First pleco selection for planted tank

[racoll]

The ' Meeting of the Rivers' as it's name implies is Two rivers joining at different temperatures and parameters, one measurably cooler than the other. I would have hoped you understood that without me having to state it, however you still seem to be insisting all SA rivers that ultimately lead to the Amazon are essentially identical regardless of their actual locations and sources.

I'm staggered. You are seriously still trying to say that I am wrong about this?

[dpm1]

So this is my question, if my current stock can withstand a warmer tank, what would be a good temperature to allow a broader selection of pleco?
And... What pleco would you recommend?

I would rather it not make a three course meal out of my planted tank either.

My tank has a circulation fan under a Fluval 50 HOB, so there is good water movement and oxygen flow in the tank and at the surface.

Without dropping too many new species names

<26c/78f Peckoltia brevis http://www.planetcatfish.com/common/spe ... es_id=1339
>26c/78f Peckoltia compta http://www.planetcatfish.com/common/spe ... ies_id=213
Both are the carnivorous side of omnivore and generally take catfish pellets and flake with ease although the occasional veg or algae may be eaten too. P.compta is far more readily available, at least where I am. (So of course I chose the more unusual fish!)

Or the similar Panaqolus maccus http://www.planetcatfish.com/common/spe ... es_id=1339 although this is a 'wood eater' (often little wood gets ingested, however such fish can make a mess of the water clarity as well as increase filter maintenance, most people wont notice the effect with one small fish however it can annoy some as the fish and its appetite grows, and possibly numbers increase

[dpm1]

The ' Meeting of the Rivers' as it's name implies is Two rivers joining at different temperatures and parameters, one measurably cooler than the other. I would have hoped you understood that without me having to state it, however you still seem to be insisting all SA rivers that ultimately lead to the Amazon are essentially identical regardless of their actual locations and sources.

I'm staggered. You are seriously still trying to say that I am wrong about this?

Then please feel free to explain the whole 'Meeting if the Waters' phenomenon if they are all equal.
http://m.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD ... p?id=79111

Where the two rivers meet, east of Manaus, Brazil, they flow side by side within the same channel for several kilometers. The cooler, denser, and faster waters of the Solimões and the warmer, slower waters of the Negro

Seems the 'random website' that is NASA has definite ideas on why this occurs
This is not a unique occurance but occurs at several points across the globe.

[racoll]

Then please feel free to explain the whole 'Meeting if the Waters' phenomenon if they are all equal.

I very clearly did not state that they were equal. My words were as follows:

That website you linked to says the Rio Negro is 22C, which is very incorrect. It's more like 32C, but that could have been a simple typo. It's correct that the Amazon River is about 28C.

This is big enough of a differential to see the effect. It's probably at least 5C, but the lower Rio Negro can be even warmer than 32C. You can feel the difference very clearly.

From Sioli (1984):

Water temperature. Running in an equatorial lowland where temperature fluctuations are minimal the Amazon water has a surprisingly constant temperature of
29 ± 1C all year round. It belongs to the thermally most stable waters on earth.

[dpm1]

So suddenly it is possible to have river systems in the Amazon basin that are at different temperatures, and now try extending the principle to the systems that lead to this point.

The fact that the Mid-Lower Amazon river is a fairly constant 29c is something I have not contested, indeed I have essentially extended the principle to the whole lowland region inclusive of the systems that originate within this zone. However It is also rather irrelevant when talking fish that occur upstream under different conditions - and I have repeated noted Ucalayi-Samiloes tributary, and the L205s that are found there, most definitely does not originate in this same area.

I have provided maps, fish profiles, web references, climate data, reasoned arguments, first hand experience and you have grudgingly admitted that the 'Meeting of Rivers' does have a temperature difference component (albeit with the numbers switched - a ∆t still exists)
This is despite the earlier:

This is the same for other similar rivers I have been to, such as the Rio Madeira and the Rio Japurá, so why would the Purus or Ucayali be any different?

Saying it does not make it true. They are perfectly capable of exhibiting different parameters because they originate from different sources in different physical and geological zones. Extending it to its conclusion the Amazon flows to the Atlantic but it's not the same parameters - or maybe you refute that to?

A couple of quotes from another fishsite when asking for Amazon basin river parameters (note not just the Amazon river!)

Having recently (last week) been to Manaus, Brazil, I can confirm that there is no way they all conform. Our guide states that the Amazon has so many different names depending which bit you're talking about, as well as very different pH values, hardness/softness, density, fish stocking levels, nutrients etc., even temperatures can slightly change.

...
Perhaps in your inevitable reply you can provide something other than mere negatives and provide your own searchable and checkable references with respect to the rivers I have noted. In the meantime I will join others in waiting for Heiko Bleher to fill in a few gaps from outside the usual fish trails. And please tey to avoid constantly referring back to the main river is is both irrelevant and misleading as it covers only a fraction of the whole.

[racoll]

However It is also rather irrelevant when talking fish that occur upstream under different conditions - and I have repeated noted Ucalayi-Samiloes tributary, and the L205s that are found there, most definitely does not originate in this same area.

So they are found in the Ucayali are they? Different conditions? Go and check the revision of the group by Armbruster (2008), and look at the known distribution map of P. brevis records. They are very widely distributed all across the whole of the Western and central Amazon lowlands in many rivers, but are not reported from the Ucayali (they could well be found there, but probably have never been collected). There are records from the Itaya River adjacent to Iquitos, and it even states that they were collected here by aquarium dealers. In the habitat section it states:"Specimens collected in Peru were from a lowland, muddy-bottomed river. The specimens were collected on and in submerged logs." Many of the records are from lakes. Lakes are hot.

The notion that the Western lowland Amazon is somehow different is bizarre. Evers & Seidel (Wels Atlas 1) make a detailed report of a lake of the Ucayali drainage near Pucallpa in fact. They give a temperature of 34C for the lake, and 28C for its tributaries. This is exactly the kind of place where you would find P. brevis, if it even occurs there.

I am well aware that while the overall Amazon climate is stable, there will be substantial variation between sites according to various factors. But my initial contention remains that 24-25C should be an absolute minimum for lowland Amazon species. I would keep them warmer. This is backed up by all the temperatures recommended by Evers & Seidel (Wels Atlas 2).

As I have explained, P. brevis is demonstrably a lowland species. This idea that they are found in cool upland areas is based on not one shred of evidence apart from extrapolations from a highly dubious figure from a decades old aquarium atlas, the observation of the fishes in your tank, and a big shot of wishful thinking.

[dpm1]

Go and check the revision of the group by Armbruster (2008),

And again you don't bother to provide an actual searchable online reference. Why should I bother?

Well I will add one that clearly emonstrates all rivers are not equal
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2014/794583/
Whilst the temps are closer in this example the other parameters show up clearly

...The project mentioned above revealed that the waters of the Negro and Solimões rivers have different speeds (respectively, 0.3 m/s and 1.0 m/s), different conductivities (respectively, 8 μS/cm and 80 μS/cm at 25°C), different turbidity values (respectively, 5 NTU and 80 NTU), different pH values (respectively, 5.5 and 7.0), and different temperatures, indicating a difference of 1°C.

[dpm1]

There are records from the Itaya River adjacent to Iquitos,

Would that be the same Rio Itaya that barely shows up on either Google or Bing maps as a separate entity?
The very same one that is fed by the Rio Maranon, and is barely 50km downstream of the intersection of the Rio Ucayli.

But of course a fish couldn't possibly move that distance, which on the scale of the Amazon is barely a stones throw away.

I suspect the only reason it was detected there was because of the convenience of the town of Iquitos.

Many of the records are from lakes. Lakes are hot

They are also generally much easier places to catch fish compared to flowing rivers. Is it so surprising that the reports focus on these as its where I would choose to catch fish given the options. However they are also not a very convenient place to live for a supposedly widespread species. (They wouldn't be the only Amazon river fish to be caught primarily in flooded forest and lakes as opposed to the rivers themselves - Cardinal Tetra is the most obvious example)

So far all you have done is confirm the lower reaches of the species. You have not explained how the PC fish profile has locations, however vague, far upstream.
These fish are far from the most common and it could well be the primary source of data are collectors near Iquitos, however this does not mean they do not exist elsewhere, and is by no means proof.

[dpm1]

Note there are also reports from a local with Peckoltia species even further upstream from the Rio Hullaga (not just a vague 30year old reference but a web ref with pix!)

http://www.plecoworld.org/modules.php?n ... opic&t=946

[jzcombo]

Without dropping too many new species names

<26c/78f Peckoltia brevis http://www.planetcatfish.com/common/spe ... es_id=1339
>26c/78f Peckoltia compta http://www.planetcatfish.com/common/spe ... ies_id=213
Both are the carnivorous side of omnivore and generally take catfish pellets and flake with ease although the occasional veg or algae may be eaten too. P.compta is far more readily available, at least where I am. (So of course I chose the more unusual fish!)

I have to check these out. They look to be the right size needed for my tank. I've been researching the Hypancistrus genus lately, but if they have the right diet provided by me, my plants should be ok, right? I wouldn't care for an occasional munch here and there, but I don't want to see my plants disappearing.

Or the similar Panaqolus maccus http://www.planetcatfish.com/common/spe ... es_id=1339 although this is a 'wood eater' (often little wood gets ingested, however such fish can make a mess of the water clarity as well as increase filter maintenance, most people wont notice the effect with one small fish however it can annoy some as the fish and its appetite grows, and possibly numbers increase

I have a nice piece of manzanita driftwood that I would rather not be a regular meal. Maybe I will get a different piece for him to gnaw/eat on.

Any other suggestions for a planted tank if I were to warm it up a bit?

[dpm1]

Here's a spanner in the works...

Virtually every reference says P.brevis = L205 = LDA078 as clearly stated on:
http://www.planetcatfish, Scotcat, Wikipedia, fnzas, planetacuario etc etc etc....

And then I found this...http://www.loricariidae.no/loricariidae ... _L205.html
L205 is often confused with Peckoltia brevis
And...http://www.plecoplanet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10815
If you follows...(Armbruster, 2008), then Peckolita brevis (LDA 78) and Peckoltia sp. "L 205" identical... (although I cannot see either LDA or L number mentioned in the reference)
However it then goes on to say:
...Peckolita brevis (LDA 78) and Peckoltia sp. "L 205" but can be clearly distinguished. The most easily recognizable difference is the fine dots on the head:
Peckoltia sp. "L205"- the fine points goes to the dorsal fin.
Peckoltia brevis - the fine points, stops well before the dorsal fin.

P. brevis has aged an orange color. The body shape is different.
(Look Seidel/Evers "Wels Atlas 2" or Seidel "Back to nature" )
(And another ref that I failed to bookmark!)

So despite the vast majority of sites, profiles and care sheets having P.brevis, L205 and LDA078 being synonymous (PC included so I may look in to referring that to the mod gods) apparently they are not as they are different beasts both physically and in markings (subtle maybe, but definate).

There is also one important detail I should note: Origin!
L205 is stated as coming from the Rio Ucalayi, the very same locale that has been repeatedly stated as not having any such fish (re P.brevis)

Same fish as described on a German website:

Ucayali Dwarf Pleco, L 205, Peckoltia sp.
This fish is about 10-12 cm, as the name suggests, is home to the Peruvian Rio Ucayali...It is the L 205 NOT to Peckoltia brevis, these two species are often confused or incorrectly declared...

So my fish...
I bought these from as L205s (only label) from a shop who I know orders not just from wholesalers but also direct from importers. Discussions confirmed these were from the latter.
I have not done a Pb vs L comparison on them since finding the new refs but would not be surprised if I did discover they were true L205. Pre-purchase, and with the false info that Pb=L, I simply checked their id vs other small Peckoltia and related types and did not do a forensic analysis (pointless with them being juveniles and much smaller 2 years ago).
...
Conclusion:

The PC profile in detail is correct, however it has a gross error is that it refers to 2 different species and so needs splitting and the true Peckoltia brevis details added.

...and now to cut & paste to see what the Mod Gods say...