Just my pet peeves. I'm using ChatGPT to check my grammar as I’m not an English native speaker, so sorry for any mistakes.
I don't really understand the concept of a biotope aquarium.
Why do people intentionally add leaves and wood to an aquarium and call it a biotope? And why do they think it's better for fish than a planted tank? Also, why are biotope aquariums almost always tannin stained?
I've noticed this many times in biotope competitions. When people create a biotope, they often say that there are no aquatic plants in the natural habitat. But surely other biological components, such as riparian plants, trees, algae, and microorganisms, count too, right? I'm pretty sure that an aquarium I've left outdoors, filled with rainwater, is more biologically mature than one where you intentionally try to recreate and calling it biotope.
Now, imagine seeing a clear karst stream with all its natural diversity. But when it comes to recreating that scene for a competition, you choose a section full of leaf litter and fallen wood and call it a karst stream biotope. I'm not saying it's inaccurate, but these streams can be very large and diverse, so why do people tend to focus on that one particular type of scene? What's that all about?
Why are you intentionally trying to make an aquarium look unpleasant when you're supposedly recreating a chalk or karst stream and calling it natural? I honestly have no idea. Because I'm pretty sure that a planted aquarium, despite not containing exclusively native species, is biologically closer to the actual habitat than what people often call a "biotope."
Anyone agree?
I don't really understand the concept of a biotope aquarium.
Why do people intentionally add leaves and wood to an aquarium and call it a biotope? And why do they think it's better for fish than a planted tank? Also, why are biotope aquariums almost always tannin stained?
I've noticed this many times in biotope competitions. When people create a biotope, they often say that there are no aquatic plants in the natural habitat. But surely other biological components, such as riparian plants, trees, algae, and microorganisms, count too, right? I'm pretty sure that an aquarium I've left outdoors, filled with rainwater, is more biologically mature than one where you intentionally try to recreate and calling it biotope.
Now, imagine seeing a clear karst stream with all its natural diversity. But when it comes to recreating that scene for a competition, you choose a section full of leaf litter and fallen wood and call it a karst stream biotope. I'm not saying it's inaccurate, but these streams can be very large and diverse, so why do people tend to focus on that one particular type of scene? What's that all about?
Why are you intentionally trying to make an aquarium look unpleasant when you're supposedly recreating a chalk or karst stream and calling it natural? I honestly have no idea. Because I'm pretty sure that a planted aquarium, despite not containing exclusively native species, is biologically closer to the actual habitat than what people often call a "biotope."
Anyone agree?
