Strontium

[dwref]

Was wondering if anyone does Strontium tests & if they do & it is very low, what they use to bring it up?? Mine didn't even show up on the chart, so it is pretty low. I have a 220 SPS tank & a friend told me to test for this.

Thanks

 

[JimWelsh]

I dabble in Sr testing, but don't really consider it a very important element in reef tanks. If you want to raise it, you could dose some strontium chloride. The hexahydrate is more commonly available than the anhydrous. Each 2.59 grams of SrCl2*6H2O added to a 220 gallon tank will raise the Sr by 1 mg/kg (PPM).

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I don't consider it important either, but to boost it, strontium chloride (as Jim mentions) or a commercial reef supplement will be fine.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

If you do some searching on the net there's a bit of evidence that points to it as a necessity of corals, which grow aragonite, which is only aragonite (vs calcite) because of strontium.
There was some other research I stumbled upon that they found biological mechanisms that preferred aragonite vs calcite, and vice versa, some corals preferred calcite vs aragonite though they still contain aragonite to a certain degree.

Though it's up for debate, and has been, for a long time amongst reefers, I see more of an acceptance in research articles from marine biologists of, "it's in the water, it's used". The underlying mechanisms are not fully understood though.

It makes sense to me because aragonite is "softer" than calcite, and then over time it'll turn to calcite. From a biological/cellular perspective, this makes sense as aragonite is easier to manipulate. Just like human bones that grow, until maturity is reached, even the top of your head doesn't fully form/harden for the first 25 years of your life. (see parietal and frontal skull bones)

 

[Wilsoni]

"it's in the water, it's used". The underlying mechanisms are not fully understood though.

I do personally like that perspective and I believe Strontium plays a role whether significant or not. The lack of information and research supporting Strontiums mechanism of action within a reef system is a little disconcerting to me. With the amount of knowledge we currently possess about the ocean and the role that trace elements play, it all seems a bit underwhelming.

Needless to say, with the advancements of zeo products, balling ect. I believe we will continue to discover the usefulness of the various elements that we're dosing.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Sitting in a waiting room reading.. This was interesting.. (I'll dig up my other posts that touch more on it) We still have a lot to learn, but if we're going to replicate environments, I think paying attention to strontium is a basic necessity.

http://geology.about.com/od/minerals/fl/calcite-vs-aragonite.htm

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Didn't know this myself..
•In what regions of the ocean are Ω values highest? Is this consistent with the locations of the majority of coral reefs?
http://serc.carleton.edu/eslabs/corals/4c.html

This was an interesting thing as well I posted before (which shows biological mechanisms at play so aragonite "accidentally getting in the mix" might not be by accident..) Makes sense since the majority of a soft coral doesn't need to manipulate the skeleton much as the majority of it is just tissue.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110816120828.htm

Time for my appointment though! Enjoy the reads, I'm sure you'll have more questions still! Hehe

 

[Wilsoni]

Sitting in a waiting room reading.. This was interesting.. (I'll dig up my other posts that touch more on it) We still have a lot to learn, but if we're going to replicate environments, I think paying attention to strontium is a basic necessity.

http://geology.about.com/od/minerals/fl/calcite-vs-aragonite.htm

I'll have to give it a read. But yes, I fully agree with you on that. We have a fair amount of knowledge supporting the big 3 and the roles that they play but I've started to notice the focus has shifted and everybody seems more concerned about what they don't want in their tanks, e.g. (N03, Po4, heavy metals ect.)

I think there needs to be more understanding of how stripping bad elements from your water effects the balance of good elements. Bacteria and trace elements often become overlooked due to a lack of understanding...

I've read numerous posts from members attempting to correct or over correct Nitrate/Phosphate issues, once they attain acceptable numbers, suddenly everything mysteriously gets even further out of whack... Trace elements and bacteria values are almost always overlooked...



Blahhh I feel like I'm just rambling on now... Lol

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Sitting in a waiting room reading.. This was interesting.. (I'll dig up my other posts that touch more on it) We still have a lot to learn, but if we're going to replicate environments, I think paying attention to strontium is a basic necessity.

I don't know of any evidence that strontium is needed or beneficial to most hard corals, and the experience of many reefers who dosed it for years and then stopped is that many saw no apparent change. There are specific organisms that have a clear need for strontium, but few reefers keep them.

That said, one can hardly view it as a problem to maintain NSW levels of strontium, so there's certainly no harm in doing so if you think it is or may be useful.

I discuss it more here:

Aquarium Chemistry: Strontium and the Reef Aquarium ? Advanced Aquarist | Aquarist Magazine and Blog
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/nov2003/chem.htm

 

[Wilsoni]

I don't know of any evidence that strontium is needed or beneficial to most hard corals, and the experience of many reefers who dosed it for years and then stopped is that many saw no apparent change. There are specific organisms that have a clear need for strontium, but few reefers keep them.

That said, one can hardly view it as a problem to maintain NSW levels of strontium, so there's certainly no harm in doing so if you think it is or may be useful.

I discuss it more here:

Aquarium Chemistry: Strontium and the Reef Aquarium ? Advanced Aquarist | Aquarist Magazine and Blog
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/nov2003/chem.htm

Wow interesting read! I had no idea Strontium played a role in the development of the Cuttlebone in Cuttlefish.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Glad you liked it!

Happy Reefing.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Data supporting aragonite necessity is there, you just have to swim through the bazillion hits on the search engines..

Also, just because people don't see an effect from not dosing, doesn't mean the coral isn't playing 'catch up' and altering it's own metabolic processes..(even humans do that if deficiencies come into play)
As far as I know I don't know of any reefers that say, "oh hey! I used to dose <insert compound> and now that I don't dose it, I can't see a difference!" And then they proceed to cut up and dissect the coral to find out why.

And just as you can say 'I don't see any need/benefit to a vitamin supplement' doesn't really take into account anything else. The person, their metabolism, their genetics, their environment, their diet, their bad habits, nothing else is looked at.
It's a blind statement.

Aragonite crystallization in primary cell cultures of multicellular isolates from a hard coral, Pocillopora damicornis
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/21/11885.long

Corals With Aragonite Skeletons Could Survive A More Acidic Ocean Read more from Asian Scientist Magazine at: http://www.asianscientist.com/2012/...t-to-ocean-acidification-global-warming-2012/

(interesting tidbit)
Before the Industrial Revolution (280 ppm), nearly all shallow-water reefs had Ωaragonite >3.25 mmol kg−1, which is the minimum required for a coral reef.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n7/fig_tab/nclimate1240_F1.html

In ground-breaking research, a team of scientists from Australia's ARC Center of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, at the University of Western Australia and France's Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, has shown that some marine organisms that form calcium carbonate skeletons have an in-built mechanism to cope with ocean acidification - which others appear to lack. Marine organisms that form calcium carbonate skeletons generally produce it in one of two forms, known as aragonite and calcite. The team found that those with skeletons made of aragonite have the coping mechanism - while those that follow the calcite pathway generally do less well under more acidic conditions. "The good news is that most corals appear to have this internal ability to buffer rising acidity of seawater and still form good, solid skeletons," said Professor Malcolm McCulloch of CoECRS and UWA. The aragonite calcifiers - such as the well-known corals Porites and Acropora - have molecular ‘pumps' that enable them to regulate their internal acid balance, which buffers them from the external changes in seawater pH. Read more from Asian Scientist Magazine at: http://www.asianscientist.com/2012/...t-to-ocean-acidification-global-warming-2012/
Another couple points of interest that suggests incorporation or avoidance of strontium is not "chance":
Many marine organisms, including corals, build skeletons from calcium carbonate – in the form of calcite or aragonite. The current composition of seawater favors the formation of aragonite – but soft corals have a specific protein that allows them to form calcite skeletons instead.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110816120828.htm

Effect of light and temperature on calcification and strontium uptake in the scleractinian coral Acropora verweyi
https://www.researchgate.net/public...e_in_the_scleractinian_coral_Acropora_verweyi

Using scanning electron microscopy, we observed different crystal morphologies of aragonite and calcite in a single juvenile skeleton. Quantitative analysis using X-ray diffraction showed that the majority of the skeleton was composed of aragonite even though we had exposed the juveniles to manipulated seawater before their initial crystal nucleation and growth processes. Our results indicate that the modern scleractinian coral Acropora mainly produces aragonite skeletons in both aragonite and calcite seas, but also has the ability to use calcite for part of its skeletal growth when incubated in calcite seas.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0091021

However, the change in atomic arrangements does change the list of impurities that can be easily included in aragonite. While calcite is commonly riddled with magnesium atoms, aragonite is typically found to be riddled with strontium atoms instead. Elements like barium and lead and a few others are also mixed in at times, but strontium is the most common of the bunch.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/10/chemistry

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

*edit: I don't want to thread-jack ya, so I'll start a new one..

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I don't see anything in those links that suggests strontium is useful as an additive in a reef tank. Some don't even mention strontium.

I'm not certain why you are now discussing aragonite. Aragonite forms without strontium.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

This shows the many factors that drive the precipitation of aragonite vs calcite:

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/Fundamentals/CaCO3factors.pdf

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Aragonite forms without strontium.

That pdf doesn't talk of strontium.
And you're saying aragonite forms in corals, without strontium? And you're talking before or after biochemistry manipulation from the host coral?

I guess it could be a more simple question, has there ever been a coral analyzed, that contained aragonite, that did not contain strontium?

Links please.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

That pdf doesn't talk of strontium.
And you're saying aragonite forms in corals, without strontium? And you're talking before or after biochemistry manipulation from the host coral?

I guess it could be a more simple question, has there ever been a coral analyzed, that contained aragonite, that did not contain strontium?

Links please.

Of course all calcium carbonate formed in the ocean contains strontium because it looks and acts like calcium and so gets into the crystal in place of a tiny amount of the calcium. That is true whether a coral makes it or it just precipitates. I covered that in substantial detail in the article I linked.

What I am saying is that you have no evidence that strontium is useful, nor that the strontium is seawater plays any role in aragonite formation in corals or any other way.

The pdf was shown to demonstrate to you that aragonite forms without strontium, and that many other things, some of which are present at vastly higher concentration in the ocean, do help stabilize aragonite relative to calcite. Things like magnesium, sulfate, organics, etc.

So IMO, the whole aragonite thing you are using to to try to justify the importance of strontium in a reef tank lacks any evidence.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

So, given strontium makes it into the coral skeleton, we've never seen aragonite in a coral NOT contain strontium?

But aside from that, you have no factual basis for saying "the coral mistakenly uses strontium"?

Again we're looking for facts and evidence right?

I'll go through some other links I've collected, I do recall some touch on strontium. Also to ignore the strontium content in the ocean and say it doesn't matter...Thats a bold statement.
It reminds me of when I talked about elevated lithium with you and they found its detrimental to urchin embryos iirc. And you said it didn't matter.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

So, given strontium makes it into the coral skeleton, we've never seen aragonite in a coral NOT contain strontium.


But aside from that, you have no factual basis for saying "the coral mistakenly uses strontium"?

Again we're looking for facts and evidence right?

.

You've presented no evidence that strontium is needed or useful for most hard corals.

The evidence that, IMO, strontium simply is an accidental incorporation into coral skeletons (like many chemicals are, such as uranium) is:

1. that strontium gets into abiotic precipitated calcium carbonate at about the same percentage as it gets into coral skeletons. This is a clear result of it looking chemically like calcium. It is not due to any biological need or control. There is no biology needed for its incorporation.
2. that dosing and maintenance of strontium is not of apparent benefit in many reefers tanks as perceived by the reefers who have decided to stop dosing and saw no difference.

You may disagree with me, as you often do, but that does not change my conclusion.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

This is a clear result of it looking chemically like calcium. It is not due to any biological need or control. There is no biology needed for its incorporation..

Ok let's start simple then.

What are the facts for the above statement that's been presented in research? I'm not asking for research that's presented it looking like calcium, I'm asking for research that defines a coral has no biological need.

Also, I don't disagree with you purely to disagree, I find some of the bits of info somewhat contradictory towards newly discovered research or that they're such bold statements I have to question, if we have it all figured out, why the heck aren't the corals in the ocean already dead?

As to strontium, we know there's enzymatic reactions a coral can produce to dictate aragonite or calcite growth, and those of course use energy. It shows a significant ability by the coral to adapt.
So if the coral continually "mistakes" strontium for calcium, why is it not adapting? Surely this would have been easier to differentiate than a calcite-loving organism continuing to grow in an aragonite-heavy environment...

And I read your article, and have read many. You dismiss Julian Sprung's verdict because he didn't track strontium parameters during the supposed increase in growth rates. Which is somewhat agreeable, but I was under the impression he was a fairly knowledgeable individual.

But yes, I guess a good start would be, has there ever been a coral discovered to contain aragonite, but not strontium?
And, where has it been discovered that corals do not utilize strontium?