one without defining the other specifically.

A Pal has/can have some elements of a Rip and vice versa.
There is going to be dogged overlap here and this is going to get worse.

Is my tank a riparium or paludarium?

Anything above the water is terrestrial, the tank above has both of these elements. Below and above.

A riparium is a setup that utilizes riparium planters and/or rafts. So, your setup is not a riparium. It appears to be a normal aquarium with emersed driftwood with emergent growth(?)

Pardon my stupidity, but what "overlap" is there? I see no overlap. If a setup doesn't use planters and/or rafts, it isn't a riparium. If it does, it is. It doesn't get any simpler then that.


A paludarium on the other hand is a type of vivarium that incorporates both terrestrial and aquatic elements. Planters and rafts are definitely not a form of land.


EDIT: Holy cow did I come in late on this. Let me read some past posts and get back on this....

 

[Hoppy]

When you use google for a definition of "riparium" you don't get much of anything useful. So, it isn't a widely used term, or at least it wasn't until Hydrophyte began developing the concept. That's why I prefer to stick to his definition. If we were writing for a scientific publication we probably wouldn't even use the term, so I don't think that is relevant. It isn't the first word to be defined by an originator of a concept.

 

[hydrophyte]

I got the next one in mind I will write it up tomorrow but now I am tired it's time for bed.

Myth #2 - Planted ripariums are perfect habitats for turtles, frogs, crabs and other amphibious animals.

 

[duff]

Interesting discussion guys!

Hydrophyte - No fish yet (not sure what might be a good fit yet and I only have about 5g of water to work with) I am using treated tap water for WC's that is somewhat hard water and top off with RO water during the week to keep the TDS in check. So I am just am dosing light ferts for now.

Maybe a small school of CPD's, or a Betta or a Dwarf puffer - decisions decisions...

 

[hydrophyte]

Interesting discussion guys!

Hydrophyte - No fish yet (not sure what might be a good fit yet and I only have about 5g of water to work with) I am using treated tap water for WC's that is somewhat hard water and top off with RO water during the week to keep the TDS in check. So I am just am dosing light ferts for now.

Maybe a small school of CPD's, or a Betta or a Dwarf puffer - decisions decisions...

Yep even with a small tank like that there are so many options.

Like I mentioned you don't have to worry too much about ferts until the plants really start to grow. Light ferts sounds great for now.

 

[firefiend]

I was always under the impression that a Paludarium was meant to capture a terrestial, riparial and aquatic snapshot. Due to scaling issues with the use the aquariums however, the terrestial part of the paludarium seems to be considered by many riparial.

 

[tuffgong]

Great thread Hydrophyte! I have a couple questions for you that have been buggin' me. Does a riparium by definition have plants in it? If so, isn't the term planted riparium redundant?

 

[plantbrain]

A riparium is a setup that utilizes riparium planters and/or rafts. So, your setup is not a riparium. It appears to be a normal aquarium with emersed driftwood with emergent growth(?)

Pardon my stupidity, but what "overlap" is there? I see no overlap. If a setup doesn't use planters and/or rafts, it isn't a riparium. If it does, it is. It doesn't get any simpler then that.


A paludarium on the other hand is a type of vivarium that incorporates both terrestrial and aquatic elements. Planters and rafts are definitely not a form of land.


EDIT: Holy cow did I come in late on this. Let me read some past posts and get back on this....

Wood is the raft
Ever made a raft?
Ever walked down a stream or by a lake and seen plants growing on a log?

What is a raft?

I mean really, I see little difference between these so called DIFFERENT terms here. I like Riparium personally better, but simply doing away with paludarium all the way seems better.

I mean the type of planter is what makes it different?

Are these questions unreasonable that I am asking?
They seem pretty basic and simple and I'm not getting any real support for their differences in the prior post. I'm asking some rather basic questions and suggesting Riparium seems more reasonable once you get out of the water.

Emergenariums?

Paludarium's claim to have a component of each fails as well, since many riparian systems have all of these as well, and marsh/swamps might lack much submersed growth or terrestrial aerobic sediments.

I think the name chosen was poor for paludarium, and a wiser term "Riparium" is more applied to a wide range of tanks/set ups.
You guys keep trying to say it's just a hobby and that they are different, but I see little that supports this claim or view.

I can call something anything I want, say my tank "lake-arium" and then say that it applies to all aquatic systems, which clearly it does not. Aquarium simply applies to water, so it is a better description.

Where emergent growth occurs above water, and/or terrestrial systems are linked, this seems to best describe Riparium. These are not myths or arbitrary made up stuff cause I want it to be this way, these are definitions based on the root of the word.

That is why I do not like the paludarium term and why I prefer the term, Riparium.


It's pretty simple, there's no arbitrary issues with it, it describes a wider range of habitat, you/Hydrophte coined it etc.

Why even bother trying to make a big deal about paludariums at all?
Promote this and run with it. Suggest the paludarium is not a particularly descriptive word. Planters may make the hobby easier, but they do not define a habitat. Likewise, terrestrial planters still have some linkage with the water table. So the crown of the plant where the stem/root connect might help when it comes to the submersed, emergent etc.

The plants I have in my tank have roots way around the water, but are fed indirectly by the moss.

The wood acts as a natural raft.

This is something one might see along a creek which I would refer to as a riparian zone.

 

[RipariumGuy]

Wood is the raft
Ever made a raft?
Ever walked down a stream or by a lake and seen plants growing on a log?

What is a raft?

I mean really, I see little difference between these so called DIFFERENT terms here. I like Riparium personally better, but simply doing away with paludarium all the way seems better.

I mean the type of planter is what makes it different?

Are these questions unreasonable that I am asking?
They seem pretty basic and simple and I'm not getting any real support for their differences in the prior post. I'm asking some rather basic questions and suggesting Riparium seems more reasonable once you get out of the water.

Emergenariums?

Paludarium's claim to have a component of each fails as well, since many riparian systems have all of these as well, and marsh/swamps might lack much submersed growth or terrestrial aerobic sediments.

I think the name chosen was poor for paludarium, and a wiser term "Riparium" is more applied to a wide range of tanks/set ups.
You guys keep trying to say it's just a hobby and that they are different, but I see little that supports this claim or view.

I can call something anything I want, say my tank "lake-arium" and then say that it applies to all aquatic systems, which clearly it does not. Aquarium simply applies to water, so it is a better description.

Where emergent growth occurs above water, and/or terrestrial systems are linked, this seems to best describe Riparium. These are not myths or arbitrary made up stuff cause I want it to be this way, these are definitions based on the root of the word.

That is why I do not like the paludarium term and why I prefer the term, Riparium.


It's pretty simple, there's no arbitrary issues with it, it describes a wider range of habitat, you/Hydrophte coined it etc.

Why even bother trying to make a big deal about paludariums at all?
Promote this and run with it. Suggest the paludarium is not a particularly descriptive word. Planters may make the hobby easier, but they do not define a habitat. Likewise, terrestrial planters still have some linkage with the water table. So the crown of the plant where the stem/root connect might help when it comes to the submersed, emergent etc.

The plants I have in my tank have roots way around the water, but are fed indirectly by the moss.

The wood acts as a natural raft.

This is something one might see along a creek which I would refer to as a riparian zone.

First, I did not mean to come across offended by your questions in any way. So, forgive me for that.

Anyway, I am begining to see your point. And I now agree. The main reason that I have stressed the differences between the two is because many people didn't know what a riparium was, and if they did, assumed it was a type of paludarium.

I like your use of the term riparium: any aquarium with emersed growth(?)

 

[EWTC]

Hi all. I'll just jump in and say (for what it’s worth) that I don't think that just any aquarium with emersed growth would meet a definition of "riparium". Ripa is Latin for river bank and riparian zone is a clearly defined habitat consisting of the interface between land and a river or stream. Riparian vegetation, as has already been noted, is characterized by hydrophilic plants. So to me, a "riparium" should be an attempt to simulate that interface and would need to have moving water (e.g. using an outside filter at the least). my son’s newt tank, which consists of still water and emergent plants, would not be a "riparium" as it really more reminiscent of the edge of a pond, not a stream. But that doesn’t mean a "riparium" can’t have a terrestrial component, or have plants attached to wood instead of planters attached to the glass.

My 2 cents...

EC

 

[hydrophyte]

Wood is the raft
Ever made a raft?
Ever walked down a stream or by a lake and seen plants growing on a log?

What is a raft?

I mean really, I see little difference between these so called DIFFERENT terms here. I like Riparium personally better, but simply doing away with paludarium all the way seems better.

I mean the type of planter is what makes it different?

Are these questions unreasonable that I am asking?
They seem pretty basic and simple and I'm not getting any real support for their differences in the prior post. I'm asking some rather basic questions and suggesting Riparium seems more reasonable once you get out of the water.

Emergenariums?

Paludarium's claim to have a component of each fails as well, since many riparian systems have all of these as well, and marsh/swamps might lack much submersed growth or terrestrial aerobic sediments.

I think the name chosen was poor for paludarium, and a wiser term "Riparium" is more applied to a wide range of tanks/set ups.
You guys keep trying to say it's just a hobby and that they are different, but I see little that supports this claim or view.

I can call something anything I want, say my tank "lake-arium" and then say that it applies to all aquatic systems, which clearly it does not. Aquarium simply applies to water, so it is a better description.

Where emergent growth occurs above water, and/or terrestrial systems are linked, this seems to best describe Riparium. These are not myths or arbitrary made up stuff cause I want it to be this way, these are definitions based on the root of the word.

That is why I do not like the paludarium term and why I prefer the term, Riparium.


It's pretty simple, there's no arbitrary issues with it, it describes a wider range of habitat, you/Hydrophte coined it etc.

Why even bother trying to make a big deal about paludariums at all?
Promote this and run with it. Suggest the paludarium is not a particularly descriptive word. Planters may make the hobby easier, but they do not define a habitat. Likewise, terrestrial planters still have some linkage with the water table. So the crown of the plant where the stem/root connect might help when it comes to the submersed, emergent etc.

The plants I have in my tank have roots way around the water, but are fed indirectly by the moss.

The wood acts as a natural raft.

This is something one might see along a creek which I would refer to as a riparian zone.

What do you really mean with all of this? Do you have some other agenda or motive in mind? How are you going to stop people from using the word paludarium? Who says that the elements and functioning of a model ecosystem display necessarily has to be so loyal to anything in nature? Hundreds of thousands of hobbyists who keep their dart frogs in planted enclosures refer their setups as "vivariums". Should this term be discarded because their is no such thing as a wild ecosystem called a "vive"? How would a change like that ever be enforced and why should it be changed if the description serves very well.

By the way, most of the dart frog vivariums that I have ever seen bear little resemblance to anything that I have seen in anture. Most of them have been filled mainly with plants that grow in treetops, but attached to a 3D background that is more like a rock wall, and with animals that in the wild live on the flat rainforest floor. They look plenty nice though and the plants and animals can be very happy inside.

It is good to have agreed-upon terms to distinguish between ripariums and what I am calling paludariums because the basic elements of setup are distinct and the kinds of living things that make the best inhabitants are distinct...

• Ripariums are mainly for fish and plants.
• Paludariums are mainly for amphibious animals and plants, and maybe also fish.

Swamps are wetlands with lots of trees. The setup that you linked the pictures for--which looks to me like a cross between what I am calling a riparium and what I am calling a paludarium--has plants growing adhered to the manzanita sticking out of the water. Of the places that I have been in nature the feature that I have seen that most resembled this kind of growth are floating logs in the backwater swamps along the Mississippi River that by the end of the summer are covered with thick growth of Eleocharis acicularis and other little plants. Assuming that my observation is representative--I'm not claiming that it is--and applying your reasoning then shouldn't you call that a paludarium? The logs growing along the edges of streams and rivers, the riparian zone, tend to grow less plants like that because the water level fluctuates more and because the flowing water tends to scour plants from hard surfaces

 

[hydrophyte]

OK I have some observations on this one...

Myth #2 - Planted ripariums are perfect habitats for turtles, frogs, crabs and other amphibious animals.

You could maybe keep fully aquatic herps OK in a riparium, but anything that might climb would not be good for the riparium plants. Most of those plants that grow on the rafts have fine, thin stems and it is easy to knock them over. A lot of the best plants to put in the planters are similarly flimsy. Crypts can grow into really impressive emersed riparium specimens, but the stems are so soft that any animal larger than a small insect would just flatten them out.

There is not any real land area in a riparium, so there is not good place for herps to bask. One could include a shelf or flaoting island or something like that, but those feaures would just get in the way of the riparium planters. To get a good-looking planting it is usually necessary to fill most of that whole real rear pane of glass with planters + plants.

There so-o-o-o-o-o-o many different options to explore for fish stocking. You can make a really engaging display with some nice active fish to go with the riparium plants. It appears to me that some hobbyists get really stuck on the idea of keeping herps in a riparium because their own frame of reference is mainly with the vivarium setups used with dart frogs and other herps, which might be the only similar kind of setup that they have seen. I once had a discussion with somebody who insisted that I should put some dart frogs into a large open-top riparium filled with plants, and robust cichlids and livebearers. Dart frogs would have just drowned in that tank. The fish probably would have eaten their legs off. I thought that the setup looked nice just the way it was, but that guy could not shake that idea.

If you want to keep amphibious animals with plants, then something more like a regular paludarium setup with a built-up hardscape would be a better idea. However, as mentioned earlier something like a hybrid setup with the right riparium plants might also work OK for amphibious animals. I have pondered setting up the mangrove planting that I have going in a 65 for mudskippers, but I decided to use other fish instead. Most of the plants in there are are upright and sturdy, and it wouldn't be hard to make some good areas for the mudskippers to climb around by adding some more big manzanita stumps to the water. You could also probably make a nice hybrid setup for turtles if you were to forego the trellis raft and just select some really big and sturdy peace lilies in planters to put on one side of the tank, then positioned a floating basking platform on the other side. It might be hard to get a layout like that to look totally natureal, but the plants would add some nice greenery and help to keep the water clean.

 

[hydrophyte]

Just for reference, here are some water-associated herps that somebody listed in response to my post on another forum, from member Groundhog...

--Small pipids, e,g. Hymenochirus
--Reed frogs
--Theloderma sp.
--Bombina sp.
--Floating frogs
--Certain newts
--Dwarf sirens
--Water skinks

Etc?!?

A lot of these get pretty big and as described above they probably wouldn't be so compatible with riparium plants. I have wondered about reed frogs (Hyperolius sp.). Most of them are very small and some are supposedly almost entirely arboreal, so they might stay up in the foliage more and not really require a basking area.

 

[londonloco]

Subscribed....