For our application thats pretty darn useless without including Carbon. You can search the net and see handfulls of the same charts drawn and redrawn focusing on terrestrial plants (and more often then not dealing with horticulture), but you are ignoring one very large essential backbone of growth that while terrestrially would not normally become limited (exceptions can be greenhouses, sealed terrariums/vivariums, etc) but most certainly can be aquatically.
If we break this down a little further I'll note why I think this is extremely misleading and useless.
As a generalization for terrestrial purposes Carbon, Oxygen, and Hydrogen are considered non-mineral nutrients, and make up the largest percentage. Terrestrial plants are free to take these up via the air and from water. With elevated lighting aquatically Carbon can and does become a limiting factor, and will mimic the above deficiencies. Deformed and/or gradually smaller new growth is a good example. Ignoring an element that is responsible for nearly half a plants mass and an initial building block is IMHO a vital mistake. We see far to many examples of folks chasing nutrient deficiencies and blatently ignoring Carbon when in most instances is the root problem.
Here is a
decent breakdown and you may also recognize another chart on this site that is involved in another recent thread.
I would think something that constitutes at least 45 times more mass in a plant would get a little more thought than it usually does. Also most deficiencies tables out there are quick to note that not all plants exhibit the same characteristics, note the importance of what a healthy plant looks like, and are careful to illustrate that many nutrients work together so a lack of one may cause a deficiency in another.
Potassium deficiency.
