How do I kill this Algae!?

[HTH]

and they say does quilt batting work, yes it does ,is it work ,yes it is .Keep it in all the time less work .There is nothing easy out there and if it is it costs money and is it really worth what your paying for it .I think Uncle Sam is the only one who can brag they pay me for doing nothing ,or can some of the pond company fixes brag also and they all laugh all the way to the bank .I guess they all need some kind of money maker .I sit on mine no that's a big joke

I had a formal pond that I used quilt batting in a drip trays followed by a few gallons of bio balls. We swapped out the batting every day and rinsed the dirty ones by placing them on a larger version of this and rinsing with the garden hose.

 

[Waterbug]

I am not yet convinced that Waterbug is right about nutrients plants and algae. That is not the same as saying he is wrong. I have a lot of respect for his knowledge and experience.

Most people keep aquatic plants in pots. Plants generally take up nutrients through the roots so potted plants do not use nutrients from the water. What is needed is roots in the water. This is not practical with small ponds. So maybe this is one of the things that is true in theory but will not work for most people. If you can't keep bare root plants with you fish try putting them in a pool above you falls or a bog area where the fish can not get to them.

Currently I have string algae in my largest pond. In a month when the lilies become active it will be mostly gone. It could be that their shade or their use of nutrients is the cause. The lilies will bloom for about a month and then stop. Adding nutrients to the water will cause them to continue blooming.

To me it isn't a right or wrong thing. I've seen no studies either way so I don't know what's right or wrong. I look at the available info and form an opinion and run a pond based on that. If new info comes up I'm happy to change my practices.

I agree that potted plants are an easier thing to dismiss as removing enough nutrients to starve algae. And to me it's obvious that a potted plant would increase nutrients. If soil is used then I think it's understood by most people soil would contain nutrients and they would get into the water. But even an inert media like gravel some of the plant's roots would die and decompose into additional nutrients.

Bare root plants like water hyacinth and water lettuce there is no soil but the addition of organic matter and therefore nutrients. But the question is whether these plants take more nutrients out than they add. Lots of studies say yes, as long as the green plants aren't allowed to die and decompose in the water.

The next question is can water hyacinth type plants consume so much nutrients that algae would starve and/or not be able to grow. This concept has never made any sense at all to me. That a plant like water hyacinth could remove consume some key nutrient which algae requires but that the water hyacinth doesn't need is a pretty far out of reality. That's just not the way plants work given current understand.

Assuming water hyacinth type plants could indeed remove some key nutrient the next question has to be how? Thru their roots of course, duh. Well, where does the nutrient come from? Decomposing organic matter, fish gills, from the air above the pond, from bacteria, etc. How could it ever be possible that these nutrients float by thousands, millions, of suspended algae cells but they don't consume the nutrient, but instead wait until the water hyacinth can. For this to be true the nutrients could only form right on the plant roots. Some do, but not all. Physically is it simply impossible. Same with string algae. Some how water hyacinth type plants are able to get first crack at all nutrients is pure fantasy imo.

Yes, water hyacinth type plants can reduce nutrients, so can algae. A green pond will normally test for zero of the different nutrients algae require. So they starve themselves? No. Just because water tests zero doesn't mean nutrients aren't present. It means nutrients are being consumed as fast as they're produced. And given the data on the amount of ammonia a pond produces it's a lot.

Yes, water hyacinth type plants can reduce nutrients. So yes water could be less green. But the concept that algae can't grow at all? Far fetched imo.

Then there is the source of the plant starving algae theory...internet forums and chat rooms. No data, no theory based on anything beyond "plants use nutrients so they must be able to starve algae". This entire concept was born and raised solely in web forums by people just repeating other peoples' opinion.

On the other hand there's lots of studies and info about plants and allelopathy that provide a much more reasonable theory imo. In the specific context of ponds and aquariums a fair amount of experiments backing up the theory. Work by Diana Walstad, Norm Meck and I just saw a video of a guy who found a common aquarium plant that kills duck weed. And my own experiments with single algae and string algae also leads me to think this is the cause of algae dying.

So I'm OK with the allelopathy theory so far.

 

[divedaddy03]

To me it isn't a right or wrong thing. I've seen no studies either way so I don't know what's right or wrong. I look at the available info and form an opinion and run a pond based on that. If new info comes up I'm happy to change my practices.

I agree that potted plants are an easier thing to dismiss as removing enough nutrients to starve algae. And to me it's obvious that a potted plant would increase nutrients. If soil is used then I think it's understood by most people soil would contain nutrients and they would get into the water. But even an inert media like gravel some of the plant's roots would die and decompose into additional nutrients.

Bare root plants like water hyacinth and water lettuce there is no soil but the addition of organic matter and therefore nutrients. But the question is whether these plants take more nutrients out than they add. Lots of studies say yes, as long as the green plants aren't allowed to die and decompose in the water.

The next question is can water hyacinth type plants consume so much nutrients that algae would starve and/or not be able to grow. This concept has never made any sense at all to me. That a plant like water hyacinth could remove consume some key nutrient which algae requires but that the water hyacinth doesn't need is a pretty far out of reality. That's just not the way plants work given current understand.

Assuming water hyacinth type plants could indeed remove some key nutrient the next question has to be how? Thru their roots of course, duh. Well, where does the nutrient come from? Decomposing organic matter, fish gills, from the air above the pond, from bacteria, etc. How could it ever be possible that these nutrients float by thousands, millions, of suspended algae cells but they don't consume the nutrient, but instead wait until the water hyacinth can. For this to be true the nutrients could only form right on the plant roots. Some do, but not all. Physically is it simply impossible. Same with string algae. Some how water hyacinth type plants are able to get first crack at all nutrients is pure fantasy imo.

Yes, water hyacinth type plants can reduce nutrients, so can algae. A green pond will normally test for zero of the different nutrients algae require. So they starve themselves? No. Just because water tests zero doesn't mean nutrients aren't present. It means nutrients are being consumed as fast as they're produced. And given the data on the amount of ammonia a pond produces it's a lot.

Yes, water hyacinth type plants can reduce nutrients. So yes water could be less green. But the concept that algae can't grow at all? Far fetched imo.

Then there is the source of the plant starving algae theory...internet forums and chat rooms. No data, no theory based on anything beyond "plants use nutrients so they must be able to starve algae". This entire concept was born and raised solely in web forums by people just repeating other peoples' opinion.

On the other hand there's lots of studies and info about plants and allelopathy that provide a much more reasonable theory imo. In the specific context of ponds and aquariums a fair amount of experiments backing up the theory. Work by Diana Walstad, Norm Meck and I just saw a video of a guy who found a common aquarium plant that kills duck weed. And my own experiments with single algae and string algae also leads me to think this is the cause of algae dying.

So I'm OK with the allelopathy theory so far.

You guys have lost me! LOL Well, sort of...main thing I question now is, what is allelopathy?

Wayne, SC

 

[HTH]

Waterbug

At this point it seems everything is a theory.. I need to mention my sample is just one 18'x40' pond that has more or less gone back to nature..
People spend a lot of time fighting nature then wonder why their ponds are a mess.

Where I have seen this work it is not just a few water hyacinths, but rather an entire pond where the plants have escaped their pots. Iris, sweet flag, and water lilies. A few water hyacinths is not going to work.

It is possible that it is allelopathy or something else at work here. I do not really know. What I do know is that if the plants are restricted to pots the algae is not suppressed.

 

[Waterbug]

What I do know is that if the plants are restricted to pots the algae is not suppressed.

For you that's a fact (at least that's the way I read it).

But certainly there are hundreds of people who place a single potted plant into a green pond, a week later the pond clears and to them it's a fact that a single potted plant will clear a pond. They post that a lot and many take great offense if this fact is even questioned.

I see a lot of posts something like..."I added a plant and my pond cleared. Yes, plants do clear ponds. Yippee!. Now I have another question...how do I get rid of string algae?"

The string algae that came with the plant is completely dismissed as being responsible. I mean even if we stick with the theory of plants starving green water algae...why isn't the string algae given the credit, or some credit?

However, the theory of whether plants of any kind starve any kind of algae is very easy to test and has been tested many times in studies, by hobbyists and by farmers. The test is almost never done by pond keepers however. One or more of the required nutrients (ammonia, nitrate being the easiest to test) will test as zero in a green pond. Same with string algae die off, but more difficult to test. As soon as the pond clears the nutrient levels start increasing. Norm Meck's experiments found water from a clear pond killed green water algae on contact. So to me, the theory of plants starving algae of nutrients has been disproven. Yes, at this point it is almost all theory. But many theories have been disproven, at least to the satisfaction some people.

I do think there is some relation between plants and algae even if the nutrient angle isn't true. In a pond that's been heavily planted for awhile there is a very consistent result imo. Yes, clear water, but more interesting to me is the macroalgea. In many cases string algae is absent and instead there's brown "stuff" that most people call dead algae. Maybe it is just dead algae, but it never seems to breakdown. I mean I look at a 5 year old heavily planted pond and there's that same brown stuff attached to the sides, plant stems, filters, etc. I have to assume dead matter is decomposing and so even if this stuff is dead something must be replacing it, but green algae seems absent.

Makes me wonder if this is a brown algae or a very small green algae. Makes me wonder if some pond plants use allelopathy against some macroalgea species like string algae and/or work symbiotically with a brown or small green macroalgea to kill other algae species. I don't know. Next chance I get I think I might try to see if I can find a living macroalgea in this brown stuff.

To me the goal is to find if, and which, plant or plants kill pest macroalgea species and under what conditions. I was surprised to learn an aquarist found a plant, a vallisneria I think, that used allelopathy to kill duck weed. It keeps leading me to believe allelopathy is a big part of the freshwater ecosystem.

 

[shakaho]

I think you'll find the brown stuff is a biofilm rich in cyanobacteria (which come in many colors) and other bacteria. It may also contain some diatoms, although these rarely "bloom" in a pond they way they often do in an aquarium. Goldfish find it tasty.

Waterbug, you should watch this show to see how clever plants can be at manipulating their environment. I'm sure you will like it.

 

[HTH]

As I said my sample is small. I can only report what I see in that sample. One would really need to do some experiments with controls to even get close to calling it a fact. Even the results of valid experiments can be misinterpreted or misrepresented Also the lilies in this case shade large percentage of the water which should have some impact. In my case it could be entirely the shade.

The test you talk about is interesting and in time it may well change my viewpoint. But they are only looking at one nutrient, It could well be something else.

I do understand you skepticism. What is needed is real research.

As pointed out by another poster plants only collect energy from photosynthesis. Plants are converting energy to matter so it would be careless to dismiss the nutrient angle entirely. I am not saying that allelopathy is not a competent but it may well be that by looking only to it for an answer is problematic in that the reality may be more complex then that.

Regarding the one pot algae cure. I started out with aquariums and morphed into ponding. It always amazed me when a guy with a single tank would insist he knew better then people who had fish rooms full of tanks. I hope you do not see me as doing that here. Prior to moving here my backyard was over 50% water and I sold aquatic plants and fish. That is not possible here and I miss it.

 

[Waterbug]

I think you'll find the brown stuff is a biofilm rich in cyanobacteria (which come in many colors) and other bacteria. It may also contain some diatoms, although these rarely "bloom" in a pond they way they often do in an aquarium. Goldfish find it tasty.

Biofilm I understand. This stuff is long, like 1-10". Seems to break up when disturbed so it seems dead.

Waterbug, you should watch this show to see how clever plants can be at manipulating their environment. I'm sure you will like it.

Too funny...I was watching it as I read this. Got watch it again though, not paying close enough attention. I was hoping they'd talk about some water plants, but not so far.

 

[Waterbug]

The test you talk about is interesting and in time it may well change my viewpoint. But they are only looking at one nutrient, It could well be something else.

Any single nutrient that was required would be enough as far as I'm concerned. Obviously it can always be something else. I kind of deal more in probabilities, best current data, that kind of thing.

I do understand you skepticism. What is needed is real research.

For my part it isn't skepticism. The theory of plants starving algae has been proven to my satisfaction both from the many studies that have been done over the years by Universities, private industry, hobbyists and just by my basic understanding of how plants work and common sense. I don't really see why any serious scientist would spend money and time proving something that is so well understood, so I don't see additional "real research" being done. Kind of like new research to prove the earth isn't flat. Most people are already happy with the past research.

Regarding the one pot algae cure. I started out with aquariums and morphed into ponding. It always amazed me when a guy with a single tank would insist he knew better then people who had fish rooms full of tanks. I hope you do not see me as doing that here. Prior to moving here my backyard was over 50% water and I sold aquatic plants and fish. That is not possible here and I miss it.

I've certainly met people with lots of experience who knew very little in their area of experience. Masons who've only ever installed sidewalks haven't a clue on building block wall. And with ponds I've met a lot of people who can write books but just repeat myths they've heard. To me rote learning has some limited value if what's being memorized has value. Rote learning myths to me isn't learning, it's like the opposite of learning. For some reason most people hold myths they've learned like it was their first born and completely closed to any discussion. So I'm as likely to value the one tank person as the multi-tank person. More about what they have to say and data they can provide. But that's just me. I know it isn't normal.

 

[HTH]

About research and the internet

Prior to the internet going wild each scientific discipline had its high priests or de factor kings. They were often on the review boards for the journals in their fields. Their action as gate keepers was in many cases an impediment to progress. If the theory behind an article did not agree with their religion it was either kept out of publication or poo poo'ed.

The internet has allowed researchers and theoretical types to bypass the gate keepers and for the most part it has been good. Especially in that it has enabled cross discipline efforts that would never have happened in the old days.

On the down side the internet is great at spreading what I call net wisdom which is often backed up with anecdotal evidence and people seeing what they want to see.

My mind is open on the subject. I Just do not blindly agree that the tests on nutrients is conclusive. I will have to do more reading on the subject. Some days I really care about how it works and others I just want it to work which explains why I may come off as skitzoid now and then. It also explains why I am not deep into the studies just now.

 

[Waterbug]

About research and the internet
Prior to the internet going wild each scientific discipline had its high priests or de factor kings. They were often on the review boards for the journals in their fields. Their action as gate keepers was in many cases an impediment to progress. If the theory behind an article did not agree with their religion it was either kept out of publication or poo poo'ed.

I disagree strongly with this characterization of science. It is incorrect and prejudicial. Papers can be published many ways. Yes, scientific journals do review papers and decide whether or not to publish. But this has absolutely nothing to do with whether a paper is accepted as fact or fiction. It only publishes info. It is up to peers to review and ignore, accept, test, be inspired by that info. Their main concern is whether it might be worth reading. A 5th grader submitting a paper written in crayon that says "plants eat stuff, algae eats the same stuff so plants can starve algae" is probably not going to be published in Scientific American.

But scientific journals sure aren't the only way to publish. Fleischmann and Pons issued a press release on their cold fusion "discovery" at the same time they submitted to Nature. Media published the press release to a very widen audience. I'll bet Fleischmann and Jones probably wish they had some peer review first.

The internet has certainly provided an easy soap box for everyone to publish whatever crap is banging around in their heads. But the only thing that has changed is the volume of crap. That many people choose to believe this new crap is the same old problem. That's an issue with human laziness and has nothing to do with science. I never considered articles in the National Enquirer to be worth much consideration any more than I would consider info in internet forums to be worth much. Non-thinking people pick and choose who to believe and who not to believe. That's not science, that's not thinking. That's celebritism. That's just lazy.

I Just do not blindly agree that the tests on nutrients is conclusive.

"Blindly"???? You don't trust nutrients can be measured? Or you think the scientific community is part of some New World Order conspiracy? Measuring nutrients isn't exactly a complex thing. But hey, it's a free world. Don't really see how it's any of my business what people choose to believe or not believe, or why I would care. 60% of Americans don't believe in evolution. I get that science is still way at the back of the bus and I'm kind of glad as it makes it a lot easier for me to earn money.

Thanks for the discussion. I have no more to add.

 

[Waterbug]

Waterbug, you should watch this show to see how clever plants can be at manipulating their environment. I'm sure you will like it.

Just finished watching, pretty interesting. Seems like people are just starting to study these things. Loved the opening comment...

"If you talk to a lay person about plant behavior they just think you're crazy. If you talk to a scientist about plant behavior they just think you're crazy and wrong."

My new signature.

 

[HTH]

Waterbug

We do seem to be into it on this one.

Things are much better in the scientific community at this time. But it has not always been that way. If you go back far enough they locked people up for not towing the part line. Various figureheads made their name and fame espousing their viewpoint. They used whatever power they wielded to ensure they were not proven wrong. They impeded progress.

Heck the same thing exists in business People in power crush good ideas either because they do not understand them or because they are not theirs.

I would be accepting the studies blindly if I accepted them without reading what was published about them.

 

[divedaddy03]

Settle Down Now Boys!

I'm a man, and I hate to be proven wrong...that said, sometimes there isn't a right and a wrong, just an opinion.

Another challenge with this topic is that there are way too many variables to easily (maybe after a lifetime of research) isolate each variable and come up with a definitive answer.

When it's hypothetical theory that we're debating over...it's up to our own personal influences, environment, and indulgences that lead us to connect with a one hypothesis (form an opinion) or another...

I have certainly enjoyed reading throughout the day!

Wayne, SC

 

[brandonsdad02]

My only filter in my pond is my bog that I built last year. I was having problems with algae until I built it. I put plants in it, and the algae problem went away. I also did use Tetra Pond Algae Control and that seems to help, but not sure if it was that or the bog. I didn't use it after the bog.
Here is the bog

And here is the water. Its 3 foot deep there.