# Natural Terrarium Design



## JoshH (Feb 13, 2008)

So myself and a few others wanted to start a thread based on the principles of natural terrarium design. Hopefully this can be used to combine the knowledge found in the community and try to push the amphibian/vivarium hobby to new heights. In the last few years the terrarium/vivarium hobby has been drastically changing and evolving toward a more accurate and natural approach. New lighting, humidity, and other life support systems have made it possible to create a very realistic duplicates of the habitats that our animals come from. The European community has been focusing on this approach to design for years, often producing the most breathtaking displays in the hobby.

In addition to just having natural looking terraria, some people are going a step farther and creating systems which only feature the flora and fauna that are naturally found together in the wild. This approach has been typically called a "biotopic" display. Presenting greater challenges in locating the correct plant species and design materials, this idea attempts to put a literal slice of the rainforest in your home. Being incredibly specific in detail is the key here, such as a high-elevation aboreal display for Peruvian thumbnails.

One of the biggest topics that we had talked about was the ideal amount of plant species in one display. Many hobbiest like to cram a wide variety of plants in their tank, even though many dendrobatids come from heavily shaded leaf litter habitats. What is too much? What biodiversity can we achieve in the confines of a glass box without going overboard?

I came up with a few topics for us to discuss:
Ideal size of display.
Heavily planted vs. less plant species.
Most accurate plant species for a particular habitat.
Differant ideas about backgrounds and landscape materials.
Display stability/sustainabilty-designing a working ecosystem, right down to the microbes!
These are just a few possibilities, so feel free to add your thoughts!


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

This is a great topic, Josh, and one I have had with others as well...it will be nice to hear some other voices in the conversation. There is so much to say, but for now I'll just have to post a few brief thoughts.

First, I think we have to think realistically about our constraints, especially size/volume of enclosure. We often fret about whether whether a tank with an extra 6" in height would be more conducive for an arboreal species vs. a terrestrial one...when in reality, even with the extra heigh, it's still doesn't even scratch the height at which many truly arboreal species are found. We fret about the whether or not a 20 or 29 gal tank is better...but given the amount of space and territory that the vast majority of darts inhabit and patrol in the wild, I'm not sure it really matters. Don't get me wrong, I'm a proponent in providing as much space as possible, but I think we should think realistically about many of these things and not fool ourselves too much.

Given this, however, I think things such as in-tank air movement (not to be confused with ventilation), lighting, diet, dietary and vitamin supplementation, substrate/soil composition, etc. become that much more important in viviculture to, in a sense, make up for the lack of space and the homogeneity that can occur.

I think one of the best places to start (perhaps the only proper place to start) is in nature: spending time outside and observing the various patterns and patches and edges and niches that occur. Spend time looking at growth patterns of plants, where they're found, which ones are found together, etc. For a while I set up and maintained native freshwater aquaria, and one of the things I did regularly was go snorkeling in the native streams and rivers of my area. By doing this, I learned things about the dynamics of the aquatic environment that I never could have gleaned from books or online forums. I noticed what types of fishes congregated together, what sorts of underwater structures they used for cover and safety, what sort of areas they seemed to prefer feeding in, what plants preferred to grow where, etc.

So when I would go home to start an aquarium and was using a tank that had 2 square feet of floorspace to work with, I thought about what would be contained in 2 sq. ft of stream or river. This DRASTICALLY changed how I went about the design and construction of my aquaria. Not only that, but much of it flew in the face of conventional design theory and practice/dogma in the hobby. For instance, in two square feet of aquatic streambed, I never found 8 or 15 different species of plants growing together. I usually only found one monospecific stand...maybe two converging together with one trying to outcompete the other. Sometimes a third would be found in the mix, barely holding on. So I would plant my tanks with 1-3 species of plants, allowing them to establish and flourish and compete with each other. This always looked so much more like an authentic representation of wild habitat. I can say that my favorite vivariums are those with only two or three species of plants--something about them just feels "right" and pleasing to the eye.

So, I think our conversations about these various aspects have to include an understanding of actual natural processes and relationships...otherwise we'll never have a proper vantage point from which to start.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Josh,

To some extent what you are considering is a multispecies enclosure but you should be counting the invertebrates as well as the vertebrate(s) in the enclosure as part of the design. The problem here is that you are very unlikely to get invertebrates that are from the same regions so you are going to have to be content with the plants... 

Before you even get to the plants, one should consider the substrate (refer back to the clay thread) as this is literally the foundation on which one has to build. In considering this foundation, we need to also examine the idea of how wet we keep the bottom of the enclosures as it is unlikely that the frogs live in what is effectively a swamp all year round.... 

Some starting thoughts,

Ed


----------



## Vinicam (Sep 13, 2008)

You guys could post pictures of what you think that would be a natural look in vivarium landscaping.

Then the photos can also be used for analysis.


----------



## Pyro4x4 (Nov 19, 2008)

Im very interested in this topic. I havent thought about some of these points yet but I have also only built one viv. I have however only used plants that my frogs would find in their natural environment. I am currently building a custom 240 gal viv and find it very useful that this thread is being discussed now.


----------



## boogsawaste (Jun 28, 2008)

I agree with Ron that in such a small enclosure (compared to being outside) the less species of plants the better. I used to cram all kinds of plants together and until recently had a change of heart. I pulled a lot of plants from my viv and even though I still have a diverse selection I really opened up the floorspace and tried to minimize the diversity. Once some of my plants I plan on keeping in the viv get a little bigger I'm going to get some cuttings and grow them out to further minimize diversity in there. I'm already much happier with the results.


----------



## JoshH (Feb 13, 2008)

skylsdale said:


> I think one of the best places to start (perhaps the only proper place to start) is in nature: spending time outside and observing the various patterns and patches and edges and niches that occur. Spend time looking at growth patterns of plants, where they're found, which ones are found together, etc. For a while I set up and maintained native freshwater aquaria, and one of the things I did regularly was go snorkeling in the native streams and rivers of my area. By doing this, I learned things about the dynamics of the aquatic environment that I never could have gleaned from books or online forums. I noticed what types of fishes congregated together, what sorts of underwater structures they used for cover and safety, what sort of areas they seemed to prefer feeding in, what plants preferred to grow where, etc.
> 
> So when I would go home to start an aquarium and was using a tank that had 2 square feet of floorspace to work with, I thought about what would be contained in 2 sq. ft of stream or river. This DRASTICALLY changed how I went about the design and construction of my aquaria. Not only that, but much of it flew in the face of conventional design theory and practice/dogma in the hobby. For instance, in two square feet of aquatic streambed, I never found 8 or 15 different species of plants growing together. I usually only found one monospecific stand...maybe two converging together with one trying to outcompete the other. Sometimes a third would be found in the mix, barely holding on. So I would plant my tanks with 1-3 species of plants, allowing them to establish and flourish and compete with each other. This always looked so much more like an authentic representation of wild habitat. I can say that my favorite vivariums are those with only two or three species of plants--something about them just feels "right" and pleasing to the eye.
> .


Well said Ron, actually going out and spending time getting up close and personal with differant micro-habitats. Alot of my set-ups and ideas came from observing waterfalls, banks, and tropical wetlands; it really did show me alot more than books ever could. It's all in the details too, like how you might see a tiny aroid or fern delicately balanced on the smallest vine. So I'll try to duplicate that, placing items in a way that look like they could have natually settled there.

Ed, great idea about the substrate. I think there can be many different yet successful substrate mediums to work with. Alot seem to go with a multi ingredient mix such as ABG's. Recently, I've been into using a thin level of aquarium gravel with about two inches of pond plant soil (basically laterite/clay gravel). Most rainforest soils are somewhat low on nutrients as they get used up very quickly, so this allows me to compensate for this by weekly foliar feeding with organic fertilizer. I think everyone agrees on the drainage, the more the better. I try to drill all my setups, so clean water can slowly flush away toxins and bring new nutrients. What other successful substrates are we having luck with?


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

I have removed all organic substrates from my vivs and am using only clay-based soils and substrates. One tank is an experimental clay substrate I made based on Brent's recipe. The rest use Turface Select infield conditioner over a false bottom. I would really like to mix that with the Turface Quickdry to get a better mix of particle size...but that product isn't locally available for me. On top of this I usually put down some torn up alder leaves. They decompose faster than most of the leaves we prefer to use in vivs, but this is desireable for me in this case as alder leaves are higher in nitrogen (alders are a nitrogen fixer), so my theoretical hope is that this will aid in "injecting" some nitrogen into the substrate that can be utilized by the plants. On top of this I shred up and cover the entire substrate with oak and/or magnolia leaves, which I do to replicate a layer of decomposition on top of the soil (and is usually where I see the most microfaunal activity once things are up and running). Then, on top of the shredded/torn up leaves, I spread a layer of whole leaves (oak, magnolia, etc.) Over time I top off the LL with a combination of both whole and shredded leaves.

This is my basic substrate design at this time...which I'm not satisfied with, but is tiding me over until I have the time/energy to be more experimental. My biggest problem with the Turface substrates (as compared to my homemade one) is the lack of calcium, etc. that can be taken up by the microinverts and eventually carried to the frogs. But, as I said, I haven't had the time or energy to work on getting that into this sort of substrate.


----------



## ChrisK (Oct 28, 2008)

skylsdale said:


> I have removed all organic substrates from my vivs and am using only clay-based soils and substrates. One tank is an experimental clay substrate I made based on Brent's recipe. The rest use Turface Select infield conditioner over a false bottom. I would really like to mix that with the Turface Quickdry to get a better mix of particle size...but that product isn't locally available for me. On top of this I usually put down some torn up alder leaves. They decompose faster than most of the leaves we prefer to use in vivs, but this is desireable for me in this case as alder leaves are higher in nitrogen (alders are a nitrogen fixer), so my theoretical hope is that this will aid in "injecting" some nitrogen into the substrate that can be utilized by the plants. On top of this I shred up and cover the entire substrate with oak and/or magnolia leaves, which I do to replicate a layer of decomposition on top of the soil (and is usually where I see the most microfaunal activity once things are up and running). Then, on top of the shredded/torn up leaves, I spread a layer of whole leaves (oak, magnolia, etc.) Over time I top off the LL with a combination of both whole and shredded leaves.
> 
> This is my basic substrate design at this time...which I'm not satisfied with, but is tiding me over until I have the time/energy to be more experimental. My biggest problem with the Turface substrates (as compared to my homemade one) is the lack of calcium, etc. that can be taken up by the microinverts and eventually carried to the frogs. But, as I said, I haven't had the time or energy to work on getting that into this sort of substrate.


I'm actually building a tank now with all these ideas and soil ideas in mind, I was talking with Mike K a while ago about clay soils (concidentally we're located close to each other) so I'm going to be mixing the Turface infield conditioner with the quick dry till I get the consistency I like, mixing it in a bucket with some calcium and water and let it sit to try and get it to soak in, then I'm probably going to bury some tree fern chunks in the soil once it's in the tank because I noticed the springs like to inhabit those. Crushed maple on there, then oak and/or magnolia on top of it. 
In the corner is going to be like a root structure with broms around it (broms are probably where I'm going a little too much since it's for pumilio so they have enough places to hide, sleep and hopefully for tads, maybe a fern or two on the background(2 sides), maybe some vines/twigs, but on the ground it's going to be really sparse (lucky for me since I'm good at killing plants), just 2 aroids poking up from the leaf litter, Rich from BJ suggested those for the soil I'm using. I got most of these ideas from watching monarchzman's cayo pumilio habitat youtube clip


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

skylsdale said:


> .
> 
> First, I think we have to think realistically about our constraints, especially size/volume of enclosure. We often fret about whether whether a tank with an extra 6" in height would be more conducive for an arboreal species vs. a terrestrial one...when in reality, even with the extra heigh, it's still doesn't even scratch the height at which many truly arboreal species are found.


 People do get hung up on this part but the height isn't important as long as the habitat and needs of the animal are supplied in that section of habitat. Territoriality in animals is usually due to resource partioning. In dendrobatids, this is often restricted by access to one or more of the following, calling sites, tadpole deposition sites, egg laying sites, feeding sites and in some species access to males (ex. D. tinctorius) or females. If everything is provided correctly then the spatial needs change provided there are site barriers and sufficient escape routes for the animal. (for an older example see the picture in Terrarium Animals by Zimmerman (1983 TFH Publications) on page 201) then you will have provided the required habitat. 



skylsdale said:


> . We fret about the whether or not a 20 or 29 gal tank is better...but given the amount of space and territory that the vast majority of darts inhabit and patrol in the wild, I'm not sure it really matters. Don't get me wrong, I'm a proponent in providing as much space as possible, but I think we should think realistically about many of these things and not fool ourselves too much..


Correct, more is better as it provides more microclimates etc but long reported anecdotal and other experience with the frogs has indicated that D. leucomelas do not need 81 square meters per calling male (see Prohl, Heike; 2005; Territorial Behavior in Dendrobatid Frogs; Journal of Herpetology 39(3):354-365


Adding to Ron's thoughts here. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

ChrisK said:


> Turface infield conditioner with the quick dry till I get the consistency I like, mixing it in a bucket with some calcium and water and let it sit to try and get it to soak in, then


My only concern here is that people are going to think that they are supplying calcium to the food chain when the amount supplied is minimal or nonexistant. My concern is that this may have the same value as soaking some terracotta in a calcium salt solution. Some will be picked up by the clay but it won't be held and slowly released instead it will simply be rinsed out. The calcium really needs to be mixed into the small particles so it can be part of the soil that is accidently consumed by the frogs with the inverts or consumed by the inverts or be stuck to the inverts or be part of a surface that the frogs can sit on. Having calcium ions temporarily held by particles that are too large to consume doesn't really do anything for the long tem.. 
These materials are calcined at pretty high temperatures (1000 to 2000 F) (see Sports field soil conditioner - US Patent 6358312 description) which can lock into place any of the ions originally present and these calcined clays are supposed to degrade by 3.5% or so over 20 years. Soaking the clay in a calcium solution will if the pore size and pore charge is correct allow for some calcium to be captured and temporarily held. If it is only held by pore size then it will be released when rinsed with water that has a lower calcium level at which point it will follow the flow of the water. If the calcium is held by both pore size and charge in the pore then it will have to be replaced by a positive ion and then the calcium follows the same course as noted above. 

Ed


----------



## ChrisK (Oct 28, 2008)

Ed said:


> My only concern here is that people are going to think that they are supplying calcium to the food chain when the amount supplied is minimal or nonexistant. My concern is that this may have the same value as soaking some terracotta in a calcium salt solution. Some will be picked up by the clay but it won't be held and slowly released instead it will simply be rinsed out. The calcium really needs to be mixed into the small particles so it can be part of the soil that is accidently consumed by the frogs with the inverts or consumed by the inverts or be stuck to the inverts or be part of a surface that the frogs can sit on. Having calcium ions temporarily held by particles that are too large to consume doesn't really do anything for the long tem..
> These materials are calcined at pretty high temperatures (1000 to 2000 F) (see Sports field soil conditioner - US Patent 6358312 description) which can lock into place any of the ions originally present and these calcined clays are supposed to degrade by 3.5% or so over 20 years. Soaking the clay in a calcium solution will if the pore size and pore charge is correct allow for some calcium to be captured and temporarily held. If it is only held by pore size then it will be released when rinsed with water that has a lower calcium level at which point it will follow the flow of the water. If the calcium is held by both pore size and charge in the pore then it will have to be replaced by a positive ion and then the calcium follows the same course as noted above.
> 
> Ed


Yeah I was kinda thinking something similar to that, especially with the infield conditioner because it's almost like a small gravel, and this "soil" is totally experimental, but the rapid dry is more sand-like and has been found in fecals, so would only soaking the rapid dry in the calcium/water be a better idea, and maybe using a higher ratio of it in the mixture(as well as maybe a LITTLE bit of peat moss or ground peat brick)?
Also, I almost NEED to use drip walls in here to raise the humidity by 10% and don't really do water changes, more like water replacement due to evaporation, so would that factor into it?

- I hope this isn't too much "hijack"


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

I will get more detailed later, but here are three threads I would like to add to this database of ideas.

Notes from some of the things I have learned.
http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/parts-construction/30873-notes-vivarium-building.html

A nice list of Orchids to consider.
http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/plants/26931-orchids-terrariums-vivariums-list.html

The thread this current thread came from. There is some good info here I hope is converted over.
http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/members-frogs-vivariums/34457-evolving-terrarium-idea.html

All of this can be added into this thread so we have one nice source to reference.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

ChrisK, the problem with using the infield conditioner is that it won't really _absorb_ the calcium and slowly release it over the longterm. What will most likely happen is that the particles (regardless of their size) will just be coated with whatever calcium medium you use, which will then be rinsed off by whatever moisture goes through the substrate. Ed's point (correct me if I miss this, Ed) is that the clay has alread been fired and the pores of the clay particles are pretty much sealed up, preventing much of anything to actually make it into the particle to be stored. This is the disadvantage I have found to using this as substrate: it's a step up from organic substrates (i.e. moving into the realm of actual soils)...but not the best possible one for trying to replicate a more complete cycle within the vivarium. 

My homemade substrate, on the other hand, was made from a clay that was never fired, so I was able to "fold" my calcium medium straight into the clay, then form the particles, etc...so the Ca is actually being held _within_ the substrate particles, not just coating them as it would with the Turface substrate.

Also, I wouldn't necessarily recommend adding treefern chunks to your substrate--the decomposing layer of LL against the soil should become just as hospitable for them (keep in mind, this is the sort of niche they inhabit in the wild).


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

And here's another thread worth reading: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/25846-self-sustaining-terrariums-depth.html

As well as this one: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/sc...-husbandry-improvements-tank-size-layout.html


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

skylsdale said:


> ChrisK, the problem with using the infield conditioner is that it won't really _absorb_ the calcium and slowly release it over the longterm. What will most likely happen is that the particles (regardless of their size) will just be coated with whatever calcium medium you use, which will then be rinsed off by whatever moisture goes through the substrate. Ed's point (correct me if I miss this, Ed) is that the clay has alread been fired and the pores of the clay particles are pretty much sealed up,).


 The pores aren't sealed (otherwise it wouldn't wick water well) but the calcium is not held within the clay like it would be in a regular soil structure. Any calcium taken up by the fired clay is going to be mobile.. as you run water through it, the calcium is going to go with the water. So depending on the concentration you could end up with enough in the water that the frogs could absorb but you will also end up with salt deposits wherever there are high rates of evaporation from the system (and this is provided the calcium isn't precipitated out somewhere (like under the false bottom) as calcium humates/tannates. This will immobilize the calcium.. and if your calcium levels are really high, you could have problems with the plants. 

Even if the frogs can ingest the particles, this doesn't mean that there will be calcium in them for the frogs... 
Additionally, covering the entire substrate with an organic layer also buffers the frogs away from the substrate. In the wild, the substrates are being churned by invertebrates and vertebrates so this is something else to keep in mind. 

I have a bag to mess around with, and I am going to use it but I am going to keep areas of the enclosures set up with a calcium rich substrate. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

I thought I should add, I'm not saying that it isn't good to use and won't replicate the drainage of the area for the frogs but don't count on it to supply calcium. 

Ed


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

Ed, if you don't mind clarifying this for me, I'm a little confused by what I read online.

In the following article the Turface was rated with a high Cation Exchange Capacity (relative to the other substrates tested) - Substrates for the Planted Aquarium . Also, on all the planted aquarium forums people seem to rave about SMS's high CEC and ability to hold nutrients. 

Then in an advertisement for a different fired clay product, they claimed the following;


http://www.theplantedtank.co.uk/substrate.htm said:


> ...has a very good CEC (Cation Exchange Capacity) value which means that it will pull out of the water any cations, eg Mg++, Ca++, K+, etc and hold onto these making them available for the plant's roots...


So it sounds to me like you are saying one of the following possibilities..
A - The analysis done in the article is inaccurate.
B - The analysis done in the article is irrelevant, because the CEC is still minimal compared to unfired clays.
C - The CEC is irrelevant because there are other factors which translate to the substrate being able to slowly release the calcium over time, which the fired clays do not have.
D - CEC is a huge marketing ploy and does mean what people say it does.

Thanks in advance, I'd like to get to the bottom of this as well..


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

CECs I can speak about to some extent (having worked in Zeolite R&D as a chemist..). Actually you need to understand how CEC works in calcined material and then we can add a D to your list. Hopefully this explination doesn't make it more confusing. 

When discussing substrates in naturalistic aquariusm, there is some difference in the way they function as compared to the terraria we are discussing. 

As I noted above there are several forms of ion capture. These depend on the size of the pore and the charge in the pore. If the pore or charge in the pore is sufficient, this will capture and hold ions by themselves but this binding is not real tight. If the pore size and charge are correct, then it will grab and hold the ion tightly. All of these are subject to affinities in binding. To make up an example, the binding affinities can look like this Fe+3> Fe+2 > NH4+ > Mg+ > Ca+2 >Na+ what this means is that the substance preferentially binds Fe+3 over Fe+2 which it preferentially will absorb over ammonium which is preferable to Mg cations which is preferable to Calcium cations. What this translates to is in a complex system to get any significant binding of calcium, you will have to have calcium in great excess to the preferential cations. However the reverse of this also means that in the presence of those preferential cations, its going to shed calcium (but this may not help the frogs) and absorb those ions instead. To get the hypothetical material to absorb calcium you need to cause a significant displacement of those more preferred cations. To get an idea of this you need to know the preferential absorbtion of the product which then tells you how concentrated a solution of calcium salt has to be made to induce the transfer (and this may require boiling the product with calcium for several hours to get it to work (when I made some pilot test products of a potassium exchanged sodium zeolite I had to boil it in a 10 M KCL solution at a pH of 4 to get the exchange to work)). 
The effect on the CEC is also going to change with the calcination temperature. From the companies information there can be signficant variations in the temperature (between 1000 and 2000 F). 

If the binding is based solely on pore size then unless it is a great fit, it will simply wash out with the flowing water (any flow through or recirculating system will remove it) and be replaced by other ions (can be anions or cations), if it is due to ion charge then as the water flows through it will be displaced by other cations and washed out..... if it is due to both pore and ion charge then it may not be available to the frogs regardless as it will be tightly bound but could be available to plants due to microbial action or action by the roots of the plants. 

So all having a good CEC means is that it can absorb and exchange some ions for others.. you need to know the binding affinities and conditions in which they should occur. 
Looking at how this occurs in an aquarium is really not that comparable as the substrate in an aquariums is anaerobic except around the roots of the plants and within several mms of the surface. There are metabolic processes that are occuring that are releasing nutrients to the plants (in short it could be great for the plants and not good for what you want it to do for the frogs). (I can look up pHs and conditions in the gravel as listed in Ecology of the planted aquarium)

Now back to the issue; it could have a great exchange rate for calcium and it could hold onto it well but this doesn't benefit the frogs unless 
1) the invertebrates can consume it 
2) it sticks to the inverts when they move around
3) the frogs consume it along with the invertebrates and it releases the calcium inside the frogs (if calcium is really high in the CEC affinity it may not give up calcium in the digestive tract of the frog as it is bound into a stable calcined clay..) 
4) the frogs cannot contact it as it is buried under an organic layer (unlike regular soil where this is churned up and spread to some extent through the soil column) 
5) it sheds all of the calcium rapidly in favor of other cations (in my example above, in favor of iron cations) that are prevalent in the system 

The difference between this and a non calcined clay particle is the size and the holding ability. Calcium isn't real mobile in soil but it is available via digestion... 

D. there is insufficient information to make the assumption that a high CEC means that it can absorb and release meaningful levels of calcium under the conditions in the enclosure. 
E. testing of a single batch doesn't really provide meaningful data as there can be significant difference between batches

Off to get more caffeine... 

Ed


----------



## ChrisK (Oct 28, 2008)

Ed said:


> Off to get more caffeine...


Haha - OK a little more back on track, here is the tank and the plants going into it, the fern will be on one of the 2 sides of the BG as well as maybe another, maybe a couple more broms but that's about it, only those 2 plants will probably be in the substrate

I would definitely be into hearing as much more about the substrate as possible since I didn't put it together yet, even if it needs to be moved to a different thread -


----------



## JoshH (Feb 13, 2008)

So how well are the plants growing in the clay? I had not been following the thread on it, but it seems like a good addition to the substrate mix, the same way kitty litter has been successful in aquariums. Any other benefit besides the minerals? 

Another substrate idea that I've been playing with is sort of a hydroponic approach. Basically the tank has a hole in the bottom center. On the very bottom I'm using a 1-2" thick piece of course black pond filter material, kinda similar to Epiweb. On top I mix several types of clay/laterite with tree fern, crushed palm bark, and leaves. This becomes a sort of semi-organic base that so far does not readily break down. The clay granules keep everything open and aerated, and small amount of this mix will work it's way into the foam/Epiweb to support micro communities there. The top layer gets a good mix of leaf litter and tree fern fiber. Since the tank is fertilized ever week the plants do well without the heavy soil base. All water added to the system via spray or dripwall rejuvenates the substrate mediums and flows right into a sump under the tank. There is no buildup of stagnant water or detritus so far. The only issue that seems to be a possible drawback would be the need for new nutrients to be added frequently. In addition, the springtails and other microfauna run rampant deep into the Epiweb layer, which protects them from being completely comsumed by the darts.

Chris~ That enclosure looks good. What's up with the A. radicans, too dry/too much light?


----------



## loogielv (Nov 28, 2008)

all of the information in the various threads and links should be combined in someway. a new thread with quotes from each thread perhaps? or an actual Dendroboard article? Tons of info and it's overwhelming to decide which to read first and how it dovetails with the other threads...


----------



## ChrisK (Oct 28, 2008)

JoshH said:


> Chris~ That enclosure looks good. What's up with the A. radicans, too dry/too much light?


Yeah I told you i was great at keeping plants haha. Actually I got it Sunday like that, but the lighting combined with my awesome camera actually makes it look a lot worse


----------



## ChrisK (Oct 28, 2008)

skylsdale said:


> Also, I wouldn't necessarily recommend adding treefern chunks to your substrate--the decomposing layer of LL against the soil should become just as hospitable for them (keep in mind, this is the sort of niche they inhabit in the wild).


Yeah I just got jealous seeing your earthworm tunnel springtail farm so it was a lame attempt at recreating it


----------



## JoshH (Feb 13, 2008)

Ok, I just read the whole "Ultimate Clay" thread........lol So it's all the same idea as laterite/pond soil/stadium soil. Definately a good mix to add to the soil, probably keeping around a 50/50-75/25 ratio for inert material vrs organics. I always wanted to try to find a good source of the special volcanic gravels that are used for orchids. Leaning away from using anything that can break down over time is probably one of the better ideas for terraria. Thats why I try to use synthetic backgrounds and decorations now, it's no use using something that will have already started decomposing by the time the display is reaching it's prime.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

The kitty litter used in aquariums is usually a bentonite clay. 

The calcined clay we are discussing is used in both bonsai as well as orchid pots and is guaranteed to not break down more than 3.5% in 20 years. 

There are different properties that come from the different substrates. Matt's recipe in the ultimate clay thread is probably the closest thing to real tropical soil out of all of those items. If the goal is a true naturalistic terraria then that is probably where you want to start with the substrate. 

I have not had any issues with plants and clay substrates to date but I tend to take Brent's tack on planting them and plant them in an organic pocket in the clay and then let them root from there. 

So I guess we should get back to the naturalistic discussion since its been partially hijacked as we discussed soils... 

Ed


----------



## ghettopieninja (Jul 29, 2008)

I like where this thread is going! Also I missed the self sustaining, husbandry improvement and best orchid species threads so I will have some good reads when I'm procrastinating homework like right now! I have felt for a few years now that vivs could be broken down in a different way than 'European' or non based on there design principles. I feel that a better approach is 'naturalistic' or 'bioatope' as JoshH suggested and others that are more about aesthetic or 'garden' like. 

The latter I feel is the more of the traditional terrarium design method, organic substrates, moss carpets, less emphasis on hard scape and background and more on plants. These are obviously not the most natural conditions for dendrobates, but can make stunning more artistic displays if done correctly, this I feel is very prominent in the European community. I also akin this to much of the work in the aquascaping community, especially anything done or influenced by Takashi Amano which while not representing a specific habitat is more looked at as a living work of art

Now I think where many of us have been heading for the past few years (I know I have) is toward what most of this thread and much of the talk recently has been about. Which is a much more representative design theory. Creating that 'slice of the rainforest' I definitely have been far more interested in this for the past two or three years. This is how zoological institutions have always done things I feel, with a larger focus on hardscape, (especially fabricating artificial rock walls, trees ect) and again what has already been talked about in this thread, fewer plant species, clay substrates, leaf litter floors with large micro organism colonies ect. 

I feel both kinds of design methods have there places in the hobby and many principles are the same. I feel that not even the more naturalistic systems are totally immune to aesthetic and basic visual principles such as balance, flow, contrast ect. However I am very excited about this new interest in a more naturalistic and scientifically backed way of doing things. I would love to go on but I feel this post is already wayyy to long! oh well, I will post some of my favorite reference pictures taken in Costa Rica as well as else wear soon (loved your pics of Santa Elena Mywebbedtoes, I have spent many a night at Bar Amigos in Santa Elena). I also really like the idea of the a link detabase, weather it be dendroboard thread or not. 

would love to here your guys input on my view...


----------



## roxrgneiss (Sep 30, 2007)

Hey folks! Sorry I'm late, I've been writing about other pressing topics recently... 

I'm excited about this series of pointed discussions concerning terrarium aspects from our unique perspectives. 



JoshH said:


> So myself and a few others wanted to start a thread based on the principles of natural terrarium design. Hopefully this can be used to combine the knowledge found in the community and try to push the amphibian/vivarium hobby to new heights.


Great start, Josh, I think you hit the nail...

I apologize for backtracking, but I have a few comments about the discussion so far.



JoshH said:


> One of the biggest topics that we had talked about was the ideal amount of plant species in one display. Many hobbiest like to cram a wide variety of plants in their tank, even though many dendrobatids come from heavily shaded leaf litter habitats. What is too much? What biodiversity can we achieve in the confines of a glass box without going overboard?


In some cases, I think there can be too much plant diversity in a tank, but if an increased variety is in balance, dozens of species can work well together in one exhibit. That truly revolves around preference of aesthetics, size of the tank, and plant selections and is not really a goal of the 'biotopist'. I tend to think overboard when I see a tank with even a few plant species that are crammed together with no thought towards how it looks as a whole (yes! I'm guilty!). 

Furthermore, I feel that the use of more plants, though not necessarily greater numbers of species (but certainly an option), is important too when keeping dart frogs in all but the largest terrariums. A sparse display can have great aesthetic appeal _or_ may be the jumping off point of a beginner (two completely different looks mind you!), but I think a densely planted enclosure holds great quality-of-life benefit to the inhabitants, providing them with more cover/visual barriers and habitat.

So, what I'm trying to say is, I think that some sacrifices must be made (and hopefully in good taste) as we attempt to create functional habitats within what are often small confines. Now, I am itching to work on larger tanks that will hopefully enable me to move past cramming my tanks full of various greenery, on a personal note.

Again, sorry for the sidetrack, I just wanted to get that out early on! 



Ed said:


> So all having a good CEC means is that it can absorb and exchange some ions for others.. you need to know the binding affinities and conditions in which they should occur.
> 
> D. there is insufficient information to make the assumption that a high CEC means that it can absorb and release meaningful levels of calcium under the conditions in the enclosure.
> Ed


From what I know of CECs and clay and what I have read of the clay based substrates, there doesn't seem to be a very pragmatic way (read: Rome wasn't built in a day) of reproducing the oxisol clay granules that can be found in some dart frog habitats. This seems to compound the issue of attempting to incorporate a significant and available quantity of calcium in clay-based substrates.

This comment refers to point 'D'; if some organic matter (and presumably some of the elements used in an ABG substrate) can have at least twice the CEC of clays with the highest possible CEC a clay can have (smectites, etc), would the periodic addition of Ca to organic substrates have the desired effect and make a greater amount of Ca available to the dart frogs through passive soil ingestion? I would think that if CaO3 were added to a naturally acidic organic substrate (ie humic acid), this would release the Ca and perhaps some of it would be adhesively bonded to the organic matter, or possibly cohesively, in solution. Another question then would be: would the required amount of Ca make the soil ill suited for plant growth?
I hope this wasn't discussed in the clay substrate threads - I haven't looked them over in a while and my memory a bit rusty. 




Ed said:


> There are different properties that come from the different substrates. Matt's recipe in the ultimate clay thread is probably the closest thing to real tropical soil out of all of those items. If the goal is a true naturalistic terraria then that is probably where you want to start with the substrate.
> 
> 
> So I guess we should get back to the naturalistic discussion since its been partially hijacked as we discussed soils...
> ...


I agree, there are other topics to explore, but I am glad I made it to the table early on to ask some of these questions. 

One of the greatest challenges I suspect in immulating natural soils, like laterite, is the complex processes that form them and then the conditions they will be utilized under in most dart frog tanks.

It has been my understanding that various invertebrates contribute proteins to the clay and other materials that make up the oxisol ganules. Even if protein or carbohydrates are added to a homemade mix (with Ca), how will the granules hold their texture, without first altering them too much (still creating habitat for microfauna and air space for root growth, while making Ca available), in a wet frog tank with potential dart frog bioturbation and subsequent compaction?


On a side note, I think that naturalistic (from the soil up) terrariums are a fine and realistic goal, but I do think that the small macrofauna and plant species found directly in dart frog's habitat that can be acquired by hobbyists and would and survive in a small enclosure with clay substrate is both low in numbers and a great expense. I mean this from a functional perspective. Now, having said that, I would personally like to come as close as I can to producing as near to natural terrariums as I am able to conceive, afford, and construct. Perfecting the notion of creating and maintaining a true 'slice of the rainforest' is very intriguing!

The question is, how close can I (we), as an ordinary hobbyist(s), come to actualizing that idea? 


If ever the chance presents itself in this thread, I would enjoy discussing what materials/bugs/plants/etc are available to us as hobbyists to help attain this goal we share.  Maybe a list of things, places to acquire them, and other resources could be made at some point? 

Later on,
Mike


----------



## loogielv (Nov 28, 2008)

I normally wouldn't chime in here, being such a newbie on the forum, but I feel I just had to express my thoughts...

I think anyone who believes they can create a "natural" vivarium, in the sense that it's a slice directly from the rain forest or respective region, is nuts. 

Now i dont mean that to say it's not possible to have a beautiful vivarium that represents the region the owner intended it to. But having a self sustaining portion (by self sustaining, i'm referring to the other threads that were linked here. I want to keep the newest thread alive, rather than post there, and my next point is valid in this thread..where was I? oh yah) having a self sustaining portion of the rain forest isn't possible. We all know it, and probably all accept it. 

But a thought that's missed out on entirely, is the fact that we're ripping these animals out of the wild (or ripping the wild out of their evolutionary instincts) and throwing them in the equivalent of a storage facility and saying "whew. that's enough space for em. see, they can walk around and even breed" 9 times out of 10, we gauge their happiness and well being on breeding, behavior and color. (color more so in fish, but still, the point remains)

that's the same as literally you, the reader of this thread, getting locked into an empty 7-11 and being cared for inside of that 7-11. Could you be happy in that building for X # of years? Sounds pretty awful huh? What if it was dressed up to look like your home? I didn't think so.
Also, you're only gonna get one shelf instead of the full array of options that a normal 7-11 carries (who am I kidding? you're gonna get 1 ITEM, maybe 2...IF you're lucky)

Then the creature caring for you is gonna assume you're happy because you bred with a member of the opposite sex that is also stashed in that 7-11. Also you're nice and fat from all the funyuns you've been eating, so you MUST be happy.

Also, that creature decked that 7-11 out to look like your home! What else could you possibly need?
.
While I know humans are more complex and require greater "necessities" than frogs and such, the point becomes more about the survival of these beloved animals. We dont keep them because its our right. We dont keep them because we deserve it. We keep them because we love them. We love to try to make them happy as we can in a box that our favorite video game console couldn't fit in.

I'm rambling AGAIN, but the point is exactly this: the "natural" vivarium is a beautiful concept. But I'm not keeping frogs because I can make them beautiful. they just happen to be beautiful, and their habitats are beautiful too. If my frogs would be happier and healtheir, with lime green Jello as the substrate and a set of wind up chattering teeth as their cave, i'd do that over a natural looking viv in a heartbeat. So would you. Therefore, keeping these frogs is not about "what can I put into this viv that will benefit them, and/or make their home look awesome"

It's about "what can i put into this viv that will benefit them". If that means different plants, or different mixed substrates, or the steering wheel of a Buick LeSabre...guess what? It's going in.

We need to further the science of keeping these animals (and all animals) to provide the necessary vitamins, minerals, and most of all, HAPPINESS. We dont need to further the science of making them look prettier. It's all about making them in a way that benefits our little friends, and THEN making that newfound science pleasing to the eye.


----------



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

loogielv said:


> I think anyone who believes they can create a "natural" vivarium, in the sense that it's a slice directly from the rain forest or respective region, is nuts.


No just ambitious 

Let's make sure the topic doesn't veer off into a debate over whether frogs kept in captivity are 'happy' or 'sad'.

Bill


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

I wholeheartedly agree with Bill....this has been so far a very informative thread...let's not veer off course.


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

I think for the sake of this thread we should stick to advanced topics of design. The purpose of the thread was to amass a group of ideas on building ideas and spark new conversation on different methods and building styles.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

roxrgneiss said:


> Furthermore, I feel that the use of more plants, though not necessarily greater numbers of species (but certainly an option), is important too when keeping dart frogs in all but the largest terrariums. A sparse display can have great aesthetic appeal _or_ may be the jumping off point of a beginner (two completely different looks mind you!), but I think a densely planted enclosure holds great quality-of-life benefit to the inhabitants, providing them with more cover/visual barriers and habitat.


When discussing dendrobatids and biotopic we should probably start with a broad generalistic breakdown of the frogs into two groups, the mainly terrestrial species and the mainly arboreal species. This should be where there is a division in the planting structure of the tanks. In the generalistic term of terrestrials, these frogs usually are not found in densely covered undergrowths but in areas of sparser ground plantings with a deeper litter of leaf litter. In the broadly generalistic terms of arboreal species, the frogs would be found in areas of lesser leaf litter but higher density plantings (think of how a epiphyte garden on a tree looks). There is a strong tendency to cover the substrate for all dendrobatids with as many plants as can be acommedated resulting in a tangled jungle at the ground level. While this provides cover for the frogs and sight barriers etc, the same thing would be accomplished by a thicker leaf litter instead of the plants. Typically the goal in a biotopic enclosure is to replicate the habitat as close as possible to encourage the widest range of natural behaviors. 



roxrgneiss said:


> This seems to compound the issue of attempting to incorporate a significant and available quantity of calcium in clay-based substrates.


A number of clays contain signficant levels of calcium. For example calcium bentonite. This can be incorporated in the clay recipe posted by Matt to supply calcium. 



roxrgneiss said:


> This comment refers to point 'D'; if some organic matter (and presumably some of the elements used in an ABG substrate) can have at least twice the CEC of clays with the highest possible CEC a clay can have (smectites, etc), would the periodic addition of Ca to organic substrates have the desired effect and make a greater amount of Ca available to the dart frogs through passive soil ingestion?



See my comments above on an postulating about an unknown CEC. Instead of calcium carbonate which is going to react with humic acids in basic organic substrates like ABG mixes, using a calcium containing clay and Matt's recipe is a better option. I would expect the calcium carbonate to react with the humic acids and result in particles of insoluable calcium humates particles (which are very insoluable) that will end up in the bottom of the water column. If this occurs then the calcium will have a low bioavailability. Using a calcium containing clay should keep the calcium bound up with some minerals and have a better bioavailability. 
I have a test terrarium set up with calcium bentonite mixed with peat and there is no reduction in plant growth (mosses and ferns do very well in it). I am moving towards more of Matt's clay recipe but am testing some other things along the way. Some of what I am trying came out of discussions with Ben Eiben (see his compost tank idea). 




roxrgneiss said:


> One of the greatest challenges I suspect in immulating natural soils, like laterite, is the complex processes that form them and then the conditions they will be utilized under in most dart frog tanks.?



That is one of the benefits of Matt's recipe. He is working on recreating the conditions and appears to have gotten very close. 



roxrgneiss said:


> It has been my understanding that various invertebrates contribute proteins to the clay and other materials that make up the oxisol ganules. Even if protein or carbohydrates are added to a homemade mix (with Ca), how will the granules hold their texture, without first altering them too much (still creating habitat for microfauna and air space for root growth, while making Ca available), in a wet frog tank with potential dart frog bioturbation and subsequent compaction? .


If I remember Matt's explination correctly, a lot of that particle formation is also due to fungal and possibly bacterial action in the media which is why the protien/carbohydrate inoculation speeds up the process. The inverts help to churn the mix and modify it somewhat but it starts with the fungal and bacterial processes. Some of the particulate formation can be accomplished by the recommended heating, cooling, drying and screening process which mimics the invertebrate action. 




roxrgneiss said:


> On a side note, I think that naturalistic (from the soil up) terrariums are a fine and realistic goal, but I do think that the small macrofauna and plant species found directly in dart frog's habitat that can be acquired by hobbyists and would and survive in a small enclosure with clay substrate is both low in numbers and a great expense..


If by macrofauna you are referring to soil invertebrates I have my doubts... it is highly unlikely we will ever be able to aquire even a small fraction of the invertebrate community as too many are going to be classified as potential agricultural pests. If you set up the clay soil correctly, both the particle size and the drainage allow for a greater amount of niches for invertebrates especially at the interface of the leaf litter and the soil layer. If you are looking at a true biotopic setup then the organic layer is going to be fairly shallow compared to most set ups currently in practice and not be based on ABG or other commonly used soilless mixes. 

The plants are less of an issue as a wide variety are in place in the hobby. Mainly you would need to research native ranges and altitudinal restrictions and overlay this on the frog's range and altitudinal restrictions. 




roxrgneiss said:


> The question is, how close can I (we), as an ordinary hobbyist(s), come to actualizing that idea?


I suspect very close if the effort is put into it. 


Some comments,

Ed


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

loogielv said:


> We need to further the science of keeping these animals (and all animals) to provide the necessary vitamins, minerals, and most of all, HAPPINESS. We dont need to further the science of making them look prettier. It's all about making them in a way that benefits our little friends, and THEN making that newfound science pleasing to the eye.


Aside from nutritional and husbandry aspects, one other thing that is important to the frogs is giving them a permanent home (providing it is an adequate one). You will be doing a lot for the frogs happiness if you keep them in your care for the duration of their life, and in order to do this you must keep yourself dedicated and interested in your collection. If maintaining an aesthetically pleasing tank with interesting plants accomplishes this for you, then by all means it is important to the frogs as well (perhaps indirectly but still important).


----------



## JoshH (Feb 13, 2008)

Ed said:


> When discussing dendrobatids and biotopic we should probably start with a broad generalistic breakdown of the frogs into two groups, the mainly terrestrial species and the mainly arboreal species. This should be where there is a division in the planting structure of the tanks. In the generalistic term of terrestrials, these frogs usually are not found in densely covered undergrowths but in areas of sparser ground plantings with a deeper litter of leaf litter.Ed


Agreed 100%. Do you or anyone else have access to real photos of specific species habitats, or close-up shots? It would be good to have a sort of database or something of examples on a species level to use for reference. A leucs forest floor habitat could be entirely different than the forest floor of another terrestrial specials, like galacts. Especially the case for many aboreals, the montane forest of Ecuador typically have much more plant biodiversity then in Peru and some other areas.



Ed said:


> The plants are less of an issue as a wide variety are in place in the hobby. Mainly you would need to research native ranges and altitudinal restrictions and overlay this on the frog's range and altitudinal restrictions.


Actually I'll let everyone know about a rather large project I'm working on, should be done in a month or so. I've come up with a list of most of the New World terrarium plant species that are in the hobby and it will show the countries/areas that they come from. So far it's been harder than I imagined since alot of the species are rather widespread through tropical America. I may need some help with certain areas, such as the gesneriads. If anyone has any gesneriad origin info, feel free to PM me!


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

I do want to point out, when discussing true soil and clay-based substrates, that plant growth is not the primary concern. In other words, the purpose of using these types of substrates is not first and foremost to have lush plants...but to help fill in the missing gaps of a cycle within the vivarium ecosystem (in this case, getting minerals and whatnot to frogs via the microfauna/substrate _within _the vivarium rather than the standard practice of introducing dusted food items with powdered supplements). This can take a bit of getting used to and often requires a paradigm shift in how one views vivarium design and husbandry. 

JoshH, as far as habitat/biotope images, One of the single best resources I have found is www.DendroBase.de Scroll down for the species list, and then click on the desired species. It's in German (a rough translation can be had through Google)...but you don't need to know German to view and appreciate the images.


----------



## loogielv (Nov 28, 2008)

dont misunderstand me guys, I'm not trying to hijack or veer of course. I was trying to use another way of thinking to promote my point that there's alot we're lacking in terms of general welfare for our animals. that science should be furthered and honestly, more ferociously than the looks. I thought it was a valid point having to do with this thread. Sorry if I was mistaken.



Corpus Callosum said:


> Aside from nutritional and husbandry aspects, one other thing that is important to the frogs is giving them a permanent home (providing it is an adequate one). You will be doing a lot for the frogs happiness if you keep them in your care for the duration of their life, and in order to do this you must keep yourself dedicated and interested in your collection. If maintaining an aesthetically pleasing tank with interesting plants accomplishes this for you, then by all means it is important to the frogs as well (perhaps indirectly but still important).


This is a great point. If you're not interested, and it doesn't look pretty, you're liable to sell the frogs or transport them or whatever and that certainly isn't as good as keeping them and staying interested in them.
Indirectly important, but important none the less.

anyway, the census is that I'm off topic, so i'll bail on the idea.


----------



## loogielv (Nov 28, 2008)

skylsdale said:


> I do want to point out, when discussing true soil and clay-based substrates, that plant growth is not the primary concern. In other words, the purpose of using these types of substrates is not first and foremost to have lush plants...but to help fill in the missing gaps of a cycle within the vivarium ecosystem (in this case, getting minerals and whatnot to frogs via the microfauna/substrate _within _the vivarium rather than the standard practice of introducing dusted food items with powdered supplements). This can take a bit of getting used to and often requires a paradigm shift in how one views vivarium design and husbandry.


see, this was my point. we're talking about the looks of a natural vivarium, but it ventured into the substrate and ways to make the substrate more beneficial to the welfare of the animals. I was just taking it a step further. 

Anyway, again, I apologize


----------



## roxrgneiss (Sep 30, 2007)

Ed said:


> When discussing dendrobatids and biotopic we should probably start with a broad generalistic breakdown of the frogs into two groups, the mainly terrestrial species and the mainly arboreal species. This should be where there is a division in the planting structure of the tanks. In the generalistic term of terrestrials, these frogs usually are not found in densely covered undergrowths but in areas of sparser ground plantings with a deeper litter of leaf litter. In the broadly generalistic terms of arboreal species, the frogs would be found in areas of lesser leaf litter but higher density plantings (think of how a epiphyte garden on a tree looks). There is a strong tendency to cover the substrate for all dendrobatids with as many plants as can be acommedated resulting in a tangled jungle at the ground level. While this provides cover for the frogs and sight barriers etc, the same thing would be accomplished by a thicker leaf litter instead of the plants. Typically the goal in a biotopic enclosure is to replicate the habitat as close as possible to encourage the widest range of natural behaviors.


I think what I am trying to argue is a combination of my obvservations and presonal opinion on the subject. I view the average terrarium footprint, ~1.5 - 2.5' squared (maybe more for some) as a limiting factor in recreating dart frog habitat, so rather than try to make the habitat look exactly as it would in nature, I think providing more visual barriers and area through the use of many plants is justified, regardless of whether the species is arboreal or terrestrial, respectively (imagine a tank that is a several cubic feet in total area). However, I don't suggest that a tangled mess at the ground level is best for dart frog terrarium habitat. I agree that leaf litter is important for cover and macrofauna, but I don't think it, as the dominant terrarium floor feature, makes up for the lack of area the frogs have for living space and the lack of large/broad cover from tank mates and human observers when it is needed. I feel that a combination of plants that provide good cover and leaf litter together is an improvement on just one or the other. This, as I mentioned, is my personal perspective on the matter and greatly affects the way I will construct and plant a dart frog terrarium.




Ed said:


> A number of clays contain signficant levels of calcium. For example calcium bentonite. This can be incorporated in the clay recipe posted by Matt to supply calcium.


Good call, I hadn't thought of the Ca rich bentonites. I should reread the clay subs discussions. But these volcanic ashes don't comprise much dart frog habitat soils, do they?




Ed said:


> See my comments above on an postulating about an unknown CEC. Instead of calcium carbonate which is going to react with humic acids in basic organic substrates like ABG mixes, using a calcium containing clay and Matt's recipe is a better option. I would expect the calcium carbonate to react with the humic acids and result in particles of insoluable calcium humates particles (which are very insoluable) that will end up in the bottom of the water column. If this occurs then the calcium will have a low bioavailability. Using a calcium containing clay should keep the calcium bound up with some minerals and have a better bioavailability.
> I have a test terrarium set up with calcium bentonite mixed with peat and there is no reduction in plant growth (mosses and ferns do very well in it). I am moving towards more of Matt's clay recipe but am testing some other things along the way. Some of what I am trying came out of discussions with Ben Eiben (see his compost tank idea).


Concerning the Ca being used up in a reaction with Humic acid and CaCO3 (yes, I meant calcium carbonate before too), I suppose what I was trying to get at (and I'm no chemist!) is once enough calcium has been added to neutralize the Humic acid, would the further addition of Ca (in whatever form) be held in the organic matter, as it happens to have a much greater CEC than any clays? Or would adding enough Ca, such that it would be available to the frogs, cause the organic matter to become too basic?

I might try the addition of Ca bentonite to my 'soiless' organic mix sometime, thanks for mentioning the ash clay. For my purposes, this sounds like a better way of increasing Ca availability than simply adding Ca or CaCO3.





Ed said:


> That is one of the benefits of Matt's recipe. He is working on recreating the conditions and appears to have gotten very close.
> 
> 
> If I remember Matt's explination correctly, a lot of that particle formation is also due to fungal and possibly bacterial action in the media which is why the protien/carbohydrate inoculation speeds up the process. The inverts help to churn the mix and modify it somewhat but it starts with the fungal and bacterial processes. Some of the particulate formation can be accomplished by the recommended heating, cooling, drying and screening process which mimics the invertebrate action.


Well, I have seen the granules for myself and I think the process and ingredients that goes into making them produces a good granulated clay substrate to begin with. But what I was referring to is the long term form retention of the granules in a dart frog terrarium, considering the correct inverts might not be available to continue the granulation processes, even if the fungi and bacterium are present. Might the granules eventually lose their texture over time without _all_ the correct forms of bioturbation, secretions, etc necessary to form them in nature? What is the shelf life of an artificial clay granule once it is wet and 'underfoot'?




Ed said:


> If by macrofauna you are referring to soil invertebrates I have my doubts... it is highly unlikely we will ever be able to aquire even a small fraction of the invertebrate community as too many are going to be classified as potential agricultural pests. If you set up the clay soil correctly, both the particle size and the drainage allow for a greater amount of niches for invertebrates especially at the interface of the leaf litter and the soil layer. If you are looking at a true biotopic setup then the organic layer is going to be fairly shallow compared to most set ups currently in practice and not be based on ABG or other commonly used soilless mixes.
> 
> The plants are less of an issue as a wide variety are in place in the hobby. Mainly you would need to research native ranges and altitudinal restrictions and overlay this on the frog's range and altitudinal restrictions.


Yes, I consider macrofauna to be any animals viewable without magnification. I am sure there is also some amount of true microfauna that would be beneficial to have in a dart frog terrarium, but springtails, etc don't fit the classification of microfauna to me and I don't think there would be any way of locating dart-frog-habitat-indegenous microfauna to 'seed' a tank with aside from collecting them with soil from dart frog habitats in person.

I think that immulating the O horizons and where they meet clay layers in oxisols is a great goal, and would like to attempt this myself sometime in the future. 

One problem I have with using clay soils currently, is that it will limit the variety of plants that can be used, which is why I would like to know what plants readily available will surive in such clay soils exclusively. Furthermore, I think immulating the constant addition, breakdown, and leaching of organics/nutrients in a dart frog terrarium as it occurs in nature may be a considerable hurdle when mixes, like ABG, aren't being used, because the clays themselves only contribute a little to the growth and developement of plants. There have to be some limits on how much of a functioning ecosystem we can recreate in a tank. 

As a compromise, would a significant covering of a Ca enriched clay soil (perhaps a mix of Ca bentonite and the QuickDry mix mentioned previously or fired laterite) above a nearly equal layer of organic material below work to serve both the needs of the dart frogs and the needs of the plants? Perhaps this won't work due to chemical reactions or the clay ash leaching downward?



Additionally, the construction and planting of a nice looking tank that is also an enviroment that caters to the well-being of dart frogs has no real issues from where I stand. I like the idea naturalistic, but I will probably only come as close as I can with the ways and means available to me.


More from my observations and opinions,

Mike


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

loogielv said:


> see, this was my point. we're talking about the looks of a natural vivarium, but it ventured into the substrate and ways to make the substrate more beneficial to the welfare of the animals. I was just taking it a step further.
> 
> Anyway, again, I apologize


No need to apologize.. we won't learn anything unless people offer counter-arguments 



skylsdale said:


> So when I would go home to start an aquarium and was using a tank that had 2 square feet of floorspace to work with, I thought about what would be contained in 2 sq. ft of stream or river. This DRASTICALLY changed how I went about the design and construction of my aquaria. Not only that, but much of it flew in the face of conventional design theory and practice/dogma in the hobby. For instance, in two square feet of aquatic streambed, I never found 8 or 15 different species of plants growing together. I usually only found one monospecific stand...maybe two converging together with one trying to outcompete the other. Sometimes a third would be found in the mix, barely holding on. So I would plant my tanks with 1-3 species of plants, allowing them to establish and flourish and compete with each other. This always looked so much more like an authentic representation of wild habitat. I can say that my favorite vivariums are those with only two or three species of plants--something about them just feels "right" and pleasing to the eye.


Definitely a valuable consideration for the micro (your tanks), but everyone should also think about the macro (your collection). Opinions vary, but when I see a bunch of tanks side by side that look like copies of one another it gets somewhat boring to me as a hobbyist (of course if you're satisfied with frog behavior alone, this may not matter as much to you). One approach is setting up each tank as a specific strand of species as Ron mentioned, and then having the diversity accomplished from tank to tank so every enclosure looks different than the other (not just in landscaping but in plant species selection). Maybe one tank that focuses on ferns, another with broms, etc. Or even if you keep primarily egg feeders and use broms for their tadpole rearing, you can still have each tank have a different type of brom to maintain some aesthetic diversity. So even with keeping just a few species per tank, you can still enjoy diversity in your collection (if it interests you that is).


----------



## roxrgneiss (Sep 30, 2007)

skylsdale said:


> I do want to point out, when discussing true soil and clay-based substrates, that plant growth is not the primary concern.


I disagree, though I don't think in terms of "primary". The overall health of the vivarium is something that concerns me as much as any one part, though the dart frogs ovbviously get more attention and thought in regards to their needs. Try to imagine thinking in terms of the "whole". 

This thread is about naturalistic terrarium design, so I think consideration of plants works very well as part of the theme.



skylsdale said:


> In other words, the purpose of using these types of substrates is not first and foremost to have lush plants...but to help fill in the missing gaps of a cycle within the vivarium ecosystem (in this case, getting minerals and whatnot to frogs via the microfauna/substrate _within _the vivarium rather than the standard practice of introducing dusted food items with powdered supplements).


I think this may be possible to some extent, but the introduction of food items and dusing is still very much a necessary part of keeping dart frogs at this point. No fully successful and thouroughly tested methods of transfering minerals, like Ca, to dart frogs without dusting has been developed. I think we are still in the testing phase. In addition, I think plants, as organisms and as an important aspect of naturalistic terrarium design, should be considered when the substrate selection or mixture is made.


Mike


----------



## roxrgneiss (Sep 30, 2007)

By the by, I don't meant to pick on you guys, Ron and Ed, but I have a difference of opinion and working knowledge concerning some of the things you two have written so far. 

Also, I would like to point out that part of the reason this thread was started was to further the art of creating unique and pleasing to the eye terrariums, so my comments about plants are in line with our theme.

One other thing - I keep hearing a lot about two-three plants species types of tanks - I have seen a couple 10gal tanks like this, dominated by creeping fig or selaginella that were cool, but I would really like to see more that function well as dart frog tanks and look good. There must be some out there, because I have seen this concept mention a number of times in the last couple weeks.

Cheers!
Mike


----------



## JoshH (Feb 13, 2008)

Corpus Callosum said:


> Definitely a valuable consideration for the micro (your tanks), but everyone should also think about the macro (your collection). Opinions vary, but when I see a bunch of tanks side by side that look like copies of one another it gets somewhat boring to me as a hobbyist (of course if you're satisfied with frog behavior alone, this may not matter as much to you). One approach is setting up each tank as a specific strand of species as Ron mentioned, and then having the diversity accomplished from tank to tank so every enclosure looks different than the other (not just in landscaping but in plant species selection). Maybe one tank that focuses on ferns, another with broms, etc. Or even if you keep primarily egg feeders and use broms for their tadpole rearing, you can still have each tank have a different type of brom to maintain some aesthetic diversity. So even with keeping just a few species per tank, you can still enjoy diversity in your collection (if it interests you that is).


Thats kinda what I've been going for Michael. I don't care for having ten identical habitats and terrariums in my house, especially since I'm not trying to breed a large number of frogs. It seems to make more sense in doing different representations of various darts and their habitats. You can do different things too, my highland set-up allows me to keep thumbnails with lots of cooler temp orchids and aroids. My lowland set-up for pumilio will allow a much different look with less plant species and larger aroids, as well as a compost pile of leaf litter/palm fronds.



Corpus Callosum said:


> One other thing - I keep hearing a lot about two-three plants species types of tanks - I have seen a couple 10gal tanks like this, dominated by creeping fig or selaginella that were cool, but I would really like to see more that function well as dart frog tanks and look good. There must be some out there, because I have seen this concept mention a number of times in the last couple weeks.


My next project is going to attempt to pull this look off. I'm working on an extensive buttress system for the back and a small tree trunk. Hopefully I will be able to recreate the actual species of trees in epoxy, using live ones at the National Zoo as a model. It would make sense to have at least 5-10 species in a set-up like that, I don't think that would be going too far. You can easily go into the neighborhood woods and find that many plant species in a square yard. I would at least pick plants that fill different niches, ie: 1-3 good larger aroids to use as the main focus, balanced out by possibly using each one in the corners to fill that area out.Then get 1-2 types of creepers like Marcgravia going up a trunk, 1-2 species of small specialty plant such as a more delicate orchid or epiphytic fern. Ground cover could be a final species of Epicia or Fittonia, etc. Actual quantities of individual plant species can be many, it would be very natural to have repetitive growths of certain plants. 

Better hardscape materials should be considered as well. We've all seen plenty of tanks that feature large quantities of rock hard, bleached driftwood that looks like its been sitting in the Outer Banks for a century. What about using more than just leaf litter and rocks for a forest floor? The ground in the forest is often littered with piles of rotting logs, all great habitats for amphibians and their prey. Farther more, tropical habitats will have specific types of debri that makes them authentic. Whenever I go herping in the Florida Keys I notice the huge piles of dead palm trunks that litter the ground, and these are full of area specific herps. So each dart frog habitat will probably have something that makes that area unique. How many times do you see dart set-ups with real palm fronds and seed pods littering the ground? We could even eleminate the potential instability of certain decor like logs by fabricating artificial reproductions, just like zoos do.

Just some thoughts.....


----------



## morselchip (Jul 17, 2008)

I look forward to seeing your buttress tank JoshH! I will venture to say that creating the conditions the plants need to truly thrive will also be benificial for the frogs (i.e. drier seasons, changing photoperiod). Unfortunately, I am guilty of merely keeping plants that will do well in a terrarium- rather than those that are likely to be seen in my frog's natural habitat. For those of you who travel to these natural areas, I appreciate the pics that you bring back! It does make it easier to design a habitat. In the future I would like to find local plant species.... I think it's going to take quite a bit of research to figure out locales though!


----------



## jpstod (Sep 8, 2005)

The Majority of us rely upon what we see on the Forums as to what a PDF or any Critters "natural environment" looks like. Very Few of us have actually been to the Regions where they come from to see what it really does look like. And Regional Plants are extremely hard to come by.

Do Broms actually cover every square inch of a Branch?
Does Light shine everywhere?
Is every inch of the Floor covered with Moss?

I use Compost in my tanks as soil..usually no drainage..absolutely no false Bottoms.
I use Earthworms and Pill Bugs.

Every tank should be unique. 

The Hobby is continuing to grow, as such hopefully so will equipment and supplies. Hopefully every Major supplier will soon carry their own versions of light weight 3D realistic Backgrounds, 3D Rock Formations, 3D Rock Ledges, A Variety of renewable Vines and Branches. More availability of exotic regional Plants.
Sadly this limited source of materials lead to less diversity in Tanks than we actually find in real areas.

Locally in only the Last 2 Years we started to get more tanks than just Aquariums..We can't even get the ZooMed Tanks Backgrounds right Now.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Mike,




roxrgneiss said:


> I think what I am trying to argue is a combination of my obvservations and presonal opinion on the subject. I view the average terrarium footprint, ~1.5 - 2.5' squared (maybe more for some) as a limiting factor in recreating dart frog habitat, so rather than try to make the habitat look exactly as it would in nature, I think providing more visual barriers and area through the use of many plants is justified, regardless of whether the species is arboreal or terrestrial, respectively (imagine a tank that is a several cubic feet in total area). However, I don't suggest that a tangled mess at the ground level is best for dart frog terrarium habitat. I agree that leaf litter is important for cover and macrofauna, but I don't think it, as the dominant terrarium floor feature, makes up for the lack of area the frogs have for living space and the lack of large/broad cover from tank mates and human observers when it is needed. I feel that a combination of plants that provide good cover and leaf litter together is an improvement on just one or the other. This, as I mentioned, is my personal perspective on the matter and greatly affects the way I will construct and plant a dart frog terrarium.


I was going to try and edit that down a little but I don't think I can without losing the main points. Maybe we should have a slight discussion here about visual barriers (at least for those who may not have exposure to the concept). 

Visual barriers are exactly that, they allow the animals to escape a direct line of sight from one another. This is often interpreted as requiring a verticle barrier between animals... however if the other animal is able to utilize an elevated position then simple verticle barriers to sight become useless and we need to consider various aspects of horizontal barriers that contain width and depth. 
Visual barriers utilizing plants typically provide a limited sight barrier (as do logs, rocks or other items that are fairly solid) as this only provides a break in the sight barrier when one animal is on one side or the other while a decent depth of leaf litter provides a multilayer sight barrier that also allows one animal to take refuge from another. 
I suspect this is not attainable to many of people who use a leaf litter as they boil, steam or bake thier dry leaves reducing their ability to maintain shape in the terraria and increasing the rate of thier breakdown. This prevents the leaf litter from providing multiple hides in thier depth which provided visual barriers in a multidimensional manner through the multiple niches provided by the pile of leaves however if the leaf litter is not replaced as it becomes compacted in the terraria then it loses this value. 




roxrgneiss said:


> Good call, I hadn't thought of the Ca rich bentonites. I should reread the clay subs discussions. But these volcanic ashes don't comprise much dart frog habitat soils, do they?


I don't know how much of the dart frog habitat is actually volcanic ashes but they are found in the habitats... 




roxrgneiss said:


> Concerning the Ca being used up in a reaction with Humic acid and CaCO3 (yes, I meant calcium carbonate before too), I suppose what I was trying to get at (and I'm no chemist!) is once enough calcium has been added to neutralize the Humic acid, would the further addition of Ca (in whatever form) be held in the organic matter, as it happens to have a much greater CEC than any clays? Or would adding enough Ca, such that it would be available to the frogs, cause the organic matter to become too basic?


I think that at that point, you would have ruined the soil for plants. If there is too much calcium ion in the mix, the soils compact and become very poor for plant growth. 



roxrgneiss said:


> Well, I have seen the granules for myself and I think the process and ingredients that goes into making them produces a good granulated clay substrate to begin with. But what I was referring to is the long term form retention of the granules in a dart frog terrarium, considering the correct inverts might not be available to continue the granulation processes, even if the fungi and bacterium are present. Might the granules eventually lose their texture over time without _all_ the correct forms of bioturbation, secretions, etc necessary to form them in nature? What is the shelf life of an artificial clay granule once it is wet and 'underfoot'?


We're still testing this out however one should be able to simulate the process with locally available invertebrates. Some of the enclosures have been set up for several years at least and are still functioning well. Brent Brock's pumilio enclosure was one of the first and has been up and running for years now. 





roxrgneiss said:


> with aside from collecting them with soil from dart frog habitats in person.


As I understand it, the goverment takes a dim view of non-sterile soil being imported from outside the borders. 




roxrgneiss said:


> One problem I have with using clay soils currently, is that it will limit the variety of plants that can be used, which is why I would like to know what plants readily available will surive in such clay soils exclusively..


I have to ask on what are you basing this? For an example of plant growth check out this set up using only calcium bentonite mixed with peat. A tree fern even grew out of some of the osmunda fiber and rooted directly into the clay substrate (I had to cut it out when it got too big and was shading out the rest of the tank.) The bromeliad is still growing new pups.. http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/parts-construction/33471-red-clay-substrate.html 




roxrgneiss said:


> Furthermore, I think immulating the constant addition, breakdown, and leaching of organics/nutrients in a dart frog terrarium as it occurs in nature may be a considerable hurdle when mixes, like ABG, aren't being used, because the clays themselves only contribute a little to the growth and developement of plants. There have to be some limits on how much of a functioning ecosystem we can recreate in a tank.


This is part of what the use of leaf litter accomplishes. It provides that layer where the breakdown occurs and the slow but continual addition emulates the breakdown, leachage of organics and nutrients as well as providing a good location for invertebrates grown and reproduce in effect creating a refugia. 



roxrgneiss said:


> As a compromise, would a significant covering of a Ca enriched clay soil (perhaps a mix of Ca bentonite and the QuickDry mix mentioned previously or fired laterite) above a nearly equal layer of organic material below work to serve both the needs of the dart frogs and the needs of the plants? Perhaps this won't work due to chemical reactions or the clay ash leaching downward?


How would you keep this aerobic? 


Some comments,

Ed


----------



## Gdbyrd (Nov 25, 2008)

I've been to some PDF's local habitats and I wish to hell I had looked a little closer : / I can tell you that in a square yard(as someone else was saying) there's a whole hell of a lot more going on then you can imagine. Limiting a tank to 2-3 plants species would not be like the areas I saw. 

Ultimately I think we need to look at what the frogs like. If they're happy, we should be too. Not saying we shouldn't try, but I feel overcomplicating things is more effort than needed. If you're trying to do something different, you're going to have to go way out of the spectrum. Even though this is a relatively new hobby..almost all of this has already been done.


Just my 2 copper.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

JoshH said:


> My next project is going to attempt to pull this look off. I'm working on an extensive buttress system for the back and a small tree trunk. Hopefully I will be able to recreate the actual species of trees in epoxy, using live ones at the National Zoo as a model. It would make sense to have at least 5-10 species in a set-up like that, I don't think that would be going too far.


If you do this and include some horizontal branches you can increase the number of species as you can then look to emulate things like ant gardens. 




JoshH said:


> piles of rotting logs, all great habitats for amphibians and their prey.


this is in my opinion an underutilized option but it is also much more difficult to avoid unwanted additions to the enclosures (such as roach species, large centipedes, large wolf spiders...nemerteans). 


Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

jpstod said:


> Do Broms actually cover every square inch of a Branch?


Sometimes. It depends where the tree is and how much light it recieves at that point. 



jpstod said:


> Does Light shine everywhere?


Not directly. 



jpstod said:


> Is every inch of the Floor covered with Moss?


Usually no. 

Ed


----------



## jpstod (Sep 8, 2005)

Ed said:


> Sometimes. It depends where the tree is and how much light it recieves at that point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thats the Point I am trying to make. Not every Environment is Identical and every tank should not be also.

We tend to rush things also when we do tanks. Where we could use 2 Plants of the same species and let them grow in and eventually get natural cover, we use 20 different species and try for total immediate coverage. Which tend to die faster. Why because 20 plants will use up the limited nutrients faster than 2. Our Tanks don't accumulate decaying Materials fast enough the provide Nutrients.

We want light to be bright everywhere in Tanks so they display good, not appear Naturally filtrated from above.

Someone says the Soil is not an important factor in a tank. I totally disagree. Look at Nature. Poor soil leads to plant death, which lead to soil erosion. A Healthy soil leads to a healthy environment. And that Means healthy Animals.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

jpstod said:


> Thats the Point I am trying to make. Not every Environment is Identical and every tank should not be also.


I don't think anyone in the thread has advocated that each enclosure has to be identical to some other enclosure. 



jpstod said:


> We tend to rush things also when we do tanks. Where we could use 2 Plants of the same species and let them grow in and eventually get natural cover, we use 20 different species and try for total immediate coverage. Which tend to die faster. Why because 20 plants will use up the limited nutrients faster than 2. Our Tanks don't accumulate decaying Materials fast enough the provide Nutrients.


If the system was a closed system then there might be issues with nutrient depeletion and binding up of nutrients but all of the enclosures are open systems with significant nutritional inputs (such as leaflitter, fruit flies, supplement dust) so I'm not sure why you think that nutrient depletion is an issue. 



jpstod said:


> We want light to be bright everywhere in Tanks so they display good, not appear Naturally filtrated from above.


Actually it would really only be filtered if the species in question were located only in a unbroken primary forest enviroment, many species do very well in edge or disturbed habitat (like O. pumilio for example). This would usually also not be true for arboreal species inhabiting ephiphyte gardens. 



jpstod said:


> Someone says the Soil is not an important factor in a tank. I totally disagree. Look at Nature. Poor soil leads to plant death, which lead to soil erosion. A Healthy soil leads to a healthy environment. And that Means healthy Animals.


Most of the discussion on here has been for healthy soil... and the comment about erosion doesn't seem very relevent to a terrarium discussion. 

Ed


----------



## roxrgneiss (Sep 30, 2007)

Hey Ed, thanks for your time and efforts in setting the record straight. 



Ed said:


> Hi Mike,
> I was going to try and edit that down a little but I don't think I can without losing the main points. Maybe we should have a slight discussion here about visual barriers (at least for those who may not have exposure to the concept).
> 
> Visual barriers are exactly that, they allow the animals to escape a direct line of sight from one another. This is often interpreted as requiring a verticle barrier between animals... however if the other animal is able to utilize an elevated position then simple verticle barriers to sight become useless and we need to consider various aspects of horizontal barriers that contain width and depth.
> ...


I have plants and other elements of tanks providing both vertical and horizontal barriers, at almost all levels of the tank that offer visual escape, which makes for decent cover. This is in addition to the leaf litter I use. As I said before, I don't think one or the other is best, but rather a combination of barriers.

I will step away from this aspect though; I know your experience and knowledge in the area of keeping animals in enclosures is senior to mine.  I have my own way of doing things that seems to work well for me. 





Ed said:


> I don't know how much of the dart frog habitat is actually volcanic ashes but they are found in the habitats...


I can imagine that the thickest areas of such volcanic ash deposition will be closest to the volcano from which they issue, generally, so where the habitat is in relation to such volcanic activity in the past, whose ash beds are now somewhat exposed to weathering and biopedoturbation is important. I don't know what dart frog habitats fall under this category, but I will guess the number is not high. Just a guess though - I know more about volcanoes than I do about poison dart frogs.




Ed said:


> I think that at that point, you would have ruined the soil for plants. If there is too much calcium ion in the mix, the soils compact and become very poor for plant growth.


I was thinking something like that could happen.



Ed said:


> We're still testing this out however one should be able to simulate the process with locally available invertebrates. Some of the enclosures have been set up for several years at least and are still functioning well. Brent Brock's pumilio enclosure was one of the first and has been up and running for years now.


This is good information to know, thanks.




Ed said:


> As I understand it, the goverment takes a dim view of non-sterile soil being imported from outside the borders.


Yes, I know and that does make good sense - I was trying to illustrate what the best way of adding a truly natural component to dart frog soils would be and the difficulty therein. 



Ed said:


> I have to ask on what are you basing this? For an example of plant growth check out this set up using only calcium bentonite mixed with peat. A tree fern even grew out of some of the osmunda fiber and rooted directly into the clay substrate (I had to cut it out when it got too big and was shading out the rest of the tank.) The bromeliad is still growing new pups.. http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/parts-construction/33471-red-clay-substrate.html


This is going to sound lame, but I am having a hard time putting into words why it is I think this. One place to start is, that these kinds of clay soils have particularly low CECs and much the nutrients and water in these clay soils that is available to plants is due to the organic component, however low that may be. This is something I have done some reading on, but I am not an expert. If you would like, I can send you a short paper, describing some general aspects of oxisols. The references it provides are pretty good also.

The other thing I would mention is that the kinds of plants that you might choose for terrariums may differ from those I might prefer, and so we could be looking at this from the perspectives of growing different things. I think some of the plants I like to grow in a terrarium, especially epiphytes, might appreciate more air space in the substrate mix through larger particles. I know that may sound strange, but there are a number of epiphytic/lithophytic plants that grow well or better in substrate when grown in a terrarium. This is mostly a hunch though, as I have not yet tried to grow the plants I enjoy growing in such a clay soil.

So, at the moment, I have no proof for that one! 

By the way, your tank looks cool with that pteris fern growing so well and thickly in the tree fern. I have some of that volunteering fern as well, it is pretty neat.



Ed said:


> This is part of what the use of leaf litter accomplishes. It provides that layer where the breakdown occurs and the slow but continual addition emulates the breakdown, leachage of organics and nutrients as well as providing a good location for invertebrates grown and reproduce in effect creating a refugia.
> 
> Ed


One of the reasons I like ABG mixes is because there are few plants I cannot grow in them. I would venture to guess that the amount of organics in clay soils such as can be found in most dart frog habitats is generally much much lower than an entirely organic substrate mix, however I do know that some of the soils found in rainforests are ultisols that will have a fairly high amount of organics compared [to homemade or store-bought clay soils]. The upper layers of soils higher in organics (ultisols) would be almost comparable to an ABG sort of substrate mix, probably more so than a clay mix. This is not to suggest that the ranges of even half the poison dart frog species overlaps ultisols - this does point to the possibility that not all pdf exhibits should be set up with exclusively clay mix + leaf litter substrates if the 'most' natural, to the species home range, soils are to be reproduced. However, most soils in new world rainforests do contain an oxic layer, but that may or may not be achievable to reproduce in a display tank.

While I am interested in the topic of soils, perhaps I should bow out soon, if not now, because I don't think my views on the matter are contributing much to this thread. 

I'll have more to say about other aspects of terrarium design though.

Mike


----------



## jpstod (Sep 8, 2005)

Ed said:


> If the system was a closed system then there might be issues with nutrient depeletion and binding up of nutrients but all of the enclosures are open systems with significant nutritional inputs (such as leaflitter, fruit flies, supplement dust) so I'm not sure why you think that nutrient depletion is an issue.


Because More plants use up the nutrients faster than less plants. The amount of Composting materials will not be that much. In a small tank, the nutrients being replaced will not be as fast as they are used up. Also In a Tank that has a Misting system and a drain the nutrients will be washed out of the tank. So Unless that water is being reused in the tank you loose the washed out nutrients.

Another factor that most people tend to over look for composting..Temperature. Organic Materials compost faster at High temperatures. We did an Experiment down at the Nature Center..a 10 Gallon Container kept at 60*F yeilded 1/20th of the amount of usable Soil than a 10 Gallon container kept at 80*F. Both Containers where the same..They were rotated on a Timer for the same amount of time and received the same measured amount of water.

No soil erosion won't be a problem, because if a Plant starts to die..we just yank it and replace it.


----------



## jpstod (Sep 8, 2005)

roxrgneiss said:


> While I am interested in the topic of soils, perhaps I should bow out soon, if not now, because I don't think my views on the matter are contributing much to this thread.
> 
> Mike


Actually I believe that everyone who is participating is contributing.
An Open Minded discussion is valuable to everyone. As you said, you have experiences with soil types and Plant types that I don't. I have not been doing Vivariums and much as others have. Myself I believe that if we close our eyes to others methods we won't be as successful. Why because we use what we know works..So without input from someone else who has tried different stuff we won't change our own techniques. Discussion lead to reason why our techniques fail or succeed.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

roxrgneiss said:


> Hey Ed, thanks for your time and efforts in setting the record straight.


 '

Hi Mike,

I don't think I'm trying to set the record straight so much as explain where some of our ideas are coming from. If there is any straightening of the record, you've been doing your part as well. 





roxrgneiss said:


> This is going to sound lame, but I am having a hard time putting into words why it is I think this. One place to start is, that these kinds of clay soils have particularly low CECs and much the nutrients and water in these clay soils that is available to plants is due to the organic component, however low that may be. This is something I have done some reading on, but I am not an expert. If you would like, I can send you a short paper, describing some general aspects of oxisols. The references it provides are pretty good also.


The idea is that there are nutrients involved. In the substrates I've been (personally) working with so far (and I've set up several variations of them), the top portion (varies on the test enclosure) has some level of organic material mixed into it (ranging from peat to cypress mulch fines). 
However, organics are also going to be transported into the clay soils via degredation of the materials (like the leaf litter or dead ffs or frog poop) via passive and direct methods (leachage for passive for an example and invertebrate action via a direct method). There are some papers out there on better growth using at least calcined clays. 



roxrgneiss said:


> The other thing I would mention is that the kinds of plants that you might choose for terrariums may differ from those I might prefer, and so we could be looking at this from the perspectives of growing different things. .


Yep although I am slowly working my way through some broad groups.. I am going to be setting up some more over the next couple of months and take some others down and see how the plants did in them. Sounds like a good reason to try some tests out... You can always pot a plant in a mixture and see how it does as opposed to trying the whole tank out. 




roxrgneiss said:


> By the way, your tank looks cool with that pteris fern growing so well and thickly in the tree fern. I have some of that volunteering fern as well, it is pretty neat..


I had to remove it as it choked out one bromeliad and was starting to choke out another. Now you can't tell where the tree fern and the clay are seperate. There are several different mosses covering everything in a patchy growth pattern. The bromeliad in the lower right side of the pictures is pupping like crazy and spreading. It should establish on the wall soon and it'll really go nuts from there. 





roxrgneiss said:


> This is not to suggest that the ranges of even half the poison dart frog species overlaps ultisols - this does point to the possibility that not all pdf exhibits should be set up with exclusively clay mix + leaf litter substrates if the 'most' natural, to the species home range, soils are to be reproduced. However, most soils in new world rainforests do contain an oxic layer, but that may or may not be achievable to reproduce in a display tank.


If for example one was attempting as close as possible to replicate a arboreal habitat one wouldn't use a clay soil mix. One would probably create a false bottom and cover it with several layers of leaf litter starting with a non-earth worm decomposed leaf and wood product and build it up until you get to whole leaves and twigs. The epiphytes would then be planted in clumps in this material with some small vining species or possibly one of the bromeliad dwelling utricularias. 



roxrgneiss said:


> While I am interested in the topic of soils, perhaps I should bow out soon, if not now, because I don't think my views on the matter are contributing much to this thread.
> 
> I'll have more to say about other aspects of terrarium design though....


I think I'll disagree with this as it has expanded the discussion and ideas on the topic which should be a foundation in starting a naturalistic biotope. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

jpstod said:


> Because More plants use up the nutrients faster than less plants. The amount of Composting materials will not be that much. In a small tank, the nutrients being replaced will not be as fast as they are used up. Also In a Tank that has a Misting system and a drain the nutrients will be washed out of the tank. So Unless that water is being reused in the tank you loose the washed out nutrients..


Again this is ignoring the significant nutrient inputs into the system. Can you provide a citation that shows in an open system with nutrient inputs going into a terrarium that the nutrients are going to be used up faster and the plants will die? I'd be interested as it would go against over 20 years of working with animals, and plants in enclosures..... 




jpstod said:


> Another factor that most people tend to over look for composting..Temperature. Organic Materials compost faster at High temperatures. We did an Experiment down at the Nature Center..a 10 Gallon Container kept at 60*F yeilded 1/20th of the amount of usable Soil than a 10 Gallon container kept at 80*F. Both Containers where the same..They were rotated on a Timer for the same amount of time and received the same measured amount of water..


This is relevent to the discussion of naturalistic terraria in what way? 



jpstod said:


> No soil erosion won't be a problem, because if a Plant starts to die..we just yank it and replace it.


How does yanking a dieing plant (assuming it dies in the first place) prevent soil erosion as at the very least you are removing organic materials that can help bind the soil together? 

Ed


----------



## JoshH (Feb 13, 2008)

Ed said:


> How does yanking a dieing plant (assuming it dies in the first place) prevent soil erosion as at the very least you are removing organic materials that can help bind the soil together? Ed


What I think he is saying is that if a plant is not doing well then it most likely will be replaced in the terrarium. I don't think that I've ever really had an erosion issue in any of my tanks, maybe I'm not misting as diligently as I should be.



Ed said:


> If for example one was attempting as close as possible to replicate a arboreal habitat one wouldn't use a clay soil mix. One would probably create a false bottom and cover it with several layers of leaf litter starting with a non-earth worm decomposed leaf and wood product and build it up until you get to whole leaves and twigs. The epiphytes would then be planted in clumps in this material with some small vining species or possibly one of the bromeliad dwelling utricularias. Ed


Are you suggesting that an aboreal setup should be designed with the enclosure bottom as the "tree branch"? As in making the whole tank a section of branch/trunk that is covered in mosses, litter, and epiphytes? This would present a totally different way of doing an aboreal display compared to the typical systems that replicate a whole miniture tree or rock wall covered in epiphytes. Have you done anything like this or have any pics of a similar setup?


----------



## JoshH (Feb 13, 2008)

For now I would say that the soil in modern terraria may not be perfectly accurate, but it works. The ABG mix is great for a huge variety of plants as Mike explained. Sure it breaks down, thats why we are playing with clay and other mineral materials. The clay methods are great, but they still need long term testing. For God's sake I have plenty of tanks with plants growing in leaf litter or pond soil on bare foam, and they are all fine. I don't think most of use are having difficulty in maintaining plants in our terrariums at this point, nutrients may not be at the ideal levels but that can easily be made up for using organic fertilizer or worm poop. The main goal here is to provide a long lasting substrate and work up from there. 

Many of the very best biotopic and naturalistic displays from Europe and the US (like Variance) have been planted on bare media with little organic or loose soil. Even the ones at NAIB are on moss covered fiberglass and epoxy. In a way this is pretty accurate if one is designing a epiphytic or lithophytic set-up.

I'm hoping this thread gets a chance to cover the planting and decoration aspects of the terrarium. Maybe better, more realistic backgrounds, roots, theories on planting, how many plants in one tank, different habitats, etc.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

JoshH said:


> Are you suggesting that an aboreal setup should be designed with the enclosure bottom as the "tree branch"? As in making the whole tank a section of branch/trunk that is covered in mosses, litter, and epiphytes? This would present a totally different way of doing an aboreal display compared to the typical systems that replicate a whole miniture tree or rock wall covered in epiphytes. Have you done anything like this or have any pics of a similar setup?



I am suggesting making the whole bottom the branch.. When working with smaller enclosures it is often difficult to get the elevated branching to work right. If you elevate the bottom and make that the "branch", it significantly increases the available space for true arboreal species. If you have a long and relatively shallow enclosure you can even have bare patches spread apart to simulate some patchy distributions that can occur in the branches. If you try a species in these like vents you can even get seperate family "groups" inhabiting the patches and can replicate the social parasitism that this species is known to use. 
As a concept, one could turn tanks like 20 longs on the side and make a front opening verticle from it with an elevated bottom to simulate a narrower branch to space things out a little further. I don't think they make them anymore but a 33 long would also be an option for this sort of enclosures. 

I have tried some set ups along these lines years ago but unfortunately didn't take pictures of them. 

To push the concept a little more.. one could even build a narrow strip of a false bottom and plant that to simulate the branch. The rest of the bottom could be bare or covered with a shallow pool with some short aquatic plant growth (like azolla and duckweed). (this can also be adapted to create "shorelines" for pond and stream dwelling species. 

Some thoughts,

Ed


----------



## JoshH (Feb 13, 2008)

Interesting Ed, I always thought about doing something like this but never tried it. One could even take a fake or real log/branch and run it from one side to the other. Another similar idea would be to take a tall vertical tank and make the entire back a section of a tree trunk, even incorperate some sort of crotch or basin for water to accumilate. Use just a few clumps of bromeliads and some sort of creeper like peperomia and that could be it. The tank would still be an epiphyte garden but would show just 3 or 4 main plant species. Granted this would be an entirely vertical habitat but it should be right for something like amazonicus or reticulatus......

If you did the whole branch from one side to the other than you could simulate air by using water like you suggested. Having water under the branch would keep the frogs on the branch, in the same way that air would, if that makes any sense. 

I wonder if anyone else has done similar setups......we need to get some pics of high-end displays on here that kinda fit into this catagory.


----------



## ghettopieninja (Jul 29, 2008)

I have thought about the same thing in terms of a horizontal orientation for the arboreal species, it definitely makes sense as the amount of epiphytes on branches seems to be higher than the amount on the trunks of trees but I could never get around what would go on the bottom the tank, gravel would work, but would look out of place, also a completely water bottom is another good idea, but I can only imagine the amount dead fruit flies that would quickly accumulate along with other debris if the bottom was not drilled, in which case there would have to be something over the bulk head in order to prevent frogs from being sucked in, but I still would not feel comfortable with it. It is definitely something to pursue, but I personally feel that a vertical tree trunk has more utilizable area for the frogs as well as more niches for springtails and other micro fauna to colonize. 

On a different note I think lighting is something that needs to be discussed more than it is. In my opinion many dendrobate keepers tend to under light there tanks, more higher wattage and the bulbs in the correct degrees Kelvin (from 5,500 to 6,500 for the closest to day light) I feel can substantially improve both plant and animal health. 

I started sorting through my Costa Rica pic which I haven't done for the last two years! I will post any good reference ones.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Josh,



JoshH said:


> Interesting Ed, I always thought about doing something like this but never tried it. One could even take a fake or real log/branch and run it from one side to the other.


When I tried this in the past I was never happy with it for a number of reasons (mostly aesthetic) as the floor always seem obtrusive to me and I couldn't get the right seperation from the floor to the branch. 
One of the ones I was more happy with was the result of taking a branch about 4 inches thick and in several sections cutting the top of the branch flat and then routing out shallow areas to hold the plants and the substrate. I then added drain holes to prevent the plants from drowning. This did well until the branch rotted through. All of the attempts I've made using hollow cork branches didn't work right for me. The branches were tough to secure, hard to prevent the frogs from getting inside of them, and fell apart from the weight of the wet media and decomposition too soon. 



JoshH said:


> Another similar idea would be to take a tall vertical tank and make the entire back a section of a tree trunk, even incorperate some sort of crotch or basin for water to accumilate..


I've been pondering ways (in some cases for years now) to do this that would allow the best use of the tank. The trunk would have to be in place before the door was put on the enclosure so to get the best fit. I haven't had time to dink with it (mainly due to the clay experiments) but I do have high density styrofoam and hydrostone that I intend to use to work towards this goal. I would suggest a couple of off set broken off branches protruding towards the front of the enclosure to give it an increased feel of depth as well as alternate planting/tadpole deposition areas (one could also sculpt in holes in the tree and install a drain so you could pull out a stopper and flush tadpoles into a cup for collection if one chose (or to clean). I tend to view this type of set up for not only arboreal species but species that often climb to find tadpole deposition sites like pumilio. 


Another alternative often overlooked is the habitat that could be created/available if a larger branch is either dangling (smaller branches below the thicker piece) or sculpted as if it fell to the floor. 


Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

ghettopieninja said:


> also a completely water bottom is another good idea, but I can only imagine the amount dead fruit flies that would quickly accumulate along with other debris if the bottom was not drilled, in which case there would have to be something over the bulk head in order to prevent frogs from being sucked in, but I still would not feel comfortable with it..


Regular window screen can be siliconed over it. If the water is allowed to drain passively then there shouldn't be any suction to catch the frogs (the misting would wash nutrients down). It could be flushed with a gallon or so of water at the keeper's convience. 




ghettopieninja said:


> It is definitely something to pursue, but I personally feel that a vertical tree trunk has more utilizable area for the frogs as well as more niches for springtails and other micro fauna to colonize.


This depends a lot on how it is set up. A good branch set up can have a lot of usable space as well as niches for springtails. The substrate here can be very friendly to inverts and a couple of inches of substrate can often be accomedated on a branch if design is right (see above). One could even build refugia into a branch and hide it. A small door could be incorporated to allow for supplemental feeding of the inverts. 



ghettopieninja said:


> On a different note I think lighting is something that needs to be discussed more than it is. In my opinion many dendrobate keepers tend to under light there tanks, more higher wattage and the bulbs in the correct degrees Kelvin (from 5,500 to 6,500 for the closest to day light) I feel can substantially improve both plant and animal health.



I didn't think we were ignoring lighting but just hadn't got there yet. If possible, I think that UVB should be provided for the frogs but this also requires that sheltered areas be provided for the frogs to control thier exposure. 
I haven't seen anything that shows a difference in the kelvin rating in benefiting or harming the frogs but its worth considering. 

Ed


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

I really did intend to be active in this thread, but I have gotten so far behind.


----------



## jpstod (Sep 8, 2005)

Ed said:


> Again this is ignoring the significant nutrient inputs into the system. Can you provide a citation that shows in an open system with nutrient inputs going into a terrarium that the nutrients are going to be used up faster and the plants will die? I'd be interested as it would go against over 20 years of working with animals, and plants in enclosures.....


Not really understanding how much Organic debri accumulates in a tank, its really hard to say that every tank has the same amount of Nutrients being replaced or Depleted. I have had several Tanks thrive and others die quickly..Have you actually taken the soils and done testing on the Soils to see what Nutrients are in the soil and how fast they are replaced in a tank..Certain plants need less nutrients to survive. So if those plants are used primarly, maybe the Nutrients are not being replaced as fast as you assume.

Definately 20 years of experience in Vivariums give more basis as to why something works and something doesn't..Like I said before sometime we do stuff without fully understanding why.

I have never had any gecko poo tested to see how much nutrients are replaced every time one poos.. Basic principals of Science tells me that certain poos are good..but others are not..

However I can say that in Gardening if you don't rotate an area, after several seasons the plants don't grow as well or produce. What once was rich farm land is now barren farms. I have had certain flowerbeds with small amounts of plants do great, then die off when They Overgrowd. So I can say that in most cases, that the more plants there are, the faster the Nutrients are depleted.




Ed said:


> This is relevent to the discussion of naturalistic terraria in what way?


I think it revelant because there are not that many Tanks that are allowed to stay in the High 90's..Temperatures effect the decomposition of Organic Materials. When looking into the concept of a Natural Vivarium we need to understand why some thrive and why others don't





Ed said:


> How does yanking a dieing plant (assuming it dies in the first place) prevent soil erosion as at the very least you are removing organic materials that can help bind the soil together?
> 
> Ed


Well if the Slope of the Area is steep and if plants die and the area has constant Misting then the Dead roots will not keep the area in place. Again if Nature is allowed to replocate in a Vivarium...there would be more "California Mudslides" in our tanks.


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

jpstod said:


> However I can say that in Gardening if you don't rotate an area, after several seasons the plants don't grow as well or produce. What once was rich farm land is now barren farms. I have had certain flowerbeds with small amounts of plants do great, then die off when They Overgrowd. So I can say that in most cases, that the more plants there are, the faster the Nutrients are depleted.


Many vivarium plants are epiphytes that don't require a high amount of nutrients, and even the ones that aren't all come from areas with nutrient poor soil which they have adapted to. With respect to crop rotation, there are a lot of reasons for rotating crops (it's not as simple as just having too many plants in one area). But to name one, in canola farming for example, canola uses up a lot of nitrogen so they may rotate with legumes to fixate nitrogen and replenish the soil. Since our plants are from the tropics, they have adapted to have low nitrogen requirements and this isn't necessary for a vivarium ecosystem since you are constantly adding nutrients into the system by feeding the frogs.


----------



## Corpus Callosum (Apr 7, 2007)

roxrgneiss said:


> One other thing - I keep hearing a lot about two-three plants species types of tanks - I have seen a couple 10gal tanks like this, dominated by creeping fig or selaginella that were cool, but I would really like to see more that function well as dart frog tanks and look good. There must be some out there, because I have seen this concept mention a number of times in the last couple weeks.


Mike, not sure if this was along the lines of what you were talking about, but this image http://i448.photobucket.com/albums/qq208/armed2teeth/aruatustank.jpg?t=1228706701, was posted on the following thread http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/members-frogs-vivariums/34797-frog-room.html.


----------



## ghettopieninja (Jul 29, 2008)

Ed, I never thought that this thread was ignoring lighting! lol, I was just saying that in general many hobbyists tend to underestimate how important lighting is, I have seen a significant difference in growth between tanks lit with florescent tubes and those with compact florescent or metal halide lights. This is because the latter bulbs seem far closer to natural sunlight in terms of both the kind of light they put out and intensity. I would bet that this also effects frogs but like you said there hasn't been much done in this field. vivaria.nl it seems did do some testing in this area as far as UV goes:

"OUR RESULTS WITH ULTRA VIOLET LIGHT THIS FAR:

Young Epidobates tricolor separated in two groups of ten specimens. Group 1 receives ultra violet light; group 2 does not receive ultra violet light. After three months group 1 is noticeably redder than group 2.

A group of Phyllobates vittatus suffers from epileptic seizures, even after capturing them in a jar. After two months under ultra violet light, the frogs are less stressful. Most of them do not suffer from seizures anymore after we shake them in a jar.

A seven year old, green Dendrobates pumilio is almost coloured brown due to old age, hardly active and often fails to catch fruit flies. After placing under ultra violet light for two weeks, he becomes more active. After each peeling, his colour slowly turns from brown to green. Three peelings later, he is green again"

getting back to the tree branch ideas I would love to see your old setups Ed! perhaps the only way to get around the rotting issue is to fabricate the branches, perhaps using the foam and grout method, I have only done this to create rockwalls, but I am totally in love with it, I know user HX has done some increidible stuff, including trees (if anyone hasn't seen the fake rocks thread :http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/parts-construction/16605-making-fake-rocks.html) as well as Bbrock. 

I finally starting uploading some pictures from Costa Rica a few years ago, the first eight are from Arenal, where there are no dendrobates but looked very similar to were I saw auratus and pumilio two years prior. the rest are of the Monteverde Cloud Forest since I worked very close to it, no dendrobates though, only the fun things we can't get like atelopus and glass frogs but still awesome to look at:

Flickr: cclark07869's Photostream


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

ghettopieninja said:


> Ed, I never thought that this thread was ignoring lighting! lol, I was just saying that in general many hobbyists tend to underestimate how important lighting is, I have seen a significant difference in growth between tanks lit with florescent tubes and those with compact florescent or metal halide lights. This is because the latter bulbs seem far closer to natural sunlight in terms of both the kind of light they put out and intensity.


I would suspect that the differences in plant growth maybe due more to intensity than the differences in spectra between the two. If there wasa lot of concern about the spectra then a person could use one warm light and one cool light (getting the red and blue end of the spectra) to balance out the flourescent's spectrums. With respect to intensities, people can always use higher output lighting. 
But again with naturalistic enclosures we should be considering the species in question and where it is found. For example a species that is found in an edge habitat or disturbed site or up in the canopy is going to be exposed to a higher intensity of light than a species that is found in leaf litter under a primary canopy away from any major breaks. This will also affect what plants are used as well as thier nesting sites. 





ghettopieninja said:


> I would bet that this also effects frogs but like you said there hasn't been much done in this field. vivaria.nl it seems did do some testing in this area as far as UV goes:


A lot of this is already well understood. The seizures are due to insufficient calcium absorbtion. The sudden exertion results in a calcium imbalance in the muscles which causes the seizures. 
There have been other anecdotal reports of coloration attempts using UV and some show some changes and some do not.. a lot of it may have to do with changes in the diet prior to or along with the exposure. For example with tricolor.. other attempts at this have not worked but supplementation while still tadpoles with carotenoids does cause a change in pigmentation. 




ghettopieninja said:


> getting back to the tree branch ideas I would love to see your old setups Ed! perhaps the only way to get around the rotting issue is to fabricate the branches, perhaps using the foam and grout method, I have only done this to create rockwalls, but I am totally in love with it, I know user HX has done some increidible stuff, including trees (if anyone hasn't seen the fake rocks thread :http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/parts-construction/16605-making-fake-rocks.html) as well as Bbrock. :


They are long gone unfortunately. I was messing around with an old Pentax 35 mm camera and my success with picture was spotty to say the least. I have the supplies but haven't had the time to mess around with hydrostone over wire and/or styrofoam (this is what they used when they revamped our building). 

I'll check out the pictures later. I'm being summoned... 

Ed


----------



## JoshH (Feb 13, 2008)

Ed, can you get some pix of a setup done with Hydrostone? I check out public displays all the time and always wonder which is made of Hydrostone and which ones are made from epoxy. Any way to tell? I will probably be going the epoxy route to make some tree trunks/rotten logs since that is what NAIB used with excellent success.

The thing that I am wary of hydrostone is that you will have to color it and seal it using clearcoat epoxy. It almost seems better just to use the Polygem epoxy sculpting putty and you're done. Should be more chemically inert too......... Have you had a chance to work with any of that stuff?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

I was just checking my pictures on this computer and I don't have any of the entire enclosure but I do have some that show bits around the animals if you want to check them out. Shoot me a pm with your e-mail and I'll send them to you. 

I haven't worked with the epoxy yet but it was on my list of items to try further down the road. I wanted to try the hydrostone since I've seen it used and my wife used to mix it up to repair the naked mole rat exhibit. 

Any of the areas that were not expected to be under water 24/7 were sealed with a diluted/thinned epoxy so there isn't that real shiny coating you get from it. 

Ed


----------



## ghettopieninja (Jul 29, 2008)

I would love to hear more about both of these techniques, I have worked with the grout method for about a year now and am getting pretty good, should post some pics when I get my stuff back up to my place in jan.


----------



## Nick_ (Mar 24, 2008)

Ed said:


> I would suspect that the differences in plant growth maybe due more to intensity than the differences in spectra between the two. If there wasa lot of concern about the spectra then a person could use one warm light and one cool light (getting the red and blue end of the spectra) to balance out the flourescent's spectrums. With respect to intensities, people can always use higher output lighting.
> But again with naturalistic enclosures we should be considering the species in question and where it is found. For example a species that is found in an edge habitat or disturbed site or up in the canopy is going to be exposed to a higher intensity of light than a species that is found in leaf litter under a primary canopy away from any major breaks. This will also affect what plants are used as well as thier nesting sites.
> 
> 
> ...


I'm a total frog noob but a lighting geek by way of old occupation. I agree 100% with you ED on the importance of intensity as many people donot even know the diference. Growth rates in plants are directly affected by the 'type' of intensity given by a lamp. For example...standard and high output flourescents can put out a decently full spectrum (in terms of nm) but yeild very weak photon output. The critical factor of a lamp to stimulate photosynthetic activity is its P.A.R. output, which is a measurement of how many of the photons put out by the lamp are actually usefull to the process of photosynthesis. P.A.R. is photosythetic available radiation (there is another acronym named par) and the basic output to lamp type in sequence is the following;

Standard flourescent
HO flo.
HO T5 (in terms of efficiency)
Power compacts
Mogul Base metal halides __
DE HQI metal halides l______ The output also varies by ballast type immensley.
High Pressure Sodium lamps __l

The target range as mentioned for plant growth is the 5500-6500 kelvin range, and in the 380-400nm range of wavelength. 
The depth at which a light evectivley radiates its P.A.R. is also realtive to the list above, the standards yielding low par in short order, and the HPS lamps giving a healthy dose much farther away. I state this simply for plant growth, in terms of health of the frogs I cannot comment due to rampant noobery....= P. Do forgs use any UV to metabolise calcium and other compunds? If they do in any fashoin or form I would imagine that a brief regular dose of the uv given by nicer lamps would help. I love this thread, very interesting read.


----------



## capitale (Nov 7, 2008)

Nicholas OConnor said:


> I'm a total frog noob but a lighting geek by way of old occupation. I agree 100% with you ED on the importance of intensity as many people donot even know the diference. Growth rates in plants are directly affected by the 'type' of intensity given by a lamp. For example...standard and high output flourescents can put out a decently full spectrum (in terms of nm) but yeild very weak photon output. The critical factor of a lamp to stimulate photosynthetic activity is its P.A.R. output, which is a measurement of how many of the photons put out by the lamp are actually usefull to the process of photosynthesis. P.A.R. is photosythetic available radiation (there is another acronym named par) and the basic output to lamp type in sequence is the following;
> 
> Standard flourescent
> HO flo.
> ...


I agree with most of what you said, but PAR falls within the 400-700nm range (for most terrestrial plants). And the color temperature isn't a very good indicator of PAR; it describes the chromaticity of the light (the quality of its visible color) which is a somewhat vague indicator of how much of the lights output is PAR. Sorry for nitpicking


----------



## capitale (Nov 7, 2008)

Ed said:


> I would suspect that the differences in plant growth maybe due more to intensity than the differences in spectra between the two. If there wasa lot of concern about the spectra then a person could use one warm light and one cool light (getting the red and blue end of the spectra) to balance out the flourescent's spectrums. With respect to intensities, people can always use higher output lighting.
> 
> Ed


I don't agree with this. Plants use specific parts of the light spectrum (PAR) in varying degrees (this is dictated by the type of chlorophyll and its concentration in the plant). So, you could have a super intense light that produces as much PPFD as a light that is far less 'intense' depending on how the output is distributed in the spectrum (PPFD is the term used to quantify PAR photon density). The ideal light source for most plant's photosynthesis should have most of its output in the 420-500nm and 600-690nm range. If your interested, I can give you a link with spectral analysis on a bunch of different bulb/ballast combos.


----------



## Nick_ (Mar 24, 2008)

capitale said:


> I agree with most of what you said, but PAR falls within the 400-700nm range (for most terrestrial plants). And the color temperature isn't a very good indicator of PAR; it describes the chromaticity of the light (the quality of its visible color) which is a somewhat vague indicator of how much of the lights output is PAR. Sorry for nitpicking


 I never implied nor stated that CT was in relation to PAR, I infact elueded to the fact that they are seperate measurements that are (as you know) used for different refernces alltogether. No offense taken, I think you misunderstood the statement.



capitale said:


> I don't agree with this. Plants use specific parts of the light spectrum (PAR) in varying degrees (this is dictated by the type of chlorophyll and its concentration in the plant). So, you could have a super intense light that produces as much PPFD as a light that is far less 'intense' depending on how the output is distributed in the spectrum (PPFD is the term used to quantify PAR photon density). The ideal light source for most plant's photosynthesis should have most of its output in the 420-500nm and 600-690nm range. If your interested, I can give you a link with spectral analysis on a bunch of different bulb/ballast combos.



I realise you have an inate understanding of certain photo processes but you are implying PAR as a synonym for the light spectrum, this is not so (whether it was intentional or not). PAR density is in and of itself a unique measurement which (as you stated) can be quantified to show levels and distribution. Reef central has had very indepth discussions on the relevance of quantitive measurements and how the terms to relate them are used, it can be very easily misused or relayed. I do agree with you for the most part but I think the use of terms is very important, like PAR and then using the word photon directly after it to be simply misleading and/or incorrect. The general gist of it is right. Excuse me for the rant, I am not trying to prove any wrong...just want to clarify for anyone unfamiliar with the term PAR as it is very important in understanding lighting.

ED, do you have references to anymore papers on the processes and values of biomass export in viv's? I find the references to the amount brought 'in and out' of viv's as far as nutrients to be pretty interesting. Understanding how the "Microtope" that are vivariums consumes and converts organic matter could make for very usefull planning and logging information on our systems.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Nicholas OConnor said:


> P. Do forgs use any UV to metabolise calcium and other compunds? If they do in any fashoin or form I would imagine that a brief regular dose of the uv given by nicer lamps would help. I love this thread, very interesting read.


Yes they do.. specifically light in the UVB portion of the spectrum. 
There has been speculation (a lot on my part) that if they could see into the UVA portion of the spectra that there maybe behavorial item we are missing as these are very prevelent in some fish, birds and reptiles. However at least in O. pumilio they lack the structures required to see into this part of the spectra. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Nicholas OConnor said:


> ED, do you have references to anymore papers on the processes and values of biomass export in viv's? I find the references to the amount brought 'in and out' of viv's as far as nutrients to be pretty interesting. Understanding how the "Microtope" that are vivariums consumes and converts organic matter could make for very usefull planning and logging information on our systems.


Hi Nick,

I haven't been able to find a lot of items on terraria or vivariums. I think most of it has to be expanded out from what is known in natural systems.... 

Ed


----------



## Nick_ (Mar 24, 2008)

Ed said:


> Yes they do.. specifically light in the UVB portion of the spectrum.
> There has been speculation (a lot on my part) that if they could see into the UVA portion of the spectra that there maybe behavorial item we are missing as these are very prevelent in some fish, birds and reptiles. However at least in O. pumilio they lack the structures required to see into this part of the spectra.
> 
> Ed


 That is very good to know. I need to dig out my UV meter and see if I cannot start logging measurements into Metzcal for graphing an such.



Ed said:


> Hi Nick,
> 
> I haven't been able to find a lot of items on terraria or vivariums. I think most of it has to be expanded out from what is known in natural systems....
> 
> Ed


 Thanks.

Getting a very specific picture of the processes occuring with nutrients in the viv's will definatley help keep them going for the long haul. Im finding myself interested in the biomass consumed and produced over the life of a vivarium. Getting the numbers crunched on such a project could certainly help build the foundation to building a "natural" terrium. It would be really neat to get literal whieghts and measurements on input of food and water, and how much is actually consumed by out little forrests. Contemplating the vivarium as a whole, as an abstract organism, and fine tuning inputs to make it somewhat self-sustaining is making me drool. I cannot wait to setup my first big display. 
Ild like to thank you guys for making a great thread, lets keep this rolling!


----------



## capitale (Nov 7, 2008)

Nicholas OConnor said:


> I realise you have an inate understanding of certain photo processes but you are implying PAR as a synonym for the light spectrum, this is not so (whether it was intentional or not). PAR density is in and of itself a unique measurement which (as you stated) can be quantified to show levels and distribution. Reef central has had very indepth discussions on the relevance of quantitive measurements and how the terms to relate them are used, it can be very easily misused or relayed. I do agree with you for the most part but I think the use of terms is very important, like PAR and then using the word photon directly after it to be simply misleading and/or incorrect. The general gist of it is right. Excuse me for the rant, I am not trying to prove any wrong...just want to clarify for anyone unfamiliar with the term PAR as it is very important in understanding lighting.


I wasn't implying that PAR and the light spectrum were the same thing, just that PAR is inherent to a specific range in the spectrum. 

As for using the term 'PAR photon density', your right, the terminology was a bit miss-used. Sorry about that, I should have said photosynthetic photon density. Point taken. Who's nitpicking now???


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Nicholas OConnor said:


> Getting a very specific picture of the processes occuring with nutrients in the viv's will definatley help keep them going for the long haul. Im finding myself interested in the biomass consumed and produced over the life of a vivarium. Getting the numbers crunched on such a project could certainly help build the foundation to building a "natural" terrium. It would be really neat to get literal whieghts and measurements on input of food and water, and how much is actually consumed by out little forrests. Contemplating the vivarium as a whole, as an abstract organism, and fine tuning inputs to make it somewhat self-sustaining is making me drool. I cannot wait to setup my first big display.
> Ild like to thank you guys for making a great thread, lets keep this rolling!



Just keep in mind that the conversion is going to vary depending on the invertebrate, fungal and bacterial fauna in the system. One of the things we tend to do is set up systems that are very deficient overall fauna. I'm not sure how to get around the risk of pathogen introduction, but I would like to tinker around with introducing the fauna found at the leaf litter/soil interface in a decent forest system and see how that works. 

Ed


----------



## Nick_ (Mar 24, 2008)

Ed said:


> Just keep in mind that the conversion is going to vary depending on the invertebrate, fungal and bacterial fauna in the system. One of the things we tend to do is set up systems that are very deficient overall fauna. I'm not sure how to get around the risk of pathogen introduction, but I would like to tinker around with introducing the fauna found at the leaf litter/soil interface in a decent forest system and see how that works.
> 
> Ed


Definatley, it varies greatly. 
That sounds like an awesome idea. Akin to the concept of using sand/rock(Live sand/Liverock) directly from the ocean to help develope a more natural "mini-ecosystem", with diverse benthic fauna and such. Are an importers reading this...? I think we'll be seeing "Live Litter" next season.....= ). I look at everything through a reef tank btw. I think that is one of the most interesting concepts I have heard of yet.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Brent Brock's pumilio set up has a variety of invertebrates establised in a leaf litter over clay substrate. It has worked very well for him. 
This spring, I'll probably dig up some soil and set up some terraria to allow the inverts to cycle through and see what makes it. 

Ed


----------



## JoshH (Feb 13, 2008)

Hmmm, any new or breakthrough ideas to advance the naturalistic viv hobby?


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

I like these ideas... Some people may not expect me to say that since I've often discussed more "out there" FX and whatnot, but those are more for night time Usually. I personally want my vivs for the most part to look very natural by day. In some instances maybe a surreal idealized version of "natural", like some of the geyser landscapes of yellow stone nat. park, but still...Natural. There is no reason why you can't have a very accurate biotopic display by day then take advantage of a couple hours of night time when your viv is generally a dark void in the corner to have a more surreal viv experience. So I don't see the two approaches needing to exclude each other. Of course that is up to the individual.

I'd say viv building is an art, but I'd like to see the hobby move even more in that direction. There is a lot of "green" art, or art incorporating natural materials, even living organisms. Hell there are bio-luminescent art projects going on. I think using plants and materials native to the area you wish to represent is essentially another aspect of the "art", and could even be called an artistic technique and can compliment other aspects/techniques. 

One thing I don't see to much of and it kind of surprises me is people going with color themes and/or planting an entire viv with just a few plants species used repeatedly. Having all peru plants that flower white would be an awesome display, or any color really...or combinations of some colors...as would a tank done entirely in peacock moss and jewel orchids, or if you prefer other plant combos that are all from the same region and complement each other. I'm guilty of it too, and really there is nothing wrong with it but I think we need to experiment more with such things, instead of just throwing 2 dozen species of plants together with little thought towards the scene. Principles used in artistic dish gardens, and flower arranging and even zen gardens or other outdoor gardens/landscapes can be applied to the vivarium.

Another related issue is more creative hard-scapes, similar to what you see in aqua-scape. Those guys make tanks that blow the doors off most vivs and often they do it with nothing but a few rocks, some sand and half a dozen plant species...or less. No reason this can't be done with region specific plants and/or to represent an actual land scape feature of that region. Like say all Hawaiian plants, used around a field of lava rock boulders featuring Hawaiian green auratus as occupants.

There are terrestrial plants that would work to achieve the same basic look as those aquascapes, and the other materials are similar to what we use. seiryu stone and some of the other stones commonly used are really the only components that you don't often see used in vivs aside from the plants but the plants have vivarium counter parts that can achieve the same effect. Which brings me to another suggestion...more rock including the types used in aquascape like seiryu stone. Most tanks are drift wood focused. We are starting to see more rock based designs with artificials, but not much of it looks like the natural rock types used in aquascaping, and if you're going for a region specific look how much do they look like the rock actually found in our frogs native habitats? I think we need to and I plan to try more vivs using those materials and design principles.

Here are a few examples of what I mean...









































And a blog post that contains several more examples...
ADA Aquascape Contest 2005 Pics - Blog - VZTs: Volcano Zone Tourists - My profile - alivenotdead.com

Some might say..."well many of those designs are to barren for frogs", but I'm not necessarily talking about replicating them exactly, but rather incorporating some of the same design principles. For instance in those examples above just look at what they can achieve with very few plant species in many cases.

Here is something else we can do in our vivs...









Notice how one area is all done in red plants, or how in some tanks areas are done with certain foliage types or specific shades of green. There is no reason why we can't do similar things in vivs, in fact we can probably go beyond what they can achieve because of our larger variety of plants that offer more leaf color/pattern, foliage types, and flowering options. No reason you can't do such designs and/or hard scapeds in a biotopic manner either. Composition skills are an integral part of any art, and I think those skills are one area we need to improve on in our hobby, instead of just throwing a bunch of random plants in a random configuration into a box and hope it comes out pretty when it all grows in. Many of us do a little more then that of course, but still I think more focus needs to be put on composition, especially in the hard scape arena and experimenting with color/foliage themes or compositions that use few species but ones that compliment each other and/or the hard scape materials.

I see no reason why art can't help us to better represent nature, and also be used to draw attention to the art that is in fact inherent in nature already.


----------



## boabab95 (Nov 5, 2009)

> You guys could post pictures of what you think that would be a natural look in vivarium landscaping.


This is going back a bit, sorry if this was already discussed (it's Christmas, don't wanna read through it all right now...) But I think some people are over crowding their tanks with too many plants, IMO, they should have a GENEROUS amount of LL and only a few plants.

for example:


----------

