What? You mean no water changes? Yes, that's right.

无需换水！

No testing? Yes, that's right, but you can if you wish.

无需测试水质！

Not much pruning? Yes, that's right, the plants grow much slower.

无需修剪水草！（因为它们会长得很慢）

No dosing? Generally yes for many easy to care for plant species(I'll discuss this much more later), the fish waste represents the dosing and you feeding them daily adds the nutrients.

对于养殖难度不高的水草是这样的，因为鱼的便便就是天然的水草肥料。

So why don't more folks do it?
I'm not sure, given the goals they say they want when setting up a planted tank.CO2 is a bit like a drug addiction that hobbyists get hooked on. That's fine, but this non CO2 approach will give an excuse to have another tank that needs less attention and is cheap.

CO2对于草缸来说就像是会上瘾的毒品一样（需要持续添加），但这个“无CO2”的方法提供给大家一个省钱省力的alternative。

I suggest folks coming from either the non CO2 or the CO2 enrichment approaches to give the other method a try and see what benefits it has.

我建议大家，平时习惯加co2也好，不加co2也好，都来试一下这个方法，亲眼看看效果如何。

CO2 and non CO2 tanks work for all the same reasons, but........They grow at different rates.

加co2和不加co2的缸目的是一样的，（当然是养水草），但是水草的生长速度就不同了。

Based off of my testing, I'd estimate close to 5 to 10 times slower than a CO2 enriched tank at 2-3 w/gal.

根据我的实验结果，在2-3w/加仑（0.5-0.8w/L）的光照条件下，不加co2的缸生长速度要慢于加co2的缸5-10倍。

This rate of growth is such that the fish waste alone is enough to supply the needs for the plants. If we added more light then the CO2 would start becoming a more limiting factor and allow algae to grow better (algae need higher light to grow well in non CO2 enriched systems whereas the plants are much more limited without CO2). A lower light level is required; generally about 1.5 to 2w/gal is good.

这个生长速度是基于鱼便便已足够提供水草生长所需养分的条件下得出的。如果我们在此基础上增加光照，那么此时缸中的CO2含量就会变成一个制约因素（光照强度和co2含量有最佳比例？），藻类就会开始增长，因为在强光照下，如果没有co2藻类会比水草长得好得多。因此无co2的方案中，低光照强度是必须的，一般1.5-2w/gal（0.4-0.5w/L）为佳。

We also need a balanced fish load and feeding routine since this is our main long term input of plant nutrients. Fish food varies in it's amount and ratio of nutrients. This is not an issue unless it becomes limiting. Very often since non CO2 tanks get neglected, they have trouble growing certain plants. If these nutrients are not allowed to bottom out(Say PO4 or NO3), then many of the species folks suggest cannot be kept, suddenly can be kept in non CO2 tanks but they simply grow slower.

同时我们还需要控制合理的鱼类密度，以及有规律的，定期的喂养，因为鱼的便便将是水草长期的，主要的营养来源。不同的鱼食营养成分不一，不过一般而言不是问题。我们通常认为某些水草在不添加co2的缸中无法存活，其实是因为我们没有仔细研究个中原因，事实上只要保证水草所需的营养，比如PO4（磷酸盐）和NO3（硝酸盐），那些所谓不能养的水草其实是完全可以养的，只是长得会慢一些。

Rather than suggesting allelopathy, Fe algae limitation of PO4 limitation, I will say none of this exist. Rather, non limiting nutrient levels for plants will provide better conditions.

我认为所谓的植化相克，以及通过限制Fe,PO4来限制藻类的说法都是无意义的，相反，不限制水中的营养成份对于水草来说反而更好。

CO2 will limit both plants and algae, the lower light and high plant biomass density will provide a better place for the plants and a worse place for the algae. CO2 and non CO2 tanks work well and are algae free namely due to high plant biomass that is relatively healthy. This plant biomass removes NH4 from the fish waste.

CO2对于水草和藻类都有制约作用，低光照+高密度种植水草的缸环境对于藻类是不利但对水草是有利的。有无添加CO2的缸都可以做到无藻，关键原因就在于高密度，健康的水草。因为水草会分解鱼便便中的NH4（所以不会暴藻）。

We can add KNO3 and KH2PO4 and show that in a non CO2 tank, excess PO4, NO3 (and Fe) do not cause algae blooms. We can add NH4 and induce a bloom just like a CO2 enriched tank.

可以做个实验，在不添加CO2的缸中加入KNO3（硝酸钾）和KH2PO4（磷酸二氢钾），我们会发现过多的PO4和NO3还有铁都不会导致暴藻。而加入NH4后无论是否添加CO2的缸都会暴藻。

This assumption and knowledge frees us from limitation of nutrients which ultimately does more harm to the plants' health and well being, allowing a better environment for algae to grow.

这个结论推翻了我们原来关于通过控制水中营养成分来制约藻类的观念，证明这种观念最终只会对水草不利。