I had the question of, how do the plants get C02 once they use it all up? Answer: they don't, or the terrarium is not sealed.

> A closed terrarium is a closed ecosystem just on a much smaller scale [than earth]. The supply of carbon dioxide in the terrarium air is very small because of the limited volume of air. Therefore, unless the terrarium contains animals to provide carbon dioxide or microbes break down large amounts of organic matter in the soil and release carbon dioxide, the plants in a sealed terrarium cannot gain significant dry weight. They would basically refix the same carbon dioxide over and over. The carbon dioxide the plants release during cellular respiration would be refixed via photosynthesis, then respired, refixed, respired, refixed, etc.

> Most terrariums are not completely sealed so carbon dioxide can enter and plants can gain dry matter via photosynthesis. The inventor of the terrarium, Nathaniel Bagshaw Ward (1791-1868), supposedly had a "sealed terrarium" that survived four years but it is questionable if it was completely sealed because of the substantial plant growth he observed.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1999-08/935417556.Bt.r....

Side-note: it's not often that a webpage from 1999 is the first search result when googling (I searched "terrariums where does the c02 come from" on DuckDuckGo).

SerpaDesign on YouTube has some fun videos all about this subject.

https://youtube.com/c/SerpaDesign

Agreed, Tanner is amongst the best in the world when it comes to terrariums. The fact that he will often cut the glass himself for making the enclosure was seriously impressive to me when I first started watching.

terrariums are great and super accessible, I use recycled glass jars and plants from my yard… even my failures turn into little self-perpetuating mold apocalypses

Exactly! I figure you can't actually fail in making a terrarium. You're just growing mold instead of whatever you originally intended :)

Love this, but as a writer/interviewer, I'm a little thrown by this being part of the article framework:

> Some may claim that this is simply a modern fad, a case of "hashtag horticulture" that lends itself to eye-catching posts. But terrariums have a long and fascinating history that predates social media by more than 150 years.

> "People will often say it's been driven by social media..."

OK, it's a century-old fad... I understand there COULD be an issue if someone jumps in because of ~aesthetic~ only to grow bored and toss their terrariums. But so what if someone discovers terrariums "as a fad"? Or if then they build a social following around it? They either actually enjoy it, which is great, or they're so committed to a performative image that it's lucky they latched onto plants in jars and not something more intense. Just a weird angle imo that doesn't deserve the few sentences it takes to address lol, just jump straight into the interesting stuff

You are getting at a pretty fluid and open concept of authenticity...wish we all (gestures at everybody but also a bit at self at the end) felt so unencumbered, but it does kinda conflict with patterns that a lot of experts and would-be experts really treasure--for example the idea that there's a qualitatively better way to develop one's identity and interests. And the "it's a fad" perspective carries a lot of stodgy but kinda relevant baggage for people like them-us.

That aspect of stepping into an exciting new role as part of a performance of what one sees in their feed, may be only part of a sort of ephemeral-passion-first route leading to more and deeper passion later, but a lot of times it is also a feed-candy-first thing in which the entire cultural or historical narrative of that hobby is effectively told to shove off. Carrying that narrative forward are a lot of people who have deep, relevant experience but who are effectively voiceless in comparison to feed-churn content creators.

Plus there are a lot of deeply-qualified experts who look out onto that feed-world every day and wish for even just a few seconds of recognition for their own difficult-to-relate depth of interest, and instead they see shallow content, the /r/stupidfood of whatever it is they're good at.

Just offering perspectives--

Blindboy spins some yarn about terrarium history in “ Custard Creams and the CIA”. Here’s the blurb: “Boiling Hot Take. An exploration that links Victorian Fern fanciers with Custard Creams and the CIA interrogation of houseplants.”

I've always thought about making one. For now, I think my carboys are better used on beer and wine.