# tadpoles and nitrites & ammonia



## gary1218

I'm just starting to have some success with my first eggs/tadpoles. I think I'm doing what the majority does here with keeping each tadpole in a separate small plastic container. 

It seems though that everybody has their own ideas about how often they do water changes in the tadpole containers. Some every few days, some weekly, some rarely, some just top off any evaporated water.

My question is do you worry about nitrites and/or ammonia building up in the water and affecting the tads? Does anybody even test their water in the tad containers to see if it's present?

I tested my water after just a few days. There were no nitrites in the water but there was ammonia present. And no, I am not feeding heavily, just a few sprinkles of whatever every 2-3 days. The fry don't seem affected at all and they are growing nicely.

Is it anything to be concerned about?

Thanks.


----------



## sbreland

I've often wondered about it, but given how they reproduce in the wild it's probably a minimal concern. Many times in the wild these frogs grow up entirely in the equivalent of a thimble full of water and only get a rinse out with added rain water and do fine, so I often wonder if we worry about it too much. Now conversely I would be surprised if a tad grew up happy and healthy in the wild if it never got that little bit of fresh rain water to clean things out just a little every once in awhile, but I'm sure some still do. Ultimately these little guys are a product of evlolution and have most likely learned to adapt to the small amount of water they grow in and the increased amount of waste byproducts that will be in there. I do think though that the cleaner and healthier we can make the water the faster and healthier they will morph out, so I try not to go too far between the water changes.


----------



## O2 Plastics

You won't find nitrite for a while even in newly stocked aquariums. The waste is broken down to ammonia, then to nitrate, then to nitriate, and then if you're set up right, to free nitrogen. It can take a month or more for the process to happen.


----------



## zBrinks

ammonia ==> nitrite ==> nitrate


----------



## Ed

snip "You won't find nitrite for a while even in newly stocked aquariums. The waste is broken down to ammonia, then to nitrate, then to nitriate, and then if you're set up right, to free nitrogen. It can take a month or more for the process to happen."endsnip

Except that the tadpoles excrete ammonia into the water directly as a a waste product. Typically you should be seeing nitrite within about 2 weeks. 

There was a presentation done on this topic at one of the IADs. The tadpoles were kept in larger containers (a couple of quarts/tadpole) and the containers did cycle with the tadpoles in the containers. The water was not changed during the entire time but was simply topped up as needed with RO water. There were no documented ill effects to the tadpoles during the cycles. However he did acidify the water in the containers which would convert at least some of the ammonia to ammonium which is non-toxic. (this would also occur in the wild through the leaching of tannins into the tadpole tanks. 
Unfortunately they didn't track nitrite but the risk of nitrite toxicity can be off set by simply adding some salt to the water. The sodium helps prevent the uptake of the nitrite.

Ed


----------



## O2 Plastics

I stand corrected. I was drunk and on drugs at the time. I had recently been kicked in the head by a mule. My parents were cousins. 

I wasn't thinking and switched nitrite and 'trate around in my head. "trates being the last step before nitrogen, often won't show up until late in the cycle.

I hope you're all happy, I will go pout for a while now. :lol:


----------



## Dancing frogs

I use 9oz cups, with RO adjusted to 100ppm with ro right, and brought up to around 1 on the kH scale with pH stable, then around 3 mL per gallon blackwater extract. Each cup gets an oak leaf or two, plus a sprig of java moss, and are kept under a good bit of light.
Water changes weekly or more often if I get bored.
I don't have test kits for ammonia or other N products, so I can't provide measurements for that.
I eventually plan on trying to go with quart sized containers for each tad, perhaps with some sand or clay for substrate, and just top off the water instead of changing...hoping that one day I will be able to raise tads and have a bit of a social life :lol: .
For now though, what I'm doing is working well, and I hate to mess with something that is working.


----------



## gary1218

I'm an old tropical fish guy so I have the water test kits laying around to use on the tads.

I think if you're doing any kind of water changes nitrItes should never really be a problem. As somebody else mentioned it takes about a month for the ammonia to be converted over to nitrIte.

But, from the little bit of testing I've been doing on my first batch of tads ammonia seems to start building up right away. On the other hand though I can't say I've seen any kind of adverse effect on the tads. They seem to tolerate low ammonia levels just find. Again, if you're doing any kind of water changes and not feeding heavily it doesn't appear that it should be a problem.

I'm going to try some small 2.5 gallon tanks with a large clump of java moss and small sponge filters in them to cycle the tanks to see if it makes any kind of difference.


----------



## stchupa

sbreland said:


> I've often wondered about it, but given how they reproduce in the wild it's probably a minimal concern. Many times in the wild these frogs grow up entirely in the equivalent of a thimble full of water and only get a rinse out with added rain water and do fine, so I often wonder if we worry about it too much. Now conversely I would be surprised if a tad grew up happy and healthy in the wild if it never got that little bit of fresh rain water to clean things out just a little every once in awhile, but I'm sure some still do. Ultimately these little guys are a product of evlolution and have most likely learned to adapt to the small amount of water they grow in and the increased amount of waste byproducts that will be in there. I do think though that the cleaner and healthier we can make the water the faster and healthier they will morph out, so I try not to go too far between the water changes.


The amount/ratio should/would never increase/decrease (naturally).

You're talikng the wild but you're not thinking all the components that make up why/what works in the wild.

For some darts they use water holding plants, mostly epiphytic which feed heavily through their leaves, using all of the available nitrate and some of the available nitrite. The plants, light and micro organisms oxygenate the water, speeding the process of break down. For those who deposite on the floor the nitrogen is continually leached (what's not used quickly) into the soil. Also for plants such as broms the nitrogen/debris condenses at the bottom leaves (if getting rain, and if it's a brom it's placed where it's getting rain in open canopy or it wouldn't grow). It alway retains a low balance. If the water is overly saturated then that's when problems arise as there's no balance being maintained to use it. The acidic water (as a rain should be) as Ed stated has a role, possibly a/the large(st) one. natural ventilation/bacteria would dissapate a good mojority of nitrogen. If the bacteria die or are not present then there is an imbalance giving peaks and falls to water quality (through artificial water changes) which should remain consistant and never vary. The peaks and falls are much more stressful than a low constant amount . Peaks and falls in enviromental quality will determine/cause peaks and falls in growth. The correct low amount may stimulate the tad to grow more naturally w/ healthy defense as compared to a pure water situation. Like you said they've adapted to it, and when ever something adapts to another it playes a role in development by either utilizing it or working w/around it.

Pristine is not ideal, I think Patty has said it plenty of times to get through. What ever is missing has to be treated artificially by you. This known, you can't make breaks in the chain and not (try to) deal w/ it another way. Intervention by you just gives more stress to the tad than it would get otherwise. Not to mention more mindless waste of time activities for you to do. It's not broken yet, and don't break it by trying to fix nothing.


----------



## Ed

Typically plants prefer ammonia to nitrate as a food source. 
Just a comment

Ed


----------



## stchupa

Ed said:


> Typically plants prefer ammonia to nitrate as a food source.
> Just a comment
> 
> Ed


Wouldn't that be nice if it were true.

Plants can take in ammonia (not that they have been given a choice), because where nutrients are absorbed there's no filtering/gauging mechanism, it's a passive entry without requirement for I.D/. What's in the water (dissolved) regardless of saturation level is what is going to be taken in. That's why when you over fertalize (especially ,N') the plant dies because it cannot regulate what it takes in, only hopefully use it in time before the level rises to a toxic level. A plant in the wild (to what they are "adapted" to today) would never encounter this (aside of climatic catastophy or intervention) as (as I discuss prior) the "homeostatus" levels would remain constant. Each region may vary to some exent but that remains consistant and "unique" to that area and the plant(s) in that area would be "adapted" to the amount given and would either grow faster on a shorter time scale (if ,N' is more abundant) or slower on a longer scale (if there was less ,N'). If the plants didn't ("adapt" to) grow faster/larger/storative in an area of increased abundance they would die out. Almost comparative to anything else like over supplementation/hypervitamintosis or even water poisoning to a human for that matter. Anything in excess regardless of what it is, is a poison to what has not altered itself to deal w/ a changing level.

As usual I started to veer but luckily caught myself a little sooner than always

So back to what you said:
"plants PREFER Ammonia to Nitrate as a food source"
Ok I'm not going to start this off with the formulation jargon (*only* cause I can't remember :wink: ). I remember a couple ,H's and ,O'2s hear and there that's about it. 2D placement isn't my language.
Instead I'm goin to ask YOU a ?:
Why would plants prefer an alread partially synthesized amino package in it's begining deteriorative stage? It's completely unstable. While Nitrate has already "shed" all the highly energized molecular bonds and is now in it's simplest singular saturable form.
I know Ammonia when used as a source of nitrogen burns/yellows whatever has access to it before it's break down is complete. When it is used as fertilizer for agriculture (which is/was nearly always, though differnt forms for different mineral applications) it is (almost? :? ) always added to the land prior to any planting, typically previous season (just perfect :x ). Now the reason Ammonia is readily used in agriculture is due to a few factors. One and probably the main reason is it is a highly (the highest) concentrated form of ,N' available as a solid (shipping/distributing purpose). It's extremely cheap, though if the liquid ammonia nitrate mixed w/ butane was as or more concentrated than the solid that would be cheaper as that can be/is desynthesized artificially. It is a waste by product of industrial concoctions and thus must either be discarded or used. Of course those bastards are going to milk it for what it's worth.

Now where did you hear this Ed, that plants PREFER Ammonia?
Maybe on Venus the fly traps prefer more ammonia based compounds, but that doesn't seem to be the case on Earth.
If you got it from a govt./economy measures article I could understand how that information would be excepted.


----------



## elmoisfive

Nitrate or NO3- is the most readily usable form of nitrogen that the plants require. Ammonia or NH3 will convert over time to nitrate via a process called nitrification and thus can be considered a 'slow release' form of nitrogen.

I seem to remember though that some aquatic plants do show a preference for ammonia versus nitrate if presented with both so perhaps this is the source of the 'confusion'.

Bill


----------



## Ed

Here is one reference

ARTHUR GESSLER, STEPHAN SCHNEIDER, DOMINIK VON SENGBUSCH, PAUL WEBER, ULRIKE HANEMANN, CHRISTIAN HUBER, ANDREAS ROTHE, KARL KREUTZER, HEINZ RENNENBERG (1998) 
Field and laboratory experiments on net uptake of nitrate and ammonium by the roots of spruce (Picea abies) and beech (Fagus sylvatica) trees 
New Phytologist 138 (2), 275–285. 

Here is another, 
Field and Laboratory Experiments on Net Uptake of Nitrate and ammonium by the Roots of Spruce (Picea abies) and Beech (Fagus sylvatica) Trees; Arthur Gessler, Stephan Schneider, Dominik Von Sengbusch, Paul Weber, Ulrike Hanemann, Christian Huber, Andreas Rothe, Karl Kreutzer, Heinz Rennenberg
New Phytologist, Vol. 138, No. 2 (Feb., 1998), pp. 275-285

I don't have time to track down the references but I suspect that a google search on active transport of ammonia will pull some up... 
The reason ammonia/ammonium is a longer term fertilizer is because if binds to clay particles in the soil (which is not appliciable here) and is converted to nitrate by the soil bacteria. 

And yes you are correct, aquatic plants do prefer ammonia/ammonium to nitrate. The main difference is that nitrate can be stored in plact vacoules to avoid toxicity while high levels of ammonia can kill the plant. 

Ed


----------



## titan501x

O2 Plastics said:


> I hope you're all happy, I will go pout for a while now. :lol:


I'm happy :lol:


----------



## bbrock

Of course Ed provided the references but it is pretty firmly established that plants will take up ammonia in preference to nitrate and I don't think they utilize nitrite at all but nitrite is such a transitory molecule in the nitrogen cycle it doesn't matter. But just because plants prefer ammonia does not mean they do not readily use nitrate. It is a preference. Would you prefer ice cream or steak? Hmm, tough choice.

But this little detail doesn't change the rest of what was said about leaf axils in nature being part of a complex system that is not necessarily replicated in glass jars.


----------



## stchupa

Spruce ay. How interesting, but if I had to pick plant I guess it would make sense for it to be of primitive ancestry and to be skipping stages this day in age.

What I would really like to know is the source of ammonia given in these 
studies. It surely wasn't 'pure'. If it came along in a sulfate form how could we rule out the sulfur compound as being supplemental. It could've been a # of mixtures, but let's assume the lesser.

Does this make any sense? A plant given ,N' along w/ S and other unknowns is going to be more productive than that receiving just ,N'.


----------



## Ed

If you are comparing rates of uptake of ammonia/ammonium versus nitrate the best source for testing would be ammonium nitrate (which if you review the articles, you will see this is what is used) as you can use a isotope of N in either molecule allowing easy controls and detection. 
The reason you wouldn't use ammonium sulphate is that it would be very difficult to use a nitrate-sulphate as your alternate test source of nitrogen... which would as you pointed out make it difficult to compare the results but in any case the test cited (as well as other tests) were not based on productivity but which the plants preferentialy absorbed.. If you look into the literature not only is ammonia/ammonium preferentialy taken up by the plants over nitrate, at certain levels ammonia/ammonium inhibits the uptake of nitrate.. (and we haven't even gotten into the absorbtion of amino acids along with these other sources). 

If you search the literature you will see that these tests have been run on many different species of plants with the same results. 


Ed


----------



## stchupa

Ed said:


> If you are comparing rates of uptake of ammonia/ammonium versus nitrate the best source for testing would be ammonium nitrate (which if you review the articles, you will see this is what is used) as you can use a isotope of N in either molecule allowing easy controls and detection.
> The reason you wouldn't use ammonium sulphate is that it would be very difficult to use a nitrate-sulphate as your alternate test source of nitrogen... which would as you pointed out make it difficult to compare the results but in any case the test cited (as well as other tests) were not based on productivity but which the plants preferentialy absorbed.. If you look into the literature not only is ammonia/ammonium preferentialy taken up by the plants over nitrate, at certain levels ammonia/ammonium inhibits the uptake of nitrate.. (and we haven't even gotten into the absorbtion of amino acids along with these other sources).
> 
> If you search the literature you will see that these tests have been run on many different species of plants with the same results.
> 
> 
> Ed


I didn't have time (at the time) to check that out, but I definitely will now.
Very interesting, I really appreciate you bringing that up.

I tried to stay out of the amino "complex", no way a thread would ever end w/ that.


----------

