Question

Do you think plants will grow better in fish ponds or in soil?

Answer 1

I think in fish ponds because the water will give them more nutrients than the soil.......I Think

Answer 2

Thanks

Answer 3

Your welcome :). medal please

Answer 4

I would still like to hear anyone else's opinion, because this is for a science fair and I need more info to back up my hypothesis. I also think they will grow better in fish ponds.

Answer 5

Thank you again!

Answer 6

Um. Water and soil are both needed in most cases, but it depends on the type of plant being grown. I would imagine that most nutrient rich environment would be for a plant that can grow from the soil bed and reach out above the water like that those cattails maybe

Answer 7

wow, great bullpellet, @zumobashi ... see nutrients through a microscope? water to give nutrients to a plant?

I want to advise everyone to not post uninformed rubbish.

@redbeardd got it right. the optimal environment is dependent on the plant species. algae need water, land plants need soil...too much water is no good for most plants because of mold building problems.

most plants do easier when collecting nutrients from soil. this is in part due to the nature of acquisition: plants acidify the soil surrounding the roots, thus solubilizing phosphates, for instance. the symbiosis between root and mycorrhiza is only possible in soil. not needing soil is an often costly adaptation - just imagine putting a flower bouquet into a vase. :-)

Answer 8

@schleifspur Good going on being rude and giving "uninformed rubbish."

The type of environment makes a huge difference and not just because of "mold" or method of nutrient acquisition. Try to grow a cactus in water. The reason "mold" is able to infect the plants is because of stress from too much water and the problems associate with the osmotic gradients. Also, typically the first attackers are not fungi.

Some plants have evolved to live in water, even on the surface of water, eg Spirodela spp.

Mycorrhizal fungi are more than capable for forming mutualisms with plants grown/growing in water.

Answer 9

I don't think you argued against me in any of your sentences, @mrdoldum :-) we are both aware that there are plant species that are capable of growing in water. and as you may have read, the biodiversity of land plants is way greater. this is why I used the phrase "most plants"

you basically said " the optimal environment is dependent on the plant species." - a sentence you will find in my response. (have you read it thoroughly?)

and I found not a single piece of evidence indicating that mycorrhiza in water plants are a thing. you can educate me here, but I will demand sources from now on.

you can vent your anger about my tone, but youshould recognize that we actually agree.

Answer 10

@schleifspur

I'm not angry, I just think you were being purposely rude.

You said, "plants acidify the soil surrounding the roots, thus solubilizing phosphates". This is a categorical statement that means all plants acidify the soil, which is not true.

Now, to others like "algae need water", which I can only imagine you mean need to be in water, because nearly all (maybe all) life needs some amount of water. So, here is a dessert green algae:
http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/6/936.long

I have also observed green algae & bacteria crusts in desserts. I'm ignoring lichens since they are a obligate mutualism, but there are plenty of lichens with green algae that grow on rocks and other dry areas.

FYI, you can see some macronutrient via light microscopy. You would be able to see any large calcium oxalate, you can see large uric acid crystals (nitrogen source). You would also be able to see if any lipids were released into the water due to the difference in densities.

Rare, but do occur:

http://biology.kenyon.edu/fennessy/SrexMarx/intro.htm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304377006001707
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jb/2014/173125/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/iroh.200510827/abstract

Answer 11

I like how you are an even bigger nit-picker than I am (and yes, that is a genuine compliment =) )

okay, here goes...

green algae, as far as my info goes, are NOT in the same taxonomic units as plants. thus, we were both wrong when invoking green algae as plants, because frankly, they aren't. land plants have evolved from green algae, but the taxonomy is still different since they are their own paraphyletic group.

second: I am aware that one can hydroculturize virtually any plant. but I interpreted that the natural habitus was meant by the asker. it would be interesting to see whether a nuphar would try acidifying soil if you put them in it. I actually believe that they would - genes present in all plants can be invoked under special circumstances. maybe it would just die, tho...

third: I never eat green algae for dessert ;-) (yes, I am a nit-picker myself)

fourth: try putting pond water under a microscope and see anything besides all the bacteria and dust swarming in it ;-) we didn't talk scientific environment, if you didn't know already. so it was kinda unnecessary pointing that out. and that thing with the lipids...just no, man ^^ the scale on which lipids are released / taken up by plants in pond water is so far outranked by standard diffusion...let's not make fools of ourselves just to prove someone wrong, will we?

fifth and most important: I have to be rude to convince the asker that 'I think in fish ponds because the water will give them more nutrients than the soil - medal please' is not the kind of answer you should believe. call my style bad, but the information I provided was both sufficient and not wrong on a school level. we both know that there is a world beyond that point which is absolutely worth exploring, but if you want EVERYTHING to be absolutely correct, you won't succeed in either teaching or research, because, quite frankly, there is an exception to almost every common statement, especially in biology! I want to pick up the people where they present their problem to me, and just take them two or three steps in the right direction. being called out on mistakes that are two levels above anything anyone here needs is just wrong...it undermines my authority before the kids ;-)

sixth: thanks for the info on aquatic mycorrhiza!

Answer 12

I am sorry for my stupid answer. I was just in a hurry. Forgive me

Answer 13

I never claimed green algae were plants, just stated that they did not need to be in water. I am well aware of the non-monophyletic status of green algae. However, perhaps you are not aware of the Archaeplastida? The superkingdom that includes green and red algae and true land plants. Seems they are together in a taxonomic rank, of course since this is an artificial grouping it does not really matter does it. All taxonomy is inherently meaningless, it is just a simple human grouping system to identify different organisms. Maybe you are confusing taxonomy with systematics?

I did misspell "desert", but my point that green algae do not require an aquatic environment stands.

I have personally observed lipids in water and in cells using light microscopy. I'm not saying you will see lipids everywhere, just pointing out that it is possible to do so. I believe if you reread my sentence you will find I only claimed that it would be possible to see them, not that you would see them. i have observed oxalic acid crystals released into the environment by fungi and plants, protein accumulation in human urine samples, as well as uric acid crystals in human urine; all with a light microscope. Again, please notice I said you could, not that you would. My point is if it is there and you look carefully, it is possible to see some macronutrients.

As a teacher, I have always found that being rude and condescending to students is the perfect way to kill their interest in learning what you are trying to teach. If I started telling my students that their questions were stupid, I don't think I would have more than two or three questions before everyone just quit engaging with me.

I hope you are joking that you need to be rude and that my pointing out your own errors
undermines my [your] authority", but if not, here are some citations for you. Citations which show how rudeness decreases performance:

http://amj.aom.org/content/50/5/1181.short
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/edu/95/3/506/
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/apl/96/6/1258/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597809000041
http://journals.lww.com/jonajournal/Abstract/2011/01000/The_Impact_of_Workplace_Incivility_on_the_Work.8.aspx

Answer 14

Well, links to sources not citations.

Answer 15

I'm afraid this isn't leading anywhere, so this will be my last reply.

Your last long post kinda showed that you are so very eager to prove me wrong that you don't care about anything else. You can come over to my house, drink a beer with me and insult the living sh*t out of every sentence I wrote to answer the question, on a scientific level. But in this thread, we try answering to a poor student who wonders whether to throw his tree into the pond, or dig it into the soil beside it (excellent euphemism, btw).

Now, as we both know, you wrote 'You would also be able to see if any lipids were released into the water due to the difference in densities.' and in your next post: 'please notice I said you could, not that you would.' I am not discussing any of that any further, because it's just knuckle-in-poop insane to argue about something so far off from the actual question. I told you that this was not a what-is-possible kinda question, but a what-is-actual one. and you can't tell me that you didn't think the first answer was bad.

Last point: your effort to educate me with stuff I already know about being rude to students is in vain, because you're not grasping upon the point that I wasn't being rude to students. instead, I was being rude to bad teachers! again, you can question my style, but please identify the correct problem first.

@zumobashi well, lesson learned, right? =) I sincerely value your effort to educate other guys on biology stuff, but since the askers expect some knowledge on your end of the line, you shouldn't disappoint them by wildly guessing ;-) sometimes a guy rushes to your side to protect you for all the wrong reasons, but in this very case, your enemy's enemy is not automatically your friend, even if it may look that way.

anyway, I think the question has been answered. you may want to close this thread. :-)

Answer 16

Usually I don't argue that much, but you know, I have to be argumentative and rude so that people will pay attention...<====sarcasm, just in case you missed it. Please note that several of the links are to studies that involved workplace incivility and found that it was harmful there as well. Incivility is simply not an effective technique when working in groups, whether it be teacher to students, or peer to peer.

My point is, that instead of being rude, you could have made a positive contribution, with statements like "The fish will provide nutrients via waste, but think of a plant like a cactus, would it do well in water?" This does not shut the other person down with a negative comment, and still get them to think a bit more.