The Tint

Catappa leaves, botanicals, and the stuff they can- and can't do!

In todays internet-fuled hobby, the misconceptions- good and bad- about utilizing leaves and botanicals in our aquariums continue. And they spread really quickly! 

There is a lot of "stuff" out there ascribing capabilities and attributes to botanicals that simply isn't true. Stuff about how they impact water parameters in our aquariums. There is much confusion. Yes, you can use botanicals to influence the pH of your water if the carbonate hardness is minimal. They can and will impart humic substances and tannins into the water.

They will, of course, color the water. How much and to what extent is something that is simply unpredictable. 

Much like the misconception that botanicals soften the water, it was often assumed by hobbyists that the brownish tint imparted to the water by leaves and botanicals somehow implied that it is "soft and acidic." It does not.

Yes, some of these materials contain substances that can reduce the pH in water which has low to negligible carbonate hardness. 

However, the tannins, which are the substances which tint the water, cannot "overcome" the Calcium and Magnesium ions, and drive down the pH significantly in water with high levels of these carbonate hardness present. It simply is putting more materials into the water (which are often detectible by TDS meters in aquariums). And, as we've discussed before, there are natural habitats, such as the Tapajos in Brazil, which have essentially clear water, yet are rather soft and acidic. 

Color of the water is not a reliable indicator of pH.

First off, without delving too far into basic water chemistry, which I have neither the desire or ability to explain in simple terms, I think everyone needs to kind of delve into google and refresh (or educate for the first time!) themselves on the concepts of carbonate hardness and pH. This will set you up well for understanding exactly what these parameters mean, and how they can impact your fishes.

Suffice it too say, botanicals cannot influence the carbonate hardness of the water! They cannot "soften" it. Soft water is water that contains low concentrations of ions- particularly calcium and magnesium. In order to achieve "soft water", these ions need to be removed from the water. 

In Nature, soft water occurs where rainfall accumulates and rivers and streams are formed over hard, impervious, calcium-poor rocks. Geology, as we've discussed before, is a HUGE influencer of the carbonate hardness of the water in wild ecosystems (and in aquariums, for that matter!). For our purposes, the process of "ion exchange" is the most efficient way to soften water for aquarium use. And that is easily achieved by utilizing an RO/DI ("reverse osmosis/deionization) unit, of which dozens are available for hobbyist use!

For a detailed explanation of THAT process, just google it! My head spins just thinking of how to explain it in a non-confusing matter. In my opinion, an RO/DI unit is one of the fundamental investments that any serious botanical-style aquarium enthusiast should make. Yeah, they're a couple hundred U.S. dollars to start, and arguments could be made about their efficiency, etc., but if you really want to create optimum conditions for fishes requiring soft, acidic water, for most of us it's the best way to go. 

For those of you who have naturally soft water where you live, Mazel Tov. You'e probably stoked! Awesome. However, for the rest of us, we need to buy a damn RO/DI unit and be done with it. 🤓

Let's focus on leaves for a few minutes...Catappa leaves, specifically.

The "great catappa leaf exaggeration"- Part 500:  It has been known for many years by science that catappa leaves (and others) have substances in their tissues which do have some potential medicinal functions, like saponins, phytosterols, punicalagins, etc.  Fancy names that sound really cool- these are often bounced around on hobby sites as the "magic elixir" for a variety of fish ailments and maladies.

Now, I can't entirely beat the crap out of this idea, as these compounds are known to provide certain health benefits in humans. and for a long time, it was anecdotically assumed that they did the same for fishes. And believe it or not, there have been studies that show benefits to fishes imparted by substances in catappa and other leaves.

I stumbled across a study conducted in Thailand with Tilapia concluded  that Catappa extract was useful at eradicating the nasty exoparasite, Trichodina, and the growth of a couple of strains of Aeromonas hydrophila was also inhibited by dosing Catappa leaf extract at a concentration of 0.5 mg/ml and up. In addition, this solution was shown to reduce the fungal infection in Tilapia eggs!

And it is now widely accepted by science that humic substances (such as those present in botanicals) are thought to have a wide range of health benefits for fishes in all types of habitats. We've covered this before in a great guest blog by Vince Dollar, and the implications for the hobby and industry are profound. Although they are not the "cure all" that many vendors have touted them as, many leaves and other botanicals do possess a wide range of substances which can have significantly beneficial impact on fish health.

And, as a guy who sells leaves for a living, I've had to be careful to not ascribe miraculous attributes to the stuff I sell- because it's not only not helpful- it can be downright misleading and certainly counterproductive for the hobby and industry by doing so!

And I see a lot of counterproductive garbage being put out there at scale. It's important to address some of this stuff from time to time, especially when it's about our use of botanicals in natural-style aquariums. We have an obligation, of sorts, to elevate our practice of utilizing natural materials in aquariums, and that often means diving just a bit deeper when seemingly "too good to be true" assertions are made.

I'll say it ONE MORE TIME:

Catappa leaves cannot "cure fish diseases."

This is one which has been perpetuated for years (often by people who sell leaves online and elsewhere -hey, I'm in that group, huh? Yikes! 😳 ).

This assertion bothers the shit out of me.

Although, it actually has some validity to it, as outlined above. I said "some"- because we in the hobby and industry tend to selectively "cherry pick" stuff we like from science and run with that, often overlooking some of the more sobering realities in favor of the "sizzle."

Yup.

That's where the danger of "regurgitation" sneaks in.

Those benefits that various leaves like catappa allegedly bring? Well, many of them are benefits ascribed to humans. And for a long time, it was anecdotally assumed that they did the same for fishes. Now, sure, humans aren't fishes, as we all know...Yet, I'll say it once more: There have been studies that show benefits to fishes imparted by substances in Catappa and other leaves.

Although they are not the "cure all" that many vendors have touted them as, leaves and other botanicals do possess a wide range of substances which can have significantly beneficial impact on fish health.

The practice of using catappa leaves in aquariums is quite old.

And there is a certain logic to their use, which is hard to question. For many years, Betta breeders and other enthusiasts in Southeast Asia added catappa leaves to the tanks and containers that held their fishes, and noticed a lot of positives…Those who actually fought their fishes seemed to feel that, when kept in water into which catappa had been steeped, their fishes recovered more quickly from their injuries. Those who simply kept fishes (not for “blood sport”) noticed increased overall vigor, appetite, and health among their fishes. 

Okay.

Anecdotal? Perhaps.I mean, probably...

However, one thing I've learned about the early aquarists is that they employed very keen power of observation. They were a practical lot, if nothing more, who didn't have the internet and cool gadgets and stuff to rely on for information. It was more about trying stuff and going with things that seemed to work for them. They were obviously seeing something- or a combination of things, which led them to believe that using catappa leaves was beneficial to their fishes.

Now, this makes a lot of sense, right?

I mean, the natural habitats of many of the fishes of Southeast Asia are blackwater, botanical-influenced waters, rich with tannin from decomposing vegetation and naturally occurring peat.

As discussed above, many of the humic substances and compounds which benefit fishes are found in these natural waters.

As Catappa leaves and other botanical materials break down in our aquariums, they impart some of these beneficial compounds into the water, fostering a more healthy environment for fishes which are accustomed to blackwater conditions. Perhaps they perform an almost "prophylactic" role at preventing disease and supporting overall fish health, as opposed to functioning as some sort of "cure all." 

And that leads to more questions, of course:

What "dosage" do we apply? How many leaves steeped in how much water yields a concentrated solution of 0.5 mg/ml or more? How long do these materials need to be in the aquarium to accomplish this? And is there truly some measure of effectiveness, besides simply seeing your fishes happy and healthy?

We're learning the answers to some of these questions together. Catappa keeps calling...Botanicals keep beckoning.

Breaking through the barrier of assumptions, hyperbole, and fluff that has often clouded this tinted world before we all came together and made a real effort to understand the function as well as the aesthetics of this dynamic, engrossing hobby niche. 

It's on all of us- hobbyists, vendors, and lovers of aquairumstpo push forward and share the facts as they are, along with our personal experiences- to help move the "state of the art" forward.

Stay curious. Stay resourceful. Stay diligent. Stay bold. Stay creative...

And Stay Wet.

Scott Fellman

Tannin Aquatics 

Filled with inspiration: The many wonders of stream habitats.

As you know, I have a VERY healthy obsession with leaf litter beds in the wild and in my aquariums. The way that leaves and other materials accumulate in watercourses such as streams has a profound influence on the the lives of our fishes. 

Leaf litter beds form in what stream ecologists call "meanders", which are stream structures that form when moving water in a stream erodes the outer banks and widens its "valley", and the inner part of the river has less energy and deposits silt- or in our instance, leaves.

There is a whole, fascinating science to river and stream structure, and with so many implications for understanding how these structures and mechanisms affect fish population, occurrence, behavior, and ecology, it's well worth studying for aquarium interpretation!  

Did you get that part where I mentioned that the lower-energy parts of the water courses tend to accumulate leaves and sediments and stuff?

It's logical, right? And it's also interesting, because, as we know, fishes and their food items tend to aggregate in these areas, and embracing the "theme" of a litter/botanical bed or even wood placement,  in the context of a stream structure in the aquarium is kind of cool!

In Nature, the rain and winds also effect the depth and flow rates of many of the waters in this region, with the associated impacts mentioned above, as well as their influence on stream structures, like submerged logs, sandbars, rocks, etc.

Stuff gets redistributed constantly.

Is there an aquarium "analog" for these processes?

Sure!

We might move a few things around now and again during maintenance, or perhaps current or the fishes themselves act to redistribute and aggregate botanicals and leaves in different spots in our aquairums.

And how we structure the more "permanent" hardscape features in our tanks has a profound influence on how botanical materials can aggregate.

So, rather than covering the whole bottom of your tank with leaves, would it be cool to create some sort of hardscape structure- with driftwood, etc., to retain or keep these items in one place..to create a "framework" for a long-term, organized, specifically-placed litter bed.

You could build upon, structure, and replace leaves and botanicals in this "framework"- like, indefinitely...sort of like what happens in the "meanders in streams!"

How would fishes react when presented with a deep litter bed in part of the aquarium; would they prefer to reside there? Or would they simply forage there and stay in the more open areas of the aquarium? Would the spawn there?

Probably some fry would seek shelter there, right?

 Streams typically feature two interesting biotopes that we haven't really discussed in much detail here, and both of which are quite profoundly impacted by the seasonal rains: Pools, with slower current and a substrate covered mainly by deposits of leaf litter, detritus and driftwood; and "riffles" (defined as shallow sections of a stream with rapid current and a surface broken by gravel, rubble or boulders), with a moderately-fast-flowing current and mostly sandy bottom with tree roots, driftwood pieces, and small rocks and pebbles. (ohh...home to Darter Characins!)

Some researchers  have postulated that the higher presence of nocturnal predators in the pools adjacent to the more active riffles might increase the number of species that seek refuge in the riffles to avoid them! And Rivulus, which usually live in more intermittent pools along the stream edges, outside the main stream channels, are normally found at night in these riffles!  

Trees of life...literally.

Just about everything that we play with in the botanical-style aquarium world- leaves, seed pods, bark, stems- has its origin in...trees. And trees, of course, yield wood. Trees are perhaps one of the most important influences on the dynamic tropical habitats we are fascinated by- perhaps second only to soils.

Virtually every time we plan an aquascape, it seems like one of the most major components of the composition is wood. It's been that way in the hobby for years. And it makes sense. Wood adds a sense of color, texture, and depth to any aquascape.

It makes or breaks it, in many cases, right? Wood comes from- trees, when I last checked. 😆

In the botanical-style aquarium world, wood reigns supreme over rock, because many of the habitats we replicate in our tanks tend to have more wood than rocks.

And of course, branches and twigs and other tree parts are ubiquitous in the wild aquatic environments of the world.  And many of you are absolutely incredible at 'scaping with wood! Collectively, we've developed extreme talent for creating fantastic designs with all sorts of wood, roots, and twigs.

However, there is more to this stuff than just the good looks, right?

Of course! There is a functional benefit that is as beautiful- if not more so- than the aesthetics themselves. 

Let's focus for a bit on the ecological "role" that tree branches, trunks, and other components of the trees play in the wild aquatic ecosystems of the world. Doing this helps give us not only "context" as to how they function, but what impact they have on the overall aquatic habitat. This is an extremely helpful context when we decide to play with wood in our aquariums!

In Nature, it is not uncommon at all for small (and large) trees to fall in the rain forest, with punishing rain and saturated ground conspiring to easily knock over anything that's not firmly rooted!

When these trees fall over, they often fall into small streams, or in the case of the varzea or igapo environments in The Amazon ( the ones that I'm totally obsessed with), they fall and are ultimately submerged in the inundated forest floor when the waters return.

And of course, they immediately impact their (now) aquatic environment, fulfilling several functions.

Fallen trees provide a physical barrier or separation from currents, perhaps creating a little "dam", which accumulates leaves, sediments, and detritus- all important as food sources to a huge number of aquatic organisms. They also provide a "substrate" for algae and biofilms to multiply on, and providing places for fishes forage among, and hide in. Many fishes, like small cichlids, will reproduce and raise their fry among these fallen tree trunks.

An entire community of aquatic life forms uses the fallen tree for many purposes. And the tree trunks, branches, and other parts of the tree will last for many years, fulfilling this important role in the aquatic ecosystems they now reside in each time the waters return.

Let's focus on this "ecological component" for just a bit. Let's review what happens when a tree falls...literally!

Shortly after falling into the water, fungi and other microorganisms act to colonize the surfaces, and biofilms populate the bark and exposed surfaces of the tree.  Over time, the tree will impart many chemical substances, (lignin, humic acids, tannins, sugars, etc.) into the water as the bark breaks down and the tree itself softens.

In aquatic ecosystems, much of the initial breakdown of botanical materials is conducted by detritivores- specifically, fishes, aquatic insects and invertebrates, which serve to begin the process by feeding upon the tissues of the seed pod or leaf, while other species utilize the "waste products" which are produced during this process for their nutrition.

In these habitats, such as streams and flooded forests, a variety of species work in tandem with each other, with various organisms carrying out different stages of the decomposition process.

The fallen tree literally brings new life to the waters.

I can't stress enough how interesting and important this transformation of the terrestrial environment to the aquatic one is. It helps explain so much of why the aquatic habitats look and function the way they do, and how they impact the life forms which make use of them.

The materials that comprise the tree are known in ecology as "allochthonous material"-  something imported into an ecosystem from outside of it.  (extra points if you can pronounce the word on the first try!)  We've talked about that stuff for a while now, right?

Yeah.

And of course, in the case of fallen trees, this includes includes leaves, fruits and seed pods that fall, or are washed into the water along with the branches and trunks that topple into the stream.  

There are stages of breakdown of botanical materials in water which ecologists have identified. Each one of these phases actually plays out in our aquariums, as well- just another cool advantage of working with natural materials!

After it's submerged, some of the "solutes" (substances which dissolve in liquids- in this instance, sugars, carbohydrates, tannins, etc.) in the tree/leaf /seed pod tissues are released rather quickly. Interestingly, this "leaching stage" is known by science to be more of an artifact of lab work (or, in our case, aquarium work!) which utilizes dried leaves, as opposed to fresh ones.

The second stage of the process is called the "conditioning phase", in which microbial colonization on the branch, leaf or seed pod takes place. They begin to consume some of the tissues of the leaf- at least, softening it up a bit and making it more palatable for the aforementioned detritivores.

The last phase, "fragmentation", is exactly what it sounds like- the physical breakdown of the submerged material by various organisms, ranging from small crustaceans and shrimp to fungi- and even fishes, collectively known as "shredders." It has been suggested by some ecologists that microbes might be more important than "shredders" in tropical streams. These are typically more pronounced processes in softer materials like leaves, as opposed to more durable ones like tree trunks and branches.

Fauna composition differs between habitats, yet most studies I've found will tell you that Chironomidae ( insect larvae-think Bloodworms!) are the most abundant in many streams, pools, flooded forests, and "riffles" in the initial period of leaf and botanical material breakdown! 

The botanical material is broken down into various products utilized by a variety of life forms. The particles are then distributed downstream by the current and are available for consumption by a variety of organisms which comprise aquatic food webs.

Six primary breakdown products are considered in the decomposition process: bacterial, fungal and shredder biomass; dissolved organic matter; fine-particulate organic matter; and inorganic mineralization products such as CO₂, NH₄⁺ and PO₄^3-.  In tropical streams, a high decomposition rate has been related to high fungal activity...they accomplish a LOT!

These materials are known to ecologists as “coarse particulate organic matter” (CPOM), and in the waters of these inundated forest floors there is a lot of CPOM, and the community of aquatic organisms (typically the aforementioned aquatic insects and crustaceans) has a high proportion of “shredders”, which feed on the CPOM and break it up into tinier bits called (wait for it...) "fine particulate organic matter" (FPOM).

And of course, some fishes, like larger characins, catfishes, etc., consume fallen fruits and seeds as part of their diet as well, aiding in the "refinement" of the CPOM, as well as helping spread the undigested seeds throughout the forest floor, ready to sprout when the waters recede.

Other organisms make use of the fine particulate matter by filtering it from the water or accessing it in the sediments that result. These allochthonous materials support a diverse food chain that's almost entirely based on our old friend, detritus!

Yeah, that detritus.

The stuff of nightmares for many dyed-in-the-wool hobbyists...The stuff of dreams for many hungry fishes who consume it and the associated fauna within it! It's so incredibly important to aquatic organisms that I can't even begin to stress it enough!

And, although the forest floor receives substantially less sunlight than open rivers, the nutrients and available light are utilized by algae, which may colonize the surfaces facing up into the sun. And of course, many fishes make use of these algal films as a food source...Sensing a theme here?

Absolutely...

So, to summarize at this point:

Fallen, submerged trees and their constituent structures (branches, seed pods, LEAVES) are of enormous importance as a provider, facilitator, and accumulator of food for aquatic organisms.

We see similar results in our aquariums, right? "Undefended" surfaces are colonized by algal "patinas" and biofilm/fungal growths. These growths may look a bit "unconventional" to many hobbyists, but their appearance belies their elegance and beauty as indispensable components of a complex aquatic ecosystem.

And of course, the tree, like almost anything that is submerged, will gradually decompose over long periods of time. This process is actively exploited by aquatic life forms at all levels. Hollowed-out sections will be inhabited by fishes and exploited for the shelter they offer, and of course, the aforementioned crustaceans and insects will utilize the tree and its constituent materials in various ways.

And, as for the fish population, it's long been known by ecologists that fish movement, species richness, diversity, and population density are directly affected by the physical and biological influences of... fallen trees!

And the deep beds of leaves that may be "corralled" by the fallen trees- a sort of natural "dam"- play an important tole in determining what fishes live in these "microhabitats." Deep accumulations of leaves, as we've discussed before, will definitely limit some fish species, which cannot tolerate the lower oxygen concentrations found in these areas, yet attract others which make use of the life forms living on the surface layers of the leaves.

Other fishes take advantage of the "physical barrier" that a fallen tree presents to shelter from predatory species. Many adaptations have taken place over eons to allow fishes to exploit these changes to their environment caused by fallen trees!

It's pretty fascinating stuff, all of which has implications for us as aquarists who want to replicate natural habitats to the most realistic degree possible. As aquarium hobbyists, what does this all mean to us? How can we employ the lessons learned from fallen trees in Nature? What can we do to mimic this?

Well, for one thing, I think it's a call for us to consider employing some bigger, thicker pieces of wood in our tanks!

Now, sure, I can hear some groans.

I mean, big, heavy wood has some disadvantages in an aquarium. First, the damn things are...well- BIG- taking up a lot of physical space, and in our case, precious water volume.  And they're likely not as sexy as those awful "bonsai trees"mounted to rocks that are (regrettably) becoming popular again...

And, of course, a big, heavy piece of wood is kind of...pricy. And your truly hates shipping them!

Although wild habitats are filled with big old tree trunks, stumps, and branches, scenes just begging to be recreated in aquariums, we tend to hesitate...

There are many 'scapers who would make the case that you can't make big, gnarly pieces of wood "work" in an aquarium because of their impact on "ratio" and "proportion", etc... You know, the "artistic" part.

And to these types, I gently admonish you to check out the works of some talented 'scapers, like our friend, Mitch Mazur, who have made that now-famous "mental shift" to work with Nature in an artistic interpretation...

These pleas and "look what HE did!" sort of arguments are almost a "prerequisite" of late when I talk about any idea that has an "aesthetic" component to it, because the self-appointed "guardians of aquascaping style" seem to come out of the woodwork (lol) after these discussions, reciting dozens of well-rehearsed reasons why the concept won't work, rather than even trying to do something similar. 

It's weird. 

To that, of course, I call, "Bullshit!"

Yeah, a big piece of wood or dense aggregation of smaller pieces in an aquarium does create some challenges, but most of them are in our head. Hell, Takashi Amano himself did a few amazing tanks with huge pieces of wood years ago. Remember?

And of course, when we utilize a large piece of wood (relative to the aquarium's water volume), it has a chemical and physical impact on the aquatic environment that is...hey- sort of similar to that which occurs in Nature, right?

Yeah.

Now, on a purely practical level, let's think about the very practices we employ when utilizing wood in our aquariums. It starts with the preparation process...

When you first submerge wood, a lot of the dirt from the atmosphere and surrounding environment comes off, along with tannins, lignin, and all sorts of other "stuff" from the exterior surfaces and all of those nooks and crannies that we love so much.

And of course, there are the tannins. Now, I don't know about you, but I'm always sadistically amused by the frantic posts on aquascaping forums from hobbyists that their water is turning brown after adding a piece of driftwood. I mean- what's the big deal?

Oh, yeah, not everyone likes it...I forgot.

The reality, as you probably have surmised, is that driftwood will continue to leach tannins pretty much for as long as it's submerged. As a "tinter", I see this as a great advantage in helping establish and maintain the blackwater look, and to impart the humic substances that have been proven to be very beneficial to the health of almost all freshwater fishes.

It's a unique aesthetic, too, of course!

When it comes to preparation, I'm more concerned with those impurities- the trapped dirt and such contained within the wood.

As you probably know, that's also why I've been a staunch advocate of the overly conservative "boil and soak" approach to the preparation of botanicals, too. A lot of material gets bound up in the dermal layer of the tree where the wood comes from. The bulk of the dry mass of the xylem (the "network" within the tree which transports water and soluble mineral nutrients from the roots throughout the plant, and comprises what we know as "wood.") is cellulose, a polysaccharide, and most of the remainder is lignin, which is a sort of complex polymer. 

Why the mini botany lesson?

Well, because when you have some idea of what you're putting into your tank, you'll better understand why it behaves the way it does when submerged! In a given piece of driftwood, there is going to be some material bound up in these structures, and it will be released (gradually or otherwise) into the water that surrounds it, with a big "burst" happening on initial submersion. 

This is why, during the first couple of weeks after you submerge wood, that the water often becomes dark and even cloudy. There is a lot of "stuff" in there!

It's far better, in my opinion, to take the time to start the "curing" process in a separate container apart from the display aquarium. This is not rocket science, nor some wisdom only the enlightened aquarists attain. It's common sense, and a practice we all need to simply view as necessary with terrestrial materials like wood and botanicals. You may love the tannins as much as I do, but trust me, your tank could do without the polyscaccharides and other impurities from the outer layers of the wood.

The potential affects on water quality are significant!

Here is a natural corollary: It's pretty plain to see that at least part of the reason we see a burst of new algae growth and biofilm in wood recently added to an aquarium is that there is so much stuff bound up in it. Algal and fungal sports can literally "bloom" during the initial period after submersion. It's exactly what happens in the wild aquatic habitats of the world when tree trunks and branches are covered by water.

On the other hand, the adventurous aquarist in me can't help but wonder if we should just give the wood a thorough washing, and let this whole process play out in the aquarium, to foster this amazing biodiversity within the aquarium itself. Again, this is an example of setting up an aquarium from the start to replicate both the form and function of Nature.

Yes, it will look different. Yeah, you'll see a lot more biofilm, fungal growth, detritus, and perhaps even slightly hazy water. You'll have to carefully monitor the nitrogen cycle, and manage nutrient accumulations with good husbandry...

Yet, think of the interesting results of this incredible patience! 

At the very least, try a fairly large piece of aquatic wood (or several smaller pieces, aggregated to form one large piece) some time. I think you might find this sort of arrangement quite fascinating to play with regardless of if you "prep" it in the display, or in a separate container first.

Arrange the wood in such a way as to break up the tank space and give the impression that it simply fell in naturally. Let it create barriers for fishes to swim into, and disrupt water flow patterns. Allow it to "cultivate" fungal growth and biofilms on its surfaces, and small pockets where leaves, botanicals, substrate materials, and...detritus can collect.

"Pre-populate" the system with food orgmaisms, like Daphnia, Gammarus, and the like, weeks or months before you add the fishes. Enjoy the biofilms. And select a population of fishes that can exploit the variety of new habitats that the "fallen tree" creates.

There are many distinct "zones" created by these sorts of aggregations of tree trunks and branches...This is absolutely a perfect utilization for wood. Looking at these materials from a functional perspective- observing the roles the serve and how they aggregate in Nature- then interpreting it for aquariums-is the way to go, IMHO.

So, yeah.

Trying what might appear to be a big, somewhat awkward piece of wood, or group of wood  pieces- filling much of the tank can be a challenge to our aesthetic sensibilities at first.

But guess what?

You'll get over it when you simply enjoy the setup for what it represents- not for a "typical" aquascape. And, when you populate the tank "correctly", with fishes that can utilize the interesting ecological "niches" within the tank, you'll realize that "conventional" aquascaping is not the only way...

Yes, hobbyists have been throwing big old wood pieces into tanks for decades...

However, I don't think that we've played it out in a manner that was specifically intended to replicate the "functional" aspect of them.

That is, we haven't really thought through the idea of that big, gnarly tree trunk in our tank functions not only as an aesthetic component, but more important- as an ecosystem, which supports not only an abundance of life, but provides a tremendously interesting study in adaptation and the resourcefulness of nature.

Perhaps these aggregations are a freshwater "version" of a coral reef- filled with multiple ecological niches and functions.

Oh, and they look cool, too.

Yeah, this piece covered a fair amount of territory today. And I think that it's good to look at multiple aspects of what seems like a straightforward topic- because we as aquarists need to think beyond just the idea of utilizing wood in our aquariums. We need to think of wood as a literal "bringer of life" in both the natural habitats and in the aquarium...

It's another "mental shift" we can make. A pretty easy one, actually! 

Make it. Go for it.

So, a tree may fall in the forest..And an entire ecosystem will arise as a result. Yeah, an awful lot of good stuff starts happening underneath the water!

This is a really important thing for us to grasp.

Literally, trees are bringers of life- above snd beneath the waters of the world.

Stay thoughtful. Stay curious. Stay observant. Stay patient. Stay inspired. Stay creative...

And Stay Wet.

Scott Fellman

Tannin Aquatics 

From the bottom up: Living with your substrate

We've talked for years about tossing leaves, twigs, seed pods, etc. in our aquariums. As a community, we've elevated the art and honed the rationale for adding these materials to our aquariums. The applications for botanicals have been everything we expected they would be, and more!

What happens, though, when we allow leaves and seed pods and twigs and such to accumulate on or within the substrate in our aquariums? Over the past century or so of the aquarium hobby, it's become pretty much "doctrine" that we don't allow stuff like uneaten food, fish waste, or "detritus" to accumulate in the substrate. We're implored to regularly siphon this stuff out of our substrate and discourage its accumulation at all costs.

Now, on the surface, I totally get this. Allowing uneaten food and excessive amounts of fish waste to accumulate in your sand bed is conceivably a recipe to create a "nutrient sink" which will begin degrading the water quality of your aquairum. Sound advice, sure. I mean, no one wants to have increasing phosphate, nitrate, and other organic compounds accumulating in their tank.

I've seen many recommendations to siphon out your substrate weekly or monthly. Now, again, I don't have a problem in us preaching good habits to new aquarists: Don't overstock. Don't overfeed. Filter your aquarium properly. Complete regular water exchanges. I mean, sure, these are foundational "best practices", and part of the fundamentals of keeping fishes in a closed aquatic systems.

That being said, if you're NOT overfeeding, NOT overstocking, and conducting regular water exchanges, why is there a necessity to thoroughly siphon the substrate frequently?

Think about it for a second before you go and pelt me with stones for my heretical questioning of this "fundamental" practice in aquarium keeping. The reality is that we have been urged to siphon out "stuff" from the substrate for fear of it accumulating and degrading water quality, right? Okay, sounds good. However, consider that, in an otherwise well-managed aquarium, the organics in the substrate are...food...for bacteria and other organisms which live within it.  

Ask yourself why we try to seek a balance of life forms within our aquairum. We embrace good husbandry because we want to facilitate the proper biological function within the system. And that means, "partnering" with our friends, the bacteria- to facilitate nutrient processing.

So, if you're a typical aquarist, and run a properly stocked aquarium, and embrace generally accepted husbandry practices, it seems to me that aggressively siphoning the substrate is essentially removing food resources from the bacteria and other organisms which live within the substrate. So, in our effort to keep the tank "clean", we are actually starving these organisms, and creating a sort of "dependency" on our aggressive, artificially imposed maintenance practices.

And sure, if you're disturbing an already depleted bacterial and microfaunal population within the substrate by actively siphoning it, you're creating one of those "knife's edge"situations, where the slightest possible lapse or disturbance can create potential disaster. We've talked a lot about detritus and the "bad rap" it seems to get from the hobby, to the point where you're probably sick of hearing it- but it's something I feel is very important.

Again, working with Nature and natural processes is a fundamental part of aquarium keeping. And it's a very foundational part of the botanical-style aquarium movement. I strongly believe that allowing these organisms (bacterial biofilms, fungal growths, etc.) to not only appear- but to thrive within our systems, despite their "unusual aesthetics," keeps our systems stable and healthy. Letting leaves and botanical materials break down via decomposition not only supports the overall environment within the aquarium, it fuels the lifeforms which accomplish this.

In my experience, and in the reported experiences from hundreds of aquarists who play with botanical materials breaking down in and on their aquariums' substrates, undetectable nitrate and phosphate levels are typical for this kind of system. When combined with good overall husbandry, it makes for incredibly stable systems.

I've been thinking through further refinements of the "deep botanical bed"/sand substrate relationship. I've been spending a lot of time researching natural aquatic systems and contemplating how we can translate some of this stuff into our closed system aquaria.

Now, I realize, when contemplating really deep aggregations of substrate materials in the aquarium, that we're dealing with closed systems, and the dynamics which affect them are way different than those in Nature, for the most part.

And I realize that experimenting with these unusual approaches to substrates requires not only a sense of adventure, a direction, and some discipline- but a willingness to accept and deal with an entirely different aesthetic than what we know and love. And this also includes pushing into areas and ideas which might make us uncomfortable, not just for the way they look, but for what we are told might be possible risks.

One of the things that many hobbyists ponder when we contemplate creating deep, botanical-heavy substrates, consisting of leaves, sand, and other botanical materials is the buildup of hydrogen sulfide, CO2, and other undesirable compounds within the substrate.

Well, it does make sense that if you have a large amount of decomposing material in an aquarium, that some of these compounds are going to accumulate in heavily-"active" substrates. Now, the big "bogeyman" that we all seem to zero in on in our "sum of all fears" scenarios is hydrogen sulfide, which results from bacterial breakdown of organic matter in the total absence of oxygen.

Let's think about this for just a second.

In a botanical bed with materials placed on the substrate, or loosely mixed into the top layers, will it all "pack down" enough to the point where there is a complete lack of oxygen and we develop a significant amount of this reviled compound in our tanks? I think that we're more likely to see some oxygen in this layer of materials, and I can't help but speculate- and yeah, it IS just speculation- that actual de-nitirifcation (nitrate reduction), which lowers nitrates while producing free nitrogen, might actually be able to occur in a "deep botanical" bed.

And it's certainly possible to have denitrification without dangerous hydrogen sulfide levels. As long as even very small amounts of oxygen and nitrates can penetrate into the substrate, this will not become an issue for most systems. I have yet to see a botanical-style aquarium where the material has become so "compacted" as to appear to have no circulation whatsoever within the botanical layer.

Now, sure, I'm not a scientist, and I base this on close visual inspection of numerous aquariums, and the basic chemical tests I've run on my systems under a variety of circumstances. As one who has made it a point to keep my botanical-style aquariums in operation for very extended time frames, I think this is significant. The "bad" side effects we're talking about should manifest over these longer time frames...and they just haven't.

And then there's the question of nitrate. 

Although not the terror that ammonia and nitrite are known to be, nitrate is much less so. However, as nitrate accumulates, fish will eventually suffer some health issues. Ideally, we strive to keep our nitrate levels no higher than 5-10ppm in our aquariums.  As a reef aquarist, I've always been of the "...keep it as close to zero as possible." mindset, but that is not always the most realistic or achievable target in a heavily-botanical-laden aquarium. You have a bit more "wiggle room", IMHO. Now, when you start creeping towards 50ppm, you're getting closer towards a number that should alert you. It's not a big "stretch" from 50ppm to 75ppm and higher...

And then you get towards the range where health issues could manifest themselves in your fishes. Now, many fishes will not show any symptoms of nitrate poisoning until the nitrate level reaches 100 ppm or more. However,  studies have shown that long-term exposure to concentrations of nitrate stresses fishes, making them more susceptible to disease, affecting their growth rates, and inhibiting spawning in many species. 

At those really high nitrate levels, fishes will become noticeably lethargic, and may have other health issues that are obvious upon visual inspection, such as open sores or reddish patches on their skin. And then, you'd have those "mysterious deaths" and the sudden death (essentially from shock) of newly-added fishes to the aquarium, because they're not acclimated to the higher nitrate concentrations.

Okay, that's scary stuff. However, high nitrate concentrations are not only manageable- they're something that's completely avoidable in our aquairums.

Quite honestly, even in the most heavily-botanical-laden systems I've played with, I have personally never seen a higher nitrate reading than around 5ppm. I attribute this to  common sense stuff: Good quality source water (RO/DI), careful stocking, feeding, good circulation, not disturbing the substrate, and consistent basic aquarium husbandry practices (water changes, filter maintenance, etc.).

Now, that's just me. I'm no scientist, certainly not a chemist, but I have a basic understanding of maintaining a healthy nitrogen cycle in the aquarium. And I am habitual-perhaps even obsessive- about consistent maintenance. Water exchanges are not a "when I get around to it" thing in my aquarium management "playbook"- they're "baked in" to my practice.

So yeah, although nitrate is a concern in botanical-style aquariums, it need not be an ominous cloud hanging over our success.

Relatively shallow sand or substrate beds seem to be optimal for denitrification, and many of us employ them for the aesthetics as well. Light "stirring" of the top layers, if you're concerned about any potential "dead spots" is something that is permissible, IMHO. Any debris stirred up can easily be removed mechanically by filtration, as mentioned above. Of course, as we already discussed, you don't have to go crazy siphoning the hell out of your sand every week, essentially decimating populations of beneficial microscopic infauna -or interfering with their function- in the process.

Okay, so I think we have at least started to beat the shit out of the biological aspects of substrate composition and maintenance...Let's circle back to aesthetics for a second.

I think one of the most "liberating" things we've seen in the botanical-style aquarium niche is our practice of utilizing the substrate itself to become a feature aesthetic point in our aquariums, as well as a functional mechanism for the inhabitants.

In other words, in a strictly aesthetic sense, the bottom itself becomes a big part of the aesthetic focus of the aquarium, with the botanicals placed upon the substrate- or, in some cases, becoming the substrate! These materials form an attractive, texturally varied "micro-scape" of their own, creating color, interest, and functions that we are just starting to appreciate. In fact, I dare say that one of the next "frontiers" in our niche would be an aquarium which is just substrate materials, without any "vertical relief" provide by wood or rocks.

I've executed a few aquariums based on this idea (specifically, with leaves), and I've been extremely happy with their long-term performance! Oh, and they kind of looked cool, too...

Nature provides no shortage of habitats with unusual substrate composition for inspiration. If we look at them in context of the surrounding terrestrial ecosystem, there are a lot of possible "functional takeaways" that we as hobbyists can apply to our aquarium work.

And the interesting thing about these features, from an aesthetic standpoint, is that they create an incredibly alluring look with a minimum of "design" required on the hobbyists' part. Remember, you can to put together a substrate with a perfect aesthetic mix of colors and textures, but that's about it.

We have to "cede" some of the "work" to Nature at that point!

Once your substrate is in place, Nature takes over and the materials develop that lovely "patina" of biofilms and microbial growth, and start breaking down. Some may be moved about by the grazing activities of resident fishes, or otherwise slowly redistributed around the aquarium. I suppose the degree to which this happens is dependent upon the type of substrate material you utilize.

And of course, we're finding that it's not just us who are interested in unique substrate materials...You guys are snapping up our NatureBase sedimented substrates at a rate that even we couldn't have expected. You "get" the idea behind it. But, let's review it one more time, really quickly.

So, yeah, you'll have to make a mental shift to appreciate a different look and function with our sedimented substrates. And many hobbyists simply can't handle that. We've been up front with this stuff, to ward off the, "I added NatureBase to my tank and it looks like a cloudy mess! This stuff is SHIT!" type of emails that inevitably come when people don't read up first before they purchase the stuff.

The igapo and varzea substrates were intended to be "terrestrial" for a period of time, to get the grasses and plants going, and then inundated.  You DON'T RINSE THEM BEFORE USE! You CAN fill them with water right off the bat; however, you should be ready for some cloudy water for a week or more! That's just because of their unique composition.

This is not unlike what occurs in the wild habitats...newly inundated forest floors have a lot of leaf litter, seed pods, etc., and will be quite turbid for some time. If you understand the context for which they are intended, and the habitats which they help to replicate, this is perfectly acceptable and logical...Of course, you need to make that "mental shift", right?

And yeah- you CAN use them in a more "conventional" manner right from the start- if you understand the way they will impact the look of your tank for a while.

Although these substrates can grow both terrestrial and aquatic plants well, they were not intended to be "generic planted tank substrate", specifically. We're not trying to compete with the many fantastic specialized planted aquarium substrates out there. This is not some "Tannin is coming for you!" B.S. Rather, these substrates are modeled after relatively nutrient-poor soils, which will grow plants well, but likely not as well as the fancy clay pellets and such that are formulated specifically to grow aquatic plants.

Yeah, our Igapo and Varzea mixes can grow plants like grasses and marginals pretty well. And, we ARE hearing about pretty good aquatic plant growth from users, too. However, I'd imagine that you're likely not going to be doing your next "Dutch-style" aquascape or "Iwagumi" with our NatureBase substrates. And, because of their price, you simply aren't likely to do a 50 or 100 gallon tank with them!

I mean, you could, but...

Our Igapo and Varzea substrates mimic sandy acidic soils that have a low nutrient content. And, as you know, the color and acidity of the floodwater is due to the acidic organic humic substances (tannins) that dissolve into it. The acidity from the water translates into acidic soils, which makes sense, right?

Much like in Nature, the materials that we place on the bottom of the aquarium will become an active, integral part of the ecosystem. From a "functional" standpoint, bottoms comprised of our substrates supplemented with a variety of botanical materials form a sort of "in-tank refugium", which allows small aquatic crustaceans, fungi, and other microorganisms to multiply and provide supplemental food for the aquarium, as we've touched on before.

They've become not only physical places for fishes to hide and forage among- they've become an integral part of the entire closed aquarium ecosystem itself, helping influence water parameters, foster growth of fungi and microorganisms, and just maybe- some form of nutrient export/denitrification (although that last part is still a bit speculative).

It's certainly no stretch to call our use of botanicals as a form of "active substrate", much like the use of clays, mineral additives, soils, etc. in planted aquariums. Of course, we're not talking about plants in this context...

Although our emphasis is on creating specific water conditions, fostering the growth of microorganisms and fungi, as well as creating unique aesthetics, versus the "more traditional" substrate materials fostering conditions specifically for plant growth.

And, as we play more with botanicals, we're finding out more unique ways to work with interesting materials to create substrate-centric systems that check all the boxes: Functionality. Interest. Aesthetics. Stability.

We've talked about "functional aesthetics" created by botanicals in the aquarium, the potential for additional biological support/filtration (and potentially even denitrification), and it's a big, BIG topic, with lots more to be explored, discovered and deployed in our aquarium...flirting with a "substrate-only"- or "substrate-focused" tank is one of those tantalizing, at first seemingly awkward, yet ultimately transformational little projects we can play with! 

Let's keep on this stuff. Let's keep questioning aquarium hobby dogma, but let's not become dogmatic. If we're off on our assertions, let's figure out why, and see just what is actually happening. It's all one big, grand experiment- and everyone is invited to play!

Stay excited. Stay motivated. Stay curious. Stay unique. Stay observant. Stay creative...

And Stay Wet.

Scott Fellman

Tannin Aquatics  

Building Blocks To "The Big Idea"

One of the great artifacts of our “modern” social media culture is the way we share our work. These media have given us a tremendous vehicle to distribute our ideas and experiences to large numbers of fellow hobbyists with an ease that the hobbyists who came before us could scarcely imagine. 

It’s cool. It’s amazing. It’s transformational.

However, it’s also created a sort of urgency to only share what we feel is our ultimate work- our best. 

And that's a real shame. Because the work that it took to get to the tank that you think might be your best may have been just as awesome, in ways you might not have even appreciated at the time. The precursors to your brilliant tank could serve as an inspiration, a lesson for other hobbyists as they take their journeys with their own aquariums. 

For every amazing aquarium that you create, it’s likely that there were a few which came before it. Perhaps they weren’t quite as amazing. Maybe they weren’t all that impressive. They might have even been what we- our own worst critics- would call “shitty!”

Yet, each one provides us valuable experience, and serves as a “building block” for the aquariums which follow. The lessons learned, the mistakes made, the problems overcome, all serve as valuable lessons and inspiration for others. And these tanks should be shared just as prominently as those which we feel are so amazing.

Because they also teach a valuable lesson for hobbyists:

Everything we do helps advance the state of the art in the aquarium hobby. Each new tank- no matter how awesome we or the world think it is-gives us experience, ideas, and inspiration to do other tanks that perhaps bring us closer to the idea that we had in mind. And it can influence other hobbyists to do the same.

I can't tell you how many times I've done a "thing" or "things" which were based on some idea, some inspiration, or some thought that I had about how to execute an aquarium, which may not have gotten me "there" right from the start, but taught me all sorts of things along the way too ultimately arriving where I wanted to be.

It often starts with a concept..an idea.

...Until it gradually emerges into a more "polished" configuration.

.

Now, often an idea will start based on something we see in Nature. Perhaps an element of a habitat that we like. Perhaps, it will dovetail with some sort of hypothesis we have, and lead to other executions to prove out the concept. Case in point was the evolution of my idea of replicating leaf litter beds in a "leaf-only" aquarium. 

As I become more comfortable with the idea of a significant number of leaves, removing the "extraneous" materials became a lot easier!

Ultimately, I arrived at my "leaf only" concept. It just took a few iterations and steps.

And of course, the idea of "substrate-centric" tanks didn't' stop with leaves only.

And that led to further developments in this arena- more realistic executions of substrates, to further the idea of biodiversity and function.

The reality is that, to get to the "destination" we have in mind, the journey can be long, filled with tests, turns, triumphs, and dead ends, and failures...but it's just that- a journey. One which is often as satisfying as the destination.

The "art" part.

Some 5 plus years into the journey of Tannin Aquatics, I am consistently blown away by the fantastic work that our community does in the area of botanical-style/blackwater aquariums!

I believe that aquarists are wildly curious about the natural world, but that they tend to "overcomplicate" what is unknown, not well understood, or outside of the lines of "conventional aquarium aesthetics and practices"-and literally "polish out" the true beauty of Nature in the process-often ascribing "rules" and "standards" for how our interpretations of Nature must look.

In my own rebellious way, I can't help but think that part of this enthusiasm which our community has for this stuff is that aquarium hobbyists in general have a bit of a "rebellious streak", too, and that maybe, just maybe- we're a bit well, "over" the idea of the "rule-centric", mono-stylistic, overly dogmatic thinking that has dominated the aquascaping world for the better part of a decade.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with interpreting and utilizing inspiration from Nature however you choose in your aquascaping work.  Nothing. The results of a "diorama" style can be beautiful. However, the problemcomes when we endeavor to communicate to the uninitiated that this type of aquarium is "based on Nature" -as if a carefully-contrived "diorama mountain range" comprised of Glostostigma-covered rocks is what a natural aquatic habitat looks like.

That is where it gets a bit weird, IMHO.

What was ever not good about looking at a stream, flooded forest, pond, or bog, and attempting to replicate it accurately as it is-both in form and function- in our aquarium? To replicate it without overly stylizing and "ratio-ing-out" every rock, every twig, every plant? What is it about the actual appearance of so many aquatic ecosystems that has the bulk of the aquascaping world somehow avoiding replicating them?

Is scaling down a mountain, or creating a "sanitized" version of some elements of a genuine aquatic habitat the best we can do? Is creating an aquarium based on Nature as it actually is just not "good enough" as an art form for us?

Is it because it doesn't "measure up" somehow to the "fantasy forest scape" that the guy did in that last big contest, in terms of perceived  effort,"creativity" or "interpretation?" Is it because that in Nature, the water isn't always crystal-clear, blue/white? Is it because the bottom of many natural aquatic habitats are covered in decomposing leaf litter, tree parts, and twigs? Because it's not clean and neat and tidy and "Iwagumi-friendly?" Yeah, It's often dark, disorderly...unpredictable.

Can we not handle that?

I know that we CAN.

here are so many amazingly talented hobbyists out there- I just can't buy that argument. 

Maybe it's time for us to once and for all accept that things are not aesthetically "perfect" in Nature, in the sense of being neat and orderly/ratio-adherent from a "design" aspect, filled with "rules" and best practices governing the "style" of the tank.

Such human-imposed rules, in my opinion, not only stifle the creative process- they serve to deny Nature the opportunity to do as She's done for eons- to seek a path via evolution and change to forge a successful ecosystem for its inhabitants. When we seek to "edit" Nature because the "look" of Her process doesn't comport with our sense of aesthetics, we are, in my opinion, no longer attempting to replicate Nature as it is.

Nature could care less about our rules. 

Rather, She asks us to follow Hers...and to accept the accompanying aesthetics that go with this acceptance of them.

A "mental shift" we need to make. 

To make this mental shift takes a certain understanding. And asking questions.

Reflecting.

Understanding that in Nature, you have branches, leaves, rocks, and botanicals materials scattered about on the bottom of streams in a seemingly random, disorderly pattern. Or are they? Could it be that current, weather events, and wind distribute materials the way they do for a reason? Could our fishes benefit from replicating this dynamic in our aquariums?

And, is there not incredible beauty in that apparent "randomness?"

I believe so.

Now, I realize that a glass box is NOT a flooded Amazonian forest, mangrove estuary, or Asian peat bog. I realize that we're constrained by size and water volume. We've touched on that hundreds of times here over the years. However, it can look and function like one to some degree, right?

The same processes which occur on a grander scale in nature also occur on a "micro-scale" in our aquariums. And we can understand and embrace these processes- rather than resist or even "revile" them- as an essential part of the aquatic environment.

It's entirely possible to accept the appearance of biofilms, "murky" water, algae, decomposing botanical materials, and can be managed to take advantage of their benefits. You know, accepting them as supplemental food sources, "nurseries" for fry, and as interesting little ways to impart beneficial humic substances and dissolved organics into the water.

Understanding the dynamics of decomposition and the natural processes which govern it.

Now, that being said, we don't all have to embrace our more "hardcore" interpretations of Nature in our aquariums that we love so much here. I think that we feature so much talk and examples of these types of systems as a sort of "overcompensation", because it's kind of been tough to "deprogram" the larger hobby world from the mindset that a "natural aquarium" is polished, spotless, crystal clear, and filled with ratio-compliant hardscape and plants.

Don't get me wrong- there is nothing at all wrong with "artistic" interpretations of Nature...And who the hell am I to assert otherwise? Really, my only concern, as I've reiterated before, is that the uninitiated will view some of these perfectly unnatural aquariums- beautiful though they are- as "what Nature is really like"- and thus sort of setting them up for disappointment and confusion when they actually see a wild aquatic habitat in all of it's random, disorganized glory- completely at odds with what they've been "programmed" to believe.

Some of the most amazing comments we receive after sharing underwater pics of the wild habitats of Amazonia and elsewhere are from hobbyists who, at first, thought that some of these pics were from someones' aquarium! In a few instances, some of the close ups of botanical-themed aquaria are virtually indistinguishable from wild scenes!

That says a lot. It shows how far we've come.

What an incredible shift in dynamic! At the very least, it's a most delicious irony, wouldn't you say?

Now, of course- there is a "happy medium", which merges the art of aquascaping with the functional interpretations of Nature that we admire so much.

A way of capturing aspects of Nature in our aquarium in a manner that accepts it as it is, rather than how we want it to be. Understanding that, by allowing Nature to do what she does, we are truly blurring the lines between the wild aquatic habitats of the world and our aquariums.

Yet, such interpretations can still be beautiful from an "artistic" standpoint, can't they?

Indeed, it's entirely possible to foster a beautiful, yet true slice of the natural world in our homes- in all of its splendor and function. It simply requires us to adopt a mindset that merges some divergent ideas into one.

Simplicity. Complexity. Creativity. Transience. "Randomness."

We receive so many PM's, emails, phone calls, and other inquiries from hobbyists when we run pieces featuring pics and discussions about natural environments as topics for modeling our aquaria, excited about the details, and how they can be replicated in an aquarium.

This is a really cool thing.

Yet, sometimes, someone will pose a question like, "How does what you talk about differ from the concept of the "biotope aquarium" idea that you see so often in the hobby?"

It's a good one.

The answer is, it doesn't differ all that much, with the exception being that biotope aquariums, even though they seek to replicate much of the look and environmental conditions of a given habitat, yet seem to eschew some of the "functional" aspects. Like, they'll often incorporate some of the same materials that we do. They can nail the look and the pH and flow and light and such, which is amazing.

And many use leaves and botanicals beautifully. However, they're typically used more for the appearance-sort of like "props"- as opposed to facilitating decomposition, the growth of biofilms, microorganisms, fungal growths, etc. It's a bit less "functional" and a bit more "aesthetic", IMHO. I say many, not all, of course. 

The biotope crowd are our brothers and sisters in a most intimate way.  difference between what they do and what we do us really subtle. It's in the management; the nuance.

Although we might also make "geographic transgressions" and incorporate materials from different parts of the world to recreate the aesthetic part without apologies. We won't obsess over making sure that every twig, leaf, and seed pod is the exact type found in a given region. "Generic tropical" is okay by us when it comes to materials we use. Because we're about creating the function as much as-if not more than- the form. We're all about the overall picture. "Inspired by..." is our mantra.

The idea about the way our tanks are as much an artistic interpretation as they are anything else is  not a bad thing. However, I won't stop pleading with you to accept different- perhaps more literal- interpretations of unique natural habitats. Not just because they look cool...But because they lead us down interesting paths to study and embrace the function of them.

Perhaps we can give it some more consideration?

Maybe we can look at a few pics of a wild aquatic habitat as a possible influence for our next aquarium? Am I too blasphemous here?  I don't think so. Read some early Takashi Amano writings and see if you agree. Don't read the "cargo cult"-style fanboy homage drivel that's everywhere now. Go to the actual source.  Google it. Find his older works and READ his words. 

It's pretty cool stuff!

I suppose that there are occasional smirks and giggles from some corners of the hobby when they initially see our tanks, with some thinking, "Really? They toss in a few leaves and they think that the resulting sloppiness is "natural", or some evolved aquascaping technique or something?"

Funny thing is that, in reality, it IS a sort of evolution, isn't it?

I mean, sure, on the surface, this doesn't seem like much: "Toss botanical materials in aquariums. See what happens." It's not like no one ever did this before. And to make it seem more complicated than it is- to develop or quantify "technique" for it (a true act of human nature, I suppose) is probably a bit humorous. 

On the other hand, it's not just to create a cool-looking tank. We don't embrace the aesthetic of dark water,  a bottom covered in decomposing leaves, and the appearance of biofilms and algae on driftwood because it allows us to be more "relaxed" in the care of our tanks, or because we think we're so much smarter than the underwater-diorama-loving, competition aquascaping crowd.

I mean, we are doing this for a reason: To create more authentic-looking, natural-functioning aquatic displays for our fishes. To understand and acknowledge  that our fishes and their very existence is influenced by the habitats in which they have evolved. Botanical-style aquariums aren't really an "aquascaping style"- rather- they're a way of interpreting the function of Nature and accepting the look that accompanies it!

We know that wild tropical aquatic habitats are influenced greatly by the surrounding geography and flora of their region, which in turn, have considerable influence upon the population of fishes which inhabit them, and their life cycle.

The simple fact of the matter is, when we add botanical materials to an aquarium and accept what occurs as a result-regardless of wether our intent is just to create a different aesthetic, or perhaps something more- we are to a very real extent replicating  the processes and influences that occur in wild aquatic habitats in Nature.

Perhaps one day, among the things we indoctrinate neophyte aquarists to play with as fundamental skills, besides water exchanges, quarantine, and careful stocking, will be things like "adding appropriate botanical materials to the aquarium to facilitate more natural conditions for the aquatic organisms we keep."

This is, indeed what we mean when we talk about how we operate at "The delta at the intersection of science and art."

We think that it's a cool place to be.

Stay studious. Stay curious. Stay creative. Stay diligent. Stay consistent...

And Stay Wet.

Scott Fellman

Tannin Aquatics

The abundance.

As you know, I've devoted quite a large amount of time to researching the idea that botanical-style aquariums can provide supplemental nutrition for the fishes which reside in them.

And, yeah- here's yet ANOTHER discussion on this topic! 

I think this is hugely important...so much that I'm writing about the subject constantly, huh? However, this time, I"m bringing along some data I gleaned from studies done on fishes from some of the wild habitats we love so much as ammunition! 

The "ammunition" is really more of an argument for my hypothesis that our  botanical-style aquariums produce meaningful amounts of supplemental foods of similar type and in a variety like that found in some of the natural habitats of our fishes.

It starts with looking at one of my favorite "factoids" that you can find about or fishes in scientific papers- the "gut content analysis", which essentially tells you what the fishes have been eating in the locality where they were collected. These little GCA's give us a ton of usable information for hobby purposes, IMHO! Not only do we learn what the fishes consume; it also gives us some insight about the ecology of the ecosystems where they are found...Lots of good stuff! 

Here's an interesting volumetric composition by percent of some of the foods which were found in gut-content analysis of a Rivulus killifish species from a flooded South American forest floor: Vascular Plant Detritus: 45%, Green Algae: 18%, Detritus: 12%, Filamentous Blue/Green Algae: 8%, Diatoms: 6%, Bacterial aggregates: 3%

And a very interesting analysis from a Hyphessobrycon species: Detritus: 21%, Small Amphipods: 18%, Sediment: 15%, Filamentous Algae: 11%, Ostracods: 7%, Benthic Diatoms: 6%, Copepods, 6%, Chirononomid Larvae: 6%,  Isopods: 3%, Undifferentiated insects: 3%, Nematodes: 2%, Bacterial aggregates: 2%

Now, sure, there are items like aquatic crustaceans and insects which comprise part of the diets of these fishes, but what's even more interesting to me is the percentage of detritus which makes up part of the gut contents of these fishes!

Yeah, our old friend, detritus.

Go figure.

I mean, it makes perfect sense, really...A lot of what's available for fishes throughout the lean and the abundant times of the year is detritus, made up of "assorted organic materials." 

Let's trot out that definition I love so much one more time:

"detritus is dead particulate organic matter. It typically includes the bodies or fragments of dead organisms, as well as fecal material. Detritus is typically colonized by communities of microorganisms which act to decompose or remineralize the material." (Source: The Aquarium Wiki)

Think about it...A mix of stuff you'd find just about anywhere. These materials are pretty much ALWAYS available in almost any aquatic habitat any time of year. And fishes are remarkably adaptive to the changes in their habitats which occur with the seasons, and will make use of whatever is available to them for nutrition.

Now, sure, one could state that detritus is the food of last resort for fishes, but the fact of the matter is, it turns up in gut content analysis of fishes caught in all sorts of habitats during any time of the year. It's wildly abundant in aquatic habitats!

SO, where am I going with this?

Well, think about it for a minute. Detritus is sort of the "end product" of the breakdown of botanical materials; it's pretty much a given that you'll find a lot of this stuff in almost any botanical-style aquarium- provided that we don't siphon all of it out in our zeal to create a "perfect" habitat for our fishes. (You can totally SENSE the sarcasm there, right?)

I mean, why do you think our little fishes are typically fat and happy when we come back from vacation and haven't fed them for a week or more? It's because they're foraging on the detritus that's abundant in pretty much any tank- especially in the botanical-style systems we love so much!

Detritus, as I've said like 20,000 times here and elsewhere, is NOT the sign of the apocalypse that authors and armchair aquarium pundits have made it out to be for generations! Nope. Rather, its an important part of the natural diet of many, many fishes! And I haven't even touched on the fact that detritus is a food for a multitude of organisms all along the food chain in aquatic ecosystems- including your botanical-style aquarium! 

And what about algae?

And every aquarium, regardless of how scrupulous we are about maintenance- will generate some algae in some manner. Of course it does, because algae is the basis for virtually every aquatic ecosystem, right? And, in addition to being abundant, it's nutritious. 

Botanical-style aquariums, filled with nutrients from decomposing materials, are a good habitat in which algae proliferate. And with so many surfaces on botanicals for algae to grow, it's a natural food that requires little energy expenditure for fishes to find.

What other foods are easily produced by the botanical-style aquarium? Well, how about biofilms! Described as "Bacterial aggregates" in the breakdowns above, these are ubiquitous in the wild and in botanical-style tanks, and are possibly the easiest-to-obtain food source at all times for so many fishes. Now, in the specific instances above, they made up a very small percentage within the gut content analysis. Why?

Well, think about it.

Fishes like Tetras (the Hyphessobrycon in the above example) tend to preferentially consume small crustaceans, insects, etc. They're considered "micro-predators" by ichthyologists. However, the more abundant materials like detritus and sediments are likely present in the GCA because the fishes are consuming or taking them in while foraging for the aforementioned organisms. A sort of "by-catch", which just happens to be nutritious. Or, filling, at the least, right? 😆

Biofilms, as we've discussed many times before, contain a complex mix of sugars, bacteria, and other materials, all of which are relatively nutritious for animals which feed on them.

Your botanical-style aquarium will virtually automatically "farm" biofilms with little effort. This is truly one of the great "bonuses" for those of us who keep these kinds of systems! A more or less continuous supply of nutritious supplemental food.

An abundance.

And of course, you could certainly cultivate copepods, like "Cyclops, or Amphipods,"Blood Worms",  Paramecium, "black worms", Daphnia, etc. as supplemental "in situ" foods, allowed to multiply for several weeks or more before the fishes are added.

I've done this type of thing many times with reef tanks, and more recently, with botanical-style aquariums. It works really well- and I can attribute my success with a number of fishes which have the reputation of being difficult to feed by embracing this idea! And it gives newly-hatched fishes a "leg up" to gain valuable nutrition before you commence feeding them directly!

Having an abundance of these in situ food sources in your botanical-style tank makes it much easier for wild-caught fishes to adapt to a captive environment, IMHO. I mean, it's not the whole ball game, of course. However, it's one less stress- one less hurdle- to overcome to achieve success with some wild-caught species.

Interestingly, there are a fair number of situations where fishes- even non-herbivorous species- will consume stuff like leaves and other plant materials when their primary foods aren't available. This ability to switch feeding as foods are available is remarkable adaptation, 

blackwater systems do show seasonal fluctuations, such as lakes and watercourses enriched with overflow in spring months. At low water levels, the nutrients and population of these life forms are generally more dense.

Creatures like hydracarines (mites), insects, like chironomids (hello, blood worms!), and copepods, like Daphnia, are the dominant fauna that fishes tend to feed on in these waters.  This is interesting to contemplate when we consider what to feed our fishes in aquariums, isn't it? 

There's a lot of food out there, for the fishes willing to look for it...which, pretty much all of them devote most of their lives to doing, lol

It's not really that much different in the aquarium, is it? I mean, as the leaves and botanicals break down, they are acted upon by fungi and bacteria, the degree of which is dependent upon the available food sources. Granted, with fishes in a closer proximity and higher density than in many wild systems, the natural food sources are probably not sufficient to be the primary source of food for our fishes- but they are one hell of a supplement, right?

That's why, in a botanical-rich, leaf litter dominated aquarium, you see the fishes spending a lot of time foraging in and among the litter...just like in nature. 

There is something oddly compelling to us when we look at both aquariums and natural biotopes with a diverse, interesting botanical structure. You set the stage with wood, plants, and then enhance it even more with botanical materials. 

It's well known that in many habitats, like inundated forests, etc., fishes will adjust their feeding strategies to utilize the available food sources at different times of the year, such as the "dry season", etc. And it's also known that many fish fry feed actively on bacteria and fungi in these habitats...so I suggest (one again) that a blackwater/botanical-style aquarium could be an excellent sort of "nursery" for many fish species! 

And then there are those insects...

Insects and their larvae, from both the the aquatic habitat and the surrounding terrestrial habitats, are an important part of our fishes' diets.

I'd like to see much more experimentation with foods like ants, fruit flies, and other winged insects. Of course, I can hear the protests already: "Not in MY house, Fellman!" I get it. I mean, who wants a plague of winged insects getting loose in their suburban home because of some aquarium feeding experiment gone awry, right?

That being said, I would encourage some experimentation with ants and the already fairly common wingless fruit flies. Can you imagine one day recommending an "Ant Farm" as a piece of essential aquarium food culturing equipment?

Why not right?

Indeed, the whole process of these external inputs can be-should be- replicated in our botanical-style, blackwater aquariums.

As more materials fall from the trees and surrounding dry areas, the greater the abundance of fishes and other aquatic animals which utilize them is found. And materials will continue to fall into the water and accumulate throughout the period of inundation, maintaining the richness of the habitat as others decompose or are acted on by the organisms residing in the water.

Not unlike an aquarium, right?

With so many options for providing realistic natural conditions for our fishes, it seems just painfully obvious that we can look to the whole picture and think of ways to replicate the abundance of natural foods that also occur in our aquariums if we let them. 

I'll say it one more time, because I absolutely believe it:

Of all of the things we do in our blackwater/botanical-style aquariums, one of the few "basic practices" that I think we can actually allow Nature to do some of the work on is to provide some sustenance for our fishes. 

 I think that, as we evolve into the next "era" of botanical-style aquarium practice, we'll see more and more interesting collateral benefits and analogs to the functions of natural aquatic ecosystems. We need to explore these characteristics and benefits as we develop our next generation of aquariums.

Nature offers us an abundance of foods, many of which are already present in our aquariums. 

Way not take advantage of what Nature offers us?

Stay thoughtful. Stay observant. Stay diligent. Stay curious. Stay dedicated...

And Stay Wet.

Scott Fellman

Tannin Aquatics 

Making a scene: The subtle players.

Like any hobbyist, I have tendencies, habits, and preferences in my aquarium setup and stocking that just seem to be reoccurring themes.

One of those"tendencies" that I have have developed over many years is an appreciation for fishes that have a subtle beauty, as opposed to the flashy ones!

I don't know if it's just me, but I have this thing about "brown and grey" fishes. Subtle ones with a splash of color. I've written about this before, and it always catches an empathetic ear from some fish geek somewhere, who agrees with my less than chromatically brilliant aesthetic choices.

And I try to figure out what it is about the somewhat "chromatically challenged" fishes that I love so much. Now, don't get me wrong, I can appreciate the incredible colors of a fancy Betta, brilliantly-colored Tetra, a beautiful Discus, or a fancy livebearer. I love them and keep many. It's just that, when I'm selecting fishes for my aquariums, I tend to go after the more subtly-colored ones for the bulk of the fish population in a given aquarium.

Sure, I will often put in a fish or two that has a big "pop" of color for the affect. However, the majority of the fishes in my tanks are subtly attractive (or, "Just subtle", as one of my "friends" tells me, lol). For example, the "stars" in one of my recent characin-heavy office tanks (okay, most of my office tanks are characin-heavy, lol) that you see so much here are the "Diptail Pencilfish", Nanostomus eques, and Sailfin Tetras (Crenuchus spilurus)- really nice fish- but not the kinds of fishes that you're going to catch a glance of as they swim by and yell, "WOW! Those are crazy!"

Rather, they are the kinds of fishes that have their own quiet charm.

They blend nicely into their surroundings, have interesting color patterns, and sort of hold your attention a bit longer than say, a school of bright, flashy Cardinal Tetras. For a "pop" in color, I always seem to choose a fish that is, indeed colorful, but maybe one that wouldn't be your first choice to blow people's minds...Like, for example, the "Orange Flame Tetras", Hyphessobrycon flammeus (a domesticated variant of a popular "beginner's fish") that grace our office tank. If I had a dollar for every time someone asked me what those fishes were, I wouldn't have to sling botanicals for a living!

There is something to be said for bright- but not outrageous-fishes in a natural setting. I remember when I was a kid, my dream tanks in my mind always had black gravel and a huge school of Cardinal or Neon Tetras in them. I think it was about contrast.

I still like that look, yet, as I've gotten older and more experienced as an aquarist, I've found that I tend to favor more subtle fishes that sort of blend in harmoniously with their environment.

In the botanical-style/blackwater aquarium, it's great to have a little pop of color against the deep, rich colors of leaves, pods, and wood, and the tinted water. However, one of the surprising things I've discovered is that the more subtle fishes tend to "pop" more in blackwater tanks. Now, "surprising" not in that they display better colors- the environmental conditions we create obviously assist in that- but "surprising" in that they tend to catch your eyes more than I had expected.

Even the more cryptically-colored-and shaped fishes do this. In fact, they are somewhat more engaging in this setting than the more obvious, brightly colored fishes, IMHO.

There is something I enjoy about being able to take in the "whole picture" of an aquarium, and to not have any one element really make a huge impression on you. Rather, it's nice to have the entire aquarium provide a sort of "vibe", and take you on a little journey of discovery.

In my opinion, the very best aquariums- marine or freshwater, keep you engaged for a long time, as if strolling in a garden- discovering the little surprises along the way. The best aquariums I've ever seen don't stand out because of that one element...rather, it's a combination of things working together, creating an intricate collage of color, texture, and structure.

Regardless of what the primary focus of the aquarium is (fish, plants, hardscape), it's the combination of elements that seems to create the whole impression. For example, some tanks, are filled with all sorts of botanical elements, as surprising as palm fronds or as common as leaves and plants, yet the entire "picture" is truly greater than the sum of its parts.

The fishes tend to become the "kinetic" element in a well thought-out display: A moving, living component which weaves the whole thing together.

And that's where the less vibrant fishes come in. In my opinion, if you had nothing but crazy-colored fishes, the tank itself would tend to just be "the background"- a supporting player in a larger cast of characters!

By incorporating more subtly beautiful fishes into your aquarium, you've woven together a combination of colorful, interesting elements that form the whole picture, truly greater than the sum of its parts.

A lot of outstanding aquariums arise from a vision, a dream...an idea. A means to execute something which may have caught our fancy...perhaps the way a certain piece of wood or the texture of the substrate play with each other- something which speaks to us. A cast of separate "players", working together to create something amazing.

It seems that, no matter how we plan them in our head, they come together in ways that perhaps we never even imagined, and as they evolve, morph into ever more rich, complex works of living art...not unlike Nature itself.

That's the value of subtlety.

Until next time...think about the "big picture."

Stay engaged. Stay creative. Stay inspired. Stay dynamic. Stay subtle...

And Stay Wet.

Scott Fellman

Tannin Aquatics

Land and water, working together. Embracing the transformation.

As we've discussed so many times here, the idea of mixing of elements- soils, roots, and seed pods is a fundamental aspect of the botanical-style aquarium.

If there's one consistent lesson that we keep returning to, it's that land and water are inexorably linked together. And I think that when we contemplate the dynamic of how water and the terrestrial environment interact, it makes us look at aquatic habitats- and our aquariums-a bit differently.

The forest floors of South America are a prime example of how the terrestrial environment and the aquatic are linked, and ecologically dependent upon each other. What drives this relationship?

Well, it starts with...rain.

Rain does more than just bring life to the land- it influences the existing watercourses, which in turn, influence the terrestrial environments. Torrential rains are a sort of catalyst for the formation of the Igapo. After several weeks of rain, the water levels in the rivers rise significantly. Often several meters, and the once dry forest floor fills with water from the torrential rain and overflowing rivers and streams.

The Igapos are formed. 

Flooded forest floors.

The formerly terrestrial environment is now transformed into an earthy, twisted, incredibly rich aquatic habitat, which fishes have evolved over eons to live in and utilize for food, protection, and spawning areas.

All of the botanical material-shrubs, grasses, fallen leaves, branches, seed pods, soil, and such- is suddenly submerged. Over time, significant water levels create strong currents, which re-distribute the soils, sediments, leaves and seed pods and branches into little pockets and "stands", affecting the (now underwater) "topography" of the landscape.

From an ecological perspective, this transformation from terrestrial to aquatic presents challenges- and opportunities for the organisms which live in these habitats. The ecological adaptations that the inhabitants are required to make are fascinating and dynamic. As the rain continues to fall, branches and stems of trees, once higher up in the forest ecosystem, become an enticing hiding place or foraging area for fishes, which can now easily access them.

Leaves begin to accumulate.

Soils dissolve their chemical constituents- tannins, and humic acids- into the water, enriching it. Fungi and micororganisms begin to feed on and break down the materials. Aquatic insects and diverse organisms as well-known as copepods and as unusual as tree sponges- come to life. 

Land and water working together.

It's an intimate, interrelated, "codependent" sort of arrangement!

I believe that it's important to think of the relationship between the terrestrial habitat and the aquatic one when visualizing the possibilities of replicating nature in your aquarium in this context.

We've talked about the idea of "flooding" an aquarium setup designed to replicate an Amazonian forest for a while now. The so-called "Urban Igapo" idea is fascinating, exciting, and becoming sort of "well-trodden territory" now, with lots of people in our community embracing the idea and doing amazing executions!

It's been incredibly fun for me, sort of attempting to simulate some of the processes which happen seasonally in Nature. With the technology, materials, and information available to us today, the capability of creating a true "year-round" habitat simulation in the confines of an aquarium/vivarium setup has never been more attainable.

Now, that's all well-and-good. We've kind of figured out how this wet-and-dry cycle can be managed in these types of systems. We're starting to really get this thing down, and it's easily replicated by the patient aquarist. We have a lot of blog posts and podcasts about the process, and we've even developed a line of substrates just for these types of systems!

However, let's think about simulating the "inundation season" as the aquarium. Let's assume that you're kind of not into doing the whole "start with a dry habitat, plant some grasses and terrestrial plants, and gradually inundate it with water, then gradually dry it out again" thing that is the crux  "Urban Igapo" idea.

 

By regularly wetting these materials- the substrate, leaves, botanicals, and wood- down for a few days, and letting them saturate, it's entirely possible to go from "terrestrial" to "aquatic" in a very short period of time, and getting the cool effect- and indeed, part the function (a burst of microbial life, biofilms, fungal growths, and release of tannin and humic substances) of this system from the start. 

At the risk of sounding crassly commercial, I'd recommend some sort of bacterial inoculant, such as our spray- on Purple Non-Sulphur Bacteria inoculant, "Nurture".-to "kick start" the biological processes in your system before it's inundated with water.

 

I think that this step of "bacterial inoculation" is such a fundamental part of the botanical-style aquarium approach. I see it as much less of a "hack" to kick-start the nitritogen cycle (it will help do that...) and more of a way to provide an initial population of life forms which help assimilate some of the botanical materials and make the many organic (and other) compounds and substances locked in their tissues (tannins, humic substances, lignin, sugars, etc.) available to other life forms within the evolving microcosm you're creating.

This type of "terrestrial first" approach to starting a "flooded forest"-themed aquarium is very interesting from so many standpoints. And, it gives you an interesting way to really experience the processes which occur as terrestrial habitats transform into aquatic ones.

And, from a strictly "practical" point of view, preparing the aquatic habitat in a terrestrial phase before filling it with water is not all that different from the approach many serious aquatic plant hobbyists take when setting up their systems, right?

The main difference are is that, unlike our planted tank friends, we're more interested in setting up a "whole habitat simulation", as opposed to just setting the stage for aquatic plant growth, and we're likely not adding fertilizers to our substrate of choice. Rather, we're more interested in fostering the development of microbial and other life forms throughout the system once water is added.

I suppose another good analogy might be the approach that our vivarium friends take when creating "bioactive" substrates for their frog enclosures and such. The idea being to cultivate as large a population of beneficial organisms in your aquarium as possible from the start, to deal with the significant bio load that a large quantity of botanical materials brings.

Now, from a purely functional standpoint, you can replicate many aspects of the flooded forests by taking this approach. And of course, you don't have to go batshit crazy trying to replicate every single aspect of these habitats in your tanks. I mean, you could. Really, though- all sorts of fun variations are possible. Remember, it's not about trying to please some contest judge with an absolutely perfect biotopic representation, or a "ratio-compliant" aquascape. 

 

Nope.

It's about experimentation; studying, observing, and replicating a natural process in the aquarium...to the best of our capabilities. "Artistic liberties" are not only possible- they're welcome!  So many iterations, interpretations, and experiments are possible here.

So, what's this all mean? What are the implications for this practice in our aquariums? 

I think it means that we need to continue to foster the biological diversity of animals in our aquariums- embracing life at all levels- from bacteria to fungi to crustaceans to worms, and ultimately, our fishes...All forming the basis of a closed ecosystem, and perhaps a "food web" of sorts for our little aquatic microcosms. And one way to help foster that is perhaps most enjoyably facilitated through this sort of "terrestrial first" approach!

It's a very interesting  concept- a fascinating field for research for aquarists, and we all have the opportunity to participate in this on a most intimate level by simply observing what's happening in our aquariums every day!

Fostering a diversity of life forms in our aquariums is interesting enough, but when you factor in seasonal changes and cycles, it becomes an almost "foundational" component for a new way of running our botanical-style aquariums.

It all starts with an idea...and a little bit of a "waiting game..." Patience. And a belief in Nature; a trust in the natural processes which have guided our planet and its life forms for eons. 

The appreciation of this process is a victory, in and of itself, isn't it? The journey- the process- is every bit as enjoyable as the destination, I should think.

It's all out there for us to learn. Investigating the relationship between land and water might just lead to a new world of discovery for the hobby.

Stay adventurous. Stay curious. Stay creative. Stay observant. Stay undaunted...

And Stay Wet.

 

Scott Fellman

Tannin Aquatics.

Food production: The ultimate "collateral benefit" of the botanical-style aquarium?

We are receiving a lot of really interesting inquiries from so many hobbyists in our community regarding the "collateral" benefits of utilizing botanicals in our aquariums. 

Among the most interesting and exciting one of these collateral benefits is the potential for supplemental internal food production as a result of cultivating a "bed" of leaves and other botanicals in our aquariums.

Yeah, food production.

As always, the inspiration- and "archetype" for this food production process is Nature, Herself. And one of the more fascinating habitats where food production occurs in the wild is the flooded forest floors of South America.

Now, we've talked extensively in several blog posts over the past couple of years about the idea of allochthonous input (literally, "food from the sky", lol) and how it impacts the feeding habits of many fishes, as well as their social and behavioral habits, and what could loosely be referred to as their "migratory patterns."

It's long been known that fishes which inhabit the flooded forest floors (igapo) of Amazonia, for example, tend to literally "follow the food" and move into new areas where greater feeding opportunities exist, and will even adjust their dietary preferences seasonally to accommodate the available foods.

In this instance, it typically means areas of the forest where overhanging vegetation offers falling peices of fruit, seeds, nuts, plant parts, and the occasional clumsy insect, like an ant, which falls from the branches of said vegetation. So, here is where the idea gets interesting to me: Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to create a botanical-style aquarium which not only represents the appearance of the habitat, but also replicates, to a certain extent, the function of it?

Of course it would!  (Surely, you wouldn't have expected any other answer from me, right?)

Many other fishes which reside in these flooded forest areas feed mainly on insects; specifically, small ones, such as beetles, spiders, and ants from the forest canopy. These insects are likely dislodged from the overhanging trees by wind and rain, and the opportunistic fishes are always ready for a quick meal!

Interestingly, it's been postulated that the reason the Amazon has so many small fishes is that they evolved as a response to the opportunities to feed on insects served up by the flooded forests in which they reside! The little guys do a better job at eating small insects which fall into the water than the larger, clumsier guys who snap up nuts and fruits with their huge mouths! 

And, yes, many species of fishes specialize in consuming detritus. More on that later!

As we know by now, decomposing leaves are the basis of the food chain, and the detritus they produce forms an extremely important part of the food chain for many, many species of fishes. Some have even adapted morphologically to feed on detritus produced in these habitats, by developing bristle-like teeth to remove it from branches,tree trunks, plant stems, and leaf litter beds. 

Of course, it's not just the fishes which derive benefits from the terrestrial materials which find their way into the water. Bacteria, fungi, and algae also act upon the nutrients released into the water by the decomposing organic material from these plants. Aquatic plants (known collectively to science as macrophytes) grow in or near water and are either emergent, submergent, or floating, and play a role in "filtering" these flooded habitats in nature.

Terrestrial trees also play a role in removing, utilizing, and returning nutrients to the aquatic habitat. They remove some nutrient from the submerged soils, and return some in the form of leaf drop. 

Interestingly, studies show that about 70% of the leaf drop from the surrounding trees in the igapo habitats occurs when the area is submerged, but the bulk of it is shedded by the trees at the end of the inundation period. The falling leaves gradually decompose and become part of the detritus in the food web, which is essential for many species of fishes. This "late-inundation leaf drop" also sets things up for the "next round" - providing a "starter" of nutrients !

Our ability to mimic this aspect of the flooded forest habitats is a real source of benefits for the fishes that we keep- and a key to unlocking the secrets to long-term maintenance and husbandry of botanically-influenced aquariums.

The transformation of dry forest floors into aquatic habitats provides a tremendous amount if inspiration AND biological diversity and activity for both the natural environment and our aquariums. There are many takeaways for hobbyists that can be had by studying these habitats.

Flood pulses in these habitats easily enable large-scale "transfers" of nutrients and food items between the terrestrial and aquatic environment. This is of huge importance to the ecosystem. As we've touched on before, aquatic food webs in the Amazon area (and in other tropical ecosystems) are very strongly influenced by the input of terrestrial materials, and this is really an important point for those of us interested in creating more natural aquatic displays and microcosms for the fishes we wish to keep.

Creating an aquascape utilizing a matrix of leaves, roots, and other botanical materials, is one of my favorite "aesthetic interpretations" of this habitat...and it happens to be supremely functional as an aquarium, as well! I think it's a "prototype" for many of us to follow, merging looks and function together adeptly and beautifully.

And with the ability to provide live foods such as small insects (I'm thinking wingless fruit flies and ants)- and to potentially "cultivate" some worms (Bloodworms, for sure) "in situ"- there are lots of compelling possibilities for creating really comfortable, natural-appearing (and functioning) biotope/biotype aquariums for fishes.

And of course, when you're talking about creating a rich bed of botanicals, consisting of decomposing organic materials (leaves, coco-fiber, and other botanicals containing lignin, etc.), that creates a matrix that may eventually consist of- and perhaps accumulate- what we'd collectively call "detritus." 

Oh, my God. NOT DETRITUS! Here we go again...

So think about it for a second before you go all berserk:

Is "detritus", or other finely processed organic material the "doomsday machine" that many "experts" have long predicted will destroy your aquarium?

I don't think so.

I know-we all know- that uneaten food and fish poop, accumulating in a closed system can be problematic if overall husbandry issues are not attended to. I know that it can decompose, overwhelm the biological filtration capacity of the tank if left unchecked. And that can lead to a smelly, dirty-looking system with diminished water quality. I know that. You know that. In fact, pretty much everyone in the hobby knows that.

Yet, we've sort of heaped detritus into this "catch-all" descriptor which has an overall "bad" connotation to it. Like, anything which is allowed to break down in the tank and accumulate is "bad."

We're not talking about a substrate composed entirely of uneaten food and fish poop here. That's a different issue and a different problem. Now, I agree, it requires a lot of understanding and a real mental shift to embrace the idea of loving detritus in your tank.

The definition as accepted in the aquarium hobby is admittedly kind of sketchy in this regard; not flattering, at the very least:

"detritus is dead particulate organic matter. It typically includes the bodies or fragments of dead organisms, as well as fecal material. Detritus is typically colonized by communities of microorganisms which act to decompose or remineralize the material." (Source: The Aquarium Wiki)

That being said, everyone thinks that it is so bad.

I'm just not buying it.

Why is this necessarily a "bad" thing?

It's not.

In Nature, the leaf litter "community" of fishes, insects, fungi, and microorganisms is really important to the overall tropical environment, as it assimilates terrestrial material into the aquatic system, produces and consumes detritus, and acts to reduce the loss of nutrients to the forest which would inevitably occur if all the material which fell into the streams was washed downstream!

The key point: These materials and their resulting detritus foster the development of life forms which process these materials. Stuff is being used by life forms.

It goes without saying that the same processes which occur in Nature occur in our tanks- if we let them.

And botanical materials not only provide a "substrate" upon which these organisms can grow and multiply- they provide a sort of "on board nutrient processing center" within the aquarium. In my experience, based on literally a lifetime of playing with all sorts of combinations of materials in my aquariums' substrates ('cause I've always been into that weird shit!), I cannot attribute a single environmental lapse, let alone, a "tank crash", as a result of such additions or their resulting breakdown in otherwise well-managed aquairums.

I am of the opinion that a botanical-style aquarium, complete with its decomposing leaves and seed pods, can serve as a sort of "buffet" for many fishes- even those who's primary food sources are known to be things like insects and worms and such. Detritus and the organisms within it can provide an excellent supplemental food source for our fishes!

They give our fishes "options" to supplement their diets!

It's well known that in many wild habitats, like inundated forests, etc., fishes will adjust their feeding strategies to utilize the available food sources at different times of the year, such as the "dry season", etc. And it's also known that many fish fry feed actively on bacteria and fungi in these habitats...so I suggest once again that a blackwater/botanical-style aquarium could be an excellent sort of "nursery" for many fish species! 

You'll often hear the term "periphyton" mentioned in a similar context, and I think that, for our purposes, we can essentially consider it in the same manner as we do "epiphytic matter." Periphyton is essentially a "catch all" term for a mixture of cyanobacteria, algae, various microbes, and of course- detritus, which is found attached or in extremely close proximity to various submerged surfaces. Again, fishes will graze on this stuff constantly.

Of course, anyone who keeps a planted aquarium could attest to that, right? 

I firmly believe that the idea of embracing the construction (or nurturing) of a "food web" within our aquariums goes hand-in-hand with the concept of the botanical-style, blackwater (and brackish!) aquarium. With the abundance of leaves and other botanical materials now available to "fuel" the fungal and microbial growth, and the diligent husbandry and intellectual curiosity of the typical "tinter" (that's YOU!), the practical execution of such a concept is not too difficult to create, understand...and embrace!

We are truly positioned well to explore and further develop the concept of a "food web" in our own systems, and the potential benefits are enticing! 

Appetizing?

We think so!

Stay curious. Stay resourceful. Stay excited. Stay creative...

And Stay Wet.

Scott Fellman

Tannin Aquatics