Feedback on FW Refugium / WD Sump combo design

[Kogo]

Hi Kogo and TF,

Kogo, what is your exact setup for plants only?

basically, i use a planted aquarium with fast growing stem plants (hygro - ludwigia, wisteria - etc.) or vals in the background and slow growing plants (for aquascaping) in the foreground. There is no filtration, just circulation from canisters or power heads. If i stir up the gravel bed I will run a sponge in the canister for a couple days to clarify the water, but it is quickly removed.

I have also used free floating hornwart in fry grow out tanks with air stones for circulation. with these I just used 10g tanks with incandescent hoods and replaced the bulbs with self ballasted PC bulbs. I added no chemicals to the water and both plants and fry grew quickly.


with cichlids, keeping stem plants would be impractical due to digging or plants being eaten, but they could be placed in a sump and grown in higher concentration (refugium) and plants could be chosen for growth rate instead of aesthetics.




and yes, this is a lively, and interesting thread.
can't wait to see SoCal's finished sump!

 

[terd ferguson]

thanks I may have to take a look at this. Do you have to trim them often?

I have done nothing to them what so ever since putting them in. Literally zero maintenance or feeding.

basically, i use a planted aquarium with fast growing stem plants (hygro - ludwigia, wisteria - etc.) or vals in the background and slow growing plants (for aquascaping) in the foreground. There is no filtration, just circulation from canisters or power heads. If i stir up the gravel bed I will run a sponge in the canister for a couple days to clarify the water, but it is quickly removed.

I have also used free floating hornwart in fry grow out tanks with air stones for circulation. with these I just used 10g tanks with incandescent hoods and replaced the bulbs with self ballasted PC bulbs. I added no chemicals to the water and both plants and fry grew quickly.


with cichlids, keeping stem plants would be impractical due to digging or plants being eaten, but they could be placed in a sump and grown in higher concentration (refugium) and plants could be chosen for growth rate instead of aesthetics.




and yes, this is a lively, and interesting thread.

Thanks for sharing. I had no idea plants alone could handle filtration.

This is definately one of my most favorite threads lately. I've learned some really good things here (sugar, plant only filtration, etc.). SoCalDiscus, I can't wait to see your plans put into action. Please keep us posted.

 

[SoCalDiscus]

Hi Everyone, I'm going to go through and reply to those posts I haven't gotten back to yet. Sorry about the delay, but I was actually getting some work done on my dissertation yesterday, so I didn't want to kill too much of the momentum with procrastination.

here is a simpler design. sorry about quality, i just drew it quickly.

That is similar to my current setup, but you don't get as much total water volume with the wet/dry first in the lineup.

I've been following this thread with great interest. You've got a good basic design down. For plants, consider mangroves. They are working for me very well.

I read you have the mangroves in FW, but are they in a low pH, KH, GH, no salt at all setting like a discus setup is? At least that's the way I keep mine. Others do it differently...

in SW we use the rock as biomedia, and macroalgae are the plants.
but your point about water level in the sump clears it all up.
i wonder though, how efficient the plants are in breaking down actual particulate matter compared to the wetdry portion

The wet dry would catch the particulate in the drip tray or filter floss. So it would only be the mechanical filtration part of the filter doing it, not the wet/dry part. If I have pea sized gravel as Dr. Joe suggested, some of the fine particulate that did not get strained out by the first sock can settle in the gravel and be used by the plants and shrimp. When I added shrimp to my sump, they cleaned up almost a half inch of mulm and silt within about 2 weeks that had accumulated over about 10 months. I hope they aren't starving now...

I have heavy stocking (see sig) and feed a lot. I added six "saltwater/brackish" mangroves to my sump. Within two months with no other changes, nitrates started to drop as measured before a waterchange. When I say drop, they went from 40 to 20. I don't do anything special for the mangroves other than provide them with about 15 hours of florescent light a day.

So, I'd say that the right plants in addition to a wet/dry (which I also run) is definately the way to go in reducing the nitrates that the wet/dry can't help with. And kogo, this is harmony. At the least, it's conveniant harmony. I don't think just having plants for a filter is very practical, although this is only a guess. I don't know anyone who is currently using this sort of system. I think SoCalDiscus said it best in this post...

With my current setup, I consistently have 0 ppm of nitrate even after 2 weeks if I have been busy and skipped a water change. Even with adding nitrate containing fertilizer on a daily basis. With that being said, I typically do weekly water changes. Weekly water changes over a long period of time could also contribute to the low ppm as compared to a system that is changed every two weeks, etc... so it could be apples and oranges here too.

Eric,

Thanks for sharing that setup. I've never kept Discus, but I like them a lot. My tastes lean towards the guapotes. I've always respected Discus keepers though as I understand they're not the easiest species to keep. I don't mean to derail your thread, but honestly, I've never heard of a plant only filtration system and am very curious as to how a successful one is set up.

And while we're sharing pics, here's how I've got my mangroves in my wet/dry...

Cheers,
Kevin

No worries, I don't consider this a derail, more a continued exploration that helps keep the thread alive and more interesting.

basically, i use a planted aquarium with fast growing stem plants (hygro - ludwigia, wisteria - etc.) or vals in the background and slow growing plants (for aquascaping) in the foreground. There is no filtration, just circulation from canisters or power heads. If i stir up the gravel bed I will run a sponge in the canister for a couple days to clarify the water, but it is quickly removed.

I have also used free floating hornwart in fry grow out tanks with air stones for circulation. with these I just used 10g tanks with incandescent hoods and replaced the bulbs with self ballasted PC bulbs. I added no chemicals to the water and both plants and fry grew quickly.

with cichlids, keeping stem plants would be impractical due to digging or plants being eaten, but they could be placed in a sump and grown in higher concentration (refugium) and plants could be chosen for growth rate instead of aesthetics.

and yes, this is a lively, and interesting thread.
can't wait to see SoCal's finished sump!

So you have a planted aquarium that is in equilibrium. Diana Walstad has written a book titled "Ecology of the Planted Aquarium." She discusses the how and why of this methodology. This is an entirely practical way of maintaining a tank, but you have to keep everything in balance. This also means that you cannot overstock or overfeed. For those not familliar with this as a method of filtration, I would highly recommend her book. It is full of tips on algae control, lighting, and many other aspects of the interaction between plants and fish. It goes into more detail than I needed, but has something for people with all levels of scientific background.

I have done nothing to them what so ever since putting them in. Literally zero maintenance or feeding.

Thanks for sharing. I had no idea plants alone could handle filtration.

This is definately one of my most favorite threads lately. I've learned some really good things here (sugar, plant only filtration, etc.). SoCalDiscus, I can't wait to see your plans put into action. Please keep us posted.

Kogo has a true plants only setup where he is not using a sump (am I correct on this?) The canister filter has no media in it, and is only providing circulation? If the canister is being used, the inside of the canister will provide a surface medium for the good bacteria to adhere to, but nowhere near the levels of using actual media. So, it may provide a little more biofiltration than a powerhead would. But it sounds like this is very close to a plants only situation. As I mentioned before, this is a proven way to keep fish. It is basically an entire contained ecosystem. In order for this to work, you have to keep in mind what the limitations to the system are. As Kogo mentioned, you couldn't just have a bunch of chiclids or other fish who eat or dig up plants. Excessively dirty fish like some of my plecos would not make good candidates either. The tank would have to be very large, with very few fish to work.


Comments:
With the type of fish that most users on MFK stock, I don't think that a balanced planted tank as filtration is going to be realistic. That, and you spend all that time aquascaping, just to have it destroyed within a day (with big fish).

This brings us back full circle to at least some sort of sump or filtration away from the display tank. I think the advantage to having a wetdry is its ability to process large amounts of ammonia and nitrite quickly and efficiently to keep the fish safe. The plants can help with this, but their primary contribution is to help with the nitrates.

Lets keep this going. This has been a really great thread. It has forced me to really think about how everything works. I hope it is doing to same for you. I think of this as brain exercising procrastination. If I have missed responding to anything particularly directed to me, please post again.

-Eric

 

[SoCalDiscus]

So that I may continue my search for a suitable tank to use, and get building!!!

Does anyone have any thoughts on how much height I need for the wet/dry media?

If I use a 14" instead of a 17" tall tank, will this be enough height? (Taking into consideration the drip tray and floss above the media)

For anyone who hasn't read from the beginning, the reason for going shorter is to provide better access. The under tank area to work with is only 19" high.

I set my initial design to 17". I will re-do it to 14" in the next day or so to see what it looks like. I will then post it of course. I will work on a more precise estimation for just how much space the eggcrate, floss, drip tray etc. will take up above the media. That way I have a better idea of just how much I will have, and where the water line would be inorder to have 1/3 submerged.

Thanks,

Eric

 

[SoCalDiscus]

Hi All,

I pulled out the trusty Walstad book and did a little reading.

Walstad, Diana. Ecology of the Planted Aquarium. 2nd Edition. Echinodorus Publishing. Chapel Hill, NC. 2003

From p. 21
Ammonia Uptake by Aquatic Plants:
"Most aquatic plants studied, when presented with a choice between ammonium and nitrates as their nitrogen source, take up ammonium exclusively. Only when ammonium is unavailable, do plants take up nitrates."

Note: Plants detoxify ammonia by converting it to ammonium. (this is on the same page)

From p. 22-23
Nitrite Uptake by Plants:
This is a little less clear... so I will paraphrase. Duckweed preferred nitrite to nitrate. But, this may not be the same for all plants based on their physiology.

"These results suggest that aquatic plants might remove ammonium and nitrite equally in preference to nitrates."

"In general, nitrite and nitrate are less desirable N sources than ammonium."

Note: Ammonia is toxic to both plants and fish, and it must be converted to ammonium for use. Some plants (higher growth rate plants) are fine with this, others are not. So, in this case I am being a little "fast and loose" with using ammonium and ammonia interchangeably. I am assuming the use of high growth rate plants, so this shouldn't make a big deal.

--- My interpretation of this:

Plants will and do use up both ammonia and nitrite, along with nitrate. So, effectively they can do what a wet-dry filter does. It may take alot of plants to do this. Possibly more space than a wet/dry takes up.

But, they take up the ammonia and nitrite before they get to the nitrate. I would think that if you have a heavily (or even moderately) stocked tank, you would probably have a fairly steady dose of ammonia. This could quite possibly mean that the plants never get to processing the nitrate (or nitrite, as Jenn pointed out); constantly consuming the available ammonia.

If you add a wet/dry to the system, it would quickly and efficiently remove ammonia and nitrite from the water, leaving nitrate as the byproduct. Plants will consume nitrate when they don't have their first preference of ammonia/ammonium. For this reason, I feel that if your goal is to get rid of ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate; that a wet/dry in combination with plants is the best plan.

If: Wet/dry only --> no nitrate removal

If: Plants only --> Limited nitrate removal given adequate ammonia supply

If: WD + Plants --> Ammonia + Nitrite used up by both WD and plants. Hopefully WD outcompetes plants (this is probably the most important part, and I have no idea if this is the case). Either way, both the WD and plants will be processing ammonia and nitrite, and there will be less ammonia and nitrite available for the plants than with plants alone. This leaves primarily Nitrate for plants and should reduce the overall level on nitrates in the tank.

Is this in the running for the longest rambling post ever? I don't think I switched up nitrite and nitrate anywhere... if you see an issue let me know.

-Eric

 

[Kogo]

very well presented... the only thing i would add is that if the plants take up ammonia/ammonium then there is no nitrate to be removed.

as for walstads book, I read it years ago (higly recommended reading) and it is what inspired my journey into plant only filtration. (that book now belongs to a fellow club member)

now as was stated earlier, my tanks are planted (and heavily stocked until my recent move) and not in a sump. However, I believe this method to be less superior to using a planted sump. (which i hope to build for my 210 this summer)

with in tank plants, plantings are done with an eye toward aesthetics and allowing sufficient swimming room. If plants were moved to a sump, they could be grown in a heavier concentration (using only the fastest growing plants) to maximize the filtration benefit. so in theory the planted sump should do better than the planted aquarium.

also, with plant only filtration, the volume of the planted area is not as important as the mass of new growth... new growth is what removes nutrient from the water... trimming plants removes nutrient from the system

 

[Kogo]

Oh and good luck with the disertation... they are a beast from what I've been told.

I hope to go for a doctorate once i pay off the masters LOL.

 

[Kogo]

sorry for the manic posting, but I wanted to mention how nice it is to find someone else online who still reads those "book" things LOL

 

[SoCalDiscus]

very well presented... the only thing i would add is that if the plants take up ammonia/ammonium then there is no nitrate to be removed.

as for walstads book, I read it years ago (higly recommended reading) and it is what inspired my journey into plant only filtration. (that book now belongs to a fellow club member)

now as was stated earlier, my tanks are planted (and heavily stocked until my recent move) and not in a sump. However, I believe this method to be less superior to using a planted sump. (which i hope to build for my 210 this summer)

with in tank plants, plantings are done with an eye toward aesthetics and allowing sufficient swimming room. If plants were moved to a sump, they could be grown in a heavier concentration (using only the fastest growing plants) to maximize the filtration benefit. so in theory the planted sump should do better than the planted aquarium.

also, with plant only filtration, the volume of the planted area is not as important as the mass of new growth... new growth is what removes nutrient from the water... trimming plants removes nutrient from the system

Yes, I agree, if the plants take up all of the ammonia, then there would be no need to worry about the nitrate... But I think that is a big if.

Given that the nitrogen cycle happens without any prompting, I would imagine that even with a large amount of high growth plants that bacteria will eventually colonize the walls of the tank and the substrate and start consuming ammonia and nitrite competing with the plants. Which eventually will lead to nitrate buildup if no water changes are ever done.

By the way, even when I have no nitrates I still do water changes with the discus every week. I'm sure there are hormones and trace elements that build up over time. My goal is not to eliminate doing water changes, but to make the environment as friendly for the fish as possible.

Oh and good luck with the disertation... they are a beast from what I've been told.

I hope to go for a doctorate once i pay off the masters LOL.

Thanks, it is a royal pain. It's kind of like a tooth-ache that never goes away. I did my MBA at the same time... so I will be paying off both at once. At least it kept me from buying an overpriced house out here in California. I'm planning to get a better return on my investment in human capital.

sorry for the manic posting, but I wanted to mention how nice it is to find someone else online who still reads those "book" things LOL

Ah yes, the old fashioned book. I have found those are a great compliment to all of the information available online. Usually (not always) by the time something gets published, its fairly reliable. I like to check things out for myself rather than solely relying on someone's opinion.

-Eric

 

[Kogo]

Hello Eric and all other subscribed readers,

This thread has inspired me to put my comments to the test. Here is the link to my refugium build thread.

http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153346

please feel free to visit and comment.

Keep up the good work Eric