This aquarium concept challenges your views on microbiology, lets collect and compare answers

[MnFish1]

Please quote a post from me where I said something that contradicts what you just wrote.
Peace
EC

I never said you said something that contradicts it - You keep mentioning Darwin's paradox - I was just pointing out that there are many explanations to (Darwins paradox) that do not involve 'recycling nutrients' which has been your big thing since page 1 or 2 or 3 lol I dont remember

 

[Elegance Coral]

This is the whole text from your quote (in bold) - it give a whole other picture than you want to show.

"Around rat-free islands, parrotfishes, a group of herbivores, grazed the entire surface of the reef 9 times per year, whereas around rat-infested islands the equivalent figure was only 2.8 times per year. Because parrotfishes feed with powerful beaks, there was also more bioerosion and greater production of sand on coral reefs surrounding rat-free islands; however, the amount of living coral was not lower than that on rat-infested islands."

What they say is that in spite of heavier predation on corals

That is not what they said. They said, "parrotfishes, a group of hervivores, grazed".

Graze definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/graze
predation definition: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/predation

There is a HUGE difference between what they said, and what you said. They never mentioned fish of any kind preying on coral. They talked about herbivores grazing on algae.

" (3 times higher) was not the amount of living corals lower. It is the total opposite to what your claim - it means that the coral production must be higher in order maintain the same biomass."

No....... That's not what it means. It simply means what they said. You're assuming facts not in evidence. It simply means that despite greater bioerosion, by herbivores grazing on algae, living coral was not lower. It says nothing about coral production, nor does it imply that coral production was higher.

Interesting that you did not quote this text below - it is just before your quote

"Moreover, of all the types of reef fish, the abundance of herbivorous (alga-eating) fishes was the most negatively affected by the presence of rats. Herbivorous fish are particularly important for coral reefs, because their grazing prevents the algae from overgrowing and killing corals."

↑
This was my quote.........
"This reduction in hair algae led to a reduction of hair algae eating damsel fish. These scientists could have easily viewed the reduction of hair algae and inferred that there was a drop in nutrients. As there clearly was. From you values and opinion, the nutrients would have been lower when the algae was abundant because algae utilize nutrients like N and P. That's not how this works, and your link clearly shows this."
↑

I'm not sure what your point is to posting this???????
I'm glad you did though, because it points to their bias. (I take no sides in this. Just pointing out bias) They make a blanket statement of fact. "Herbivorous fish are particularly important for coral reefs, because their grazing prevents the algae from overgrowing and killing corals.". They're implying that the drop in herbivorous fish, brought on by man, is a threat to coral. However, in this case, the drop in herbivores has not been shown to be a threat to coral. The drop in herbivores was due to a drop in algae. The drop in algae reduces its threat to coral. When the drop in herbovorous fish is brought on by other factors, like over fishing, the threat to coral by algae can increase due to an increase in algae.

It is easy and in line what I´m saying It was a drop of biomass because there was a drop of incoming nutrients - If the algae not had bound them - the measured concentration should be higher. They are not saying anything about levels of inorganic nutrients in the water column.

Sincerely Lasse

I think this is our problem, and I pointed it out pages ago.
The damselfish and parrotfish obtain their nutrients from algae. From your perspective, algae does not represent nutrients at all. If you can't detect the nutrient in the open water with your test kit, it doesn't exist. This is why you don't see the big picture. Nutrients do not disappear the moment they're taken up by an organism. Just as your link shows, nutrients are passed from one organism to another. In your link, the nutrients in the fish captured by the bird, moves from that fish into the bird. From the bird, it's dispersed to rats, and many organisms of the reef, like algae. From the algae, it moves back into fish. These are real nutrients being passed from organism to organism to organism...... It doesn't matter if you can detect them with your test kit or not. They're really there. When the nutrient availability dropped, the biomass also dropped. Like it did in your link. If we return the nutrients, the biomass will also return.

The same basic concept plays out in our tanks. We do not need a test kit to see this, as we did not need a test kit to see it in your link. If we see an abundance of organisms like sponges, worms, pods, and algae, we know the nutrients are there to support them. If we watch the population/mass of these organisms increase month after month, year after year, we know the nutrient level within our glass box is also increasing. We do not need a test kit to see this. If we reduce the nutrient availability in our glass box, the population/mass of these organism will also be reduced. As happened in your link.

Peace
EC

 

[Elegance Coral]

I never said you said something that contradicts it - You keep mentioning Darwin's paradox - I was just pointing out that there are many explanations to (Darwins paradox) that do not involve 'recycling nutrients' which has been your big thing since page 1 or 2 or 3 lol I dont remember

LOL
Yes, we have a much better understanding today than Darwin had, and there are multiple contributing factors that have led to our understanding.
The point I was trying to make by bringing it up, was that, if the life is there, the nutrients to support it must also be there. Darwin understood this. That's why he was so confused by coral reefs. He could see the mass of life, but couldn't explain how it obtained the nutrients required.
Peace
EC

 

[Elegance Coral]

When scientist says that the nutrients in the sea is low - they refer to the inorganic nutrient content of the seas. If EC definition of nutrient should be valid - If they was unlucky and get a whale shark in their samples - they could state that the nutrient concentration was super high.

Once again - it is a large difference between measurement of inorganic nutrients in water and the nutrient flux through an ecosystem in that water.

Sincerely Lasse

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nutrient

 

[Lasse]

Once again with more bold from me

round rat-free islands, parrotfishes, a group of herbivores, grazed the entire surface of the reef 9 times per year, whereas around rat-infested islands the equivalent figure was only 2.8 times per year. Because parrotfishes feed with powerful beaks, there was also more bioerosion and greater production of sand on coral reefs surrounding rat-free islands; however, the amount of living coral was not lower than that on rat-infested islands.

They say that the parrotfishes destroy the corals. I use the word predation but you for sure understand what I meant

They talked about herbivores grazing on algae

Where do you found the word Algae in this quote above?

It simply means that despite greater bioerosion, by herbivores grazing on algae

They're implying that the drop in herbivorous fish, brought on by man, is a threat to coral. However, in this case, the drop in herbivores has not been shown to be a threat to coral. The drop in herbivores was due to a drop in algae. The drop in algae reduces its threat to coral. When the drop in herbovorous fish is brought on by other factors, like over fishing, the threat to coral by algae can increase due to an increase in algae.

Can you please show where you get this in the text from the link. my bold

And if you can´t differ between inorganic nutrients and organic nutrients - it no idea to discuss further.

Graze definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/graze

From the link

1 : to feed on growing herbage, attached algae, or phytoplankton cattle grazing on the slopes

2 : to eat small portions of food throughout the day She was grazing on snacks all afternoon.

Talk about cherrypicking

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Elegance Coral]

@Elegance Coral. I think you're completely misunderstanding and misstating @Lasse's opinions. I also think you're using terms that are vague and lead to the misunderstanding. Starting from the bottom up:

LOL.... I'm sorry but that was pretty vague, so I'm not even sure how to respond. LOL

Can you defend this? How is it biased? Which way does it 'slant'?

I guess you could say they lean far left. Like I said, I'm not picking a side in this. There's plenty of bias on both sides.
Nature's bias can be seen in their publications. They're quick to document man's harm to the environment, but rarely report on anything positive. Like the link Lesse posted. It paints a picture of how man's influence has harmed these coral reefs. While the introduction of rats by man has clearly caused a chain reaction and reduction of some species, and they go into detail explaining this, they deliberately avoid the subject of reef building coral populations. Just briefly mentioning that populations of coral on the more nutrient rich reefs (rat free) was not lower than that of the more nutrient poor reefs (rat inhabited). They talk about bird populations dropping, algae mass dropping, damselfish dropping, parrotfish dropping, but stop there and don't claim that reef building coral populations dropped. HUUUMMMM. Could this be because coral populations haven't dropped??? Could they have avoided this because with less competition by algae, reef building coral may actually start doing better??? Could the reef grow faster and larger now that it's cleaner, and end up supporting more life and a greater biodiversity????? IDK.

Nature is quick to document coral bleaching events but rarely ever documents the recovery.

There's a little blurb to the left of the text in Lesse's link. It's a quote from someone that took part in this study. He say roughly, This was a very risky study. What was so risky about it???? The study took place in a tropical paradise. Well, he explains why it was risky in the next line. Roughly quoted, We didn't know what the outcome would be. Research is never risky unless you have an agenda, or you're researching volcanoes. The whole purpose of doing this type of research is because we don't know the outcome. IMHO, His fear was that he would uncover evidence that contradicted his agenda. Which IMHO is why they didn't talk about the health of reef building corals in an article about the health of a coral reef. I believe that the health of the corals were not adversely affected so they didn't talk about that. It didn't fit their agenda.

Peace
off to work
EC

 

[brandon429]

Speed of this thread/lightning I’ll go back to try and catch the individual points


needed a follow up to surface area coverage, one additional way of seeing a big picture. Surface area> key repeating phrase

Part of the argument I’m certain that MN holds, and reinforces his stance here, is that adding bioload causes a notable gain in bacteria on filter surfaces/ tank surfaces and to withhold food causes loss of filter bacteria mass. In my opinion that’s the summary of both he and Lasse’s claim.
The impact of this physicality is to change filter efficiency, such that previously starved filters can’t run high bioload systems and filters that come from high bioload systems eventually lose their nitrifer mass over time if they’re moved to starved test setups, they can’t be placed right back into a high bioload tank without giving the formerly starved surfaces build up time—another restatement of efficiency we control as feeders and measurers.

This interchangeable nature between human added feed and mass of nitrifers, filter efficiency, is the base claims as I read them. It is indeed what the masses hold to be true about aquarium bacterial science.

Surface area science comes into play because surface area determines filter efficiency, not feed input constants given consistent hydration. Shear through the filter directly implicates how high bacteria can stack on active surface area, not how much you’ve fed, the rest is sludge deposited in pockets throughout awaiting our intercepting rinse-so that the effects of pore clogging and detritus compounded heterotrophic competitors are reduced in the filter. We backflush filters as Lasse has done professionally so filter -efficiency- isn’t reduced, by clogging, which reduces surface area, which is what matters in every case within this thread.


Since surface area isn’t changed when you feed a filter more, and any extra bac are sheared away and pocketed among filter flotsam, no extra bac are exposed to water flow, and this exposes the ramp up or ramp down misnomer. Withholding feed doesn’t create blank spaces on the filter surface area, I know MN does not think that. Since bacteria will remain even during fallow periods, the webs that support and insulate nitrifers remain, and are expressed by testing high surface area environments as we see in fallow work or other extreme cases, air contact time etc.


The ramp up and ramp down misnomer is the most widespread microbiological nonfact in reefing. If polled, 99% of respondents believe it to be true. holding the tenet is why a three year fallow test seems shockingly outlier. Before the links were given so we could debate mighty fast dormancy restoration, all previous thread posts in years prior said the bacteria would flat die off without feed and I bet it would not be hard to find that post history in some contributors here.




Any amounts of mass above the shear threshold on active surfaces in the filter are refused——> the surface area tends to hold the same nitrifer loading, self regulate given hydration and current even during periods of feed withholding, measurable efficiency remains constant and higher feed conditions merely require more backflushing to maintain filtration. Surface area has not been given the deference it deserves here, so most people will not accept the claim that ten filters take as long to upcycle when plumbed into a working system as one filter does given no change in aquarium bioloading as new filters are added. The masses will claim each new filter to tax the reserves of the overall system and require ever increasing time to cycle, a variation away from the 30 day cycling chart that is all of google images.


**Even if water shear wasn't keeping biofilms at the same thickness, to increase feed and stack more bacteria doesn't increase surface area**as the water passing over the top of the bioslick is what's filtered. The thinnest possible slick that can be maintained on surfaces is what filters the best, to have layers thick reduces surface area. Withholding feed doesn't reduce the biofilm, as they catch alternate feed sources when established post cycle, and this is why fallow testing shows a consistent ability to oxidize even if unfed, which is the opposite of claims MN has made.


why is it the majority holds a firm opinion about aquarium microbiology but google never offers me a ninety day stalled cycle chart to consult

 

[MnFish1]

Part of the argument I’m certain that MN holds, and reinforces his stance here, is that adding bioload causes a notable gain in bacteria on filter surfaces/ tank surfaces and to withhold food causes loss of filter bacteria mass. In my opinion that’s the summary of both he and Lasse’s claim.
The impact of this physicality is to change filter efficiency, such that previously starved filters can’t run high bioload systems and filters that come from high bioload systems eventually lose their nitrifer mass over time if they’re moved to starved test setups, they can’t be placed right back into a high bioload tank without giving the formerly starved surfaces build up time—another restatement of efficiency we control as feeders and measurers.

You are incorrect. I do not think that filters 'lose bacteria' when ammonia levels are low. I do think some of those bacteria become 'dormant' or less metabolically active in response to lower ammonia levels. I have said that several times - as has @Lasse. (as has the literature, the video of the guy that works at the Steinhart aquarium, etc etc).

Any amounts of mass above the shear threshold on active surfaces in the filter are refused——> the surface area tends to hold the same nitrifer loading, self regulate given hydration and current even during periods of feed withholding, measurable efficiency remains constant and higher feed conditions merely require more backflushing to maintain filtration. Surface area has not been given the deference it deserves here, so most people will not accept the claim that ten filters take as long to upcycle when plumbed into a working system as one filter does given no change in aquarium bioloading as new filters are added.

I have always said that surface area can be limiting - though still not sure thats completely true - given their free-swimming nature. There is simply no way that what you're saying about the 10 vs 1 filter can be true physically or scientifically (unless you are saying that after 30 days - the 1 filter will have the same biomass as the 10 filters (assuming that the nutrient input is the same). The tank with the 10 filters will not (IMHO) have 10x the nitrifies given the same nutrient input.

In any case - you continue to refuse to answer the questions about why the 'goldfish' / 'mollie' experiments don't prove your thesis. You refuse to acknowledge the problems with the '3 year fallow' tank you're talking about constantly. You just ignore what everyone says.

Ignored comments:

1. Nitrifying bacteria do not tolerate CHLORINATED (as compared to chloraminated) water.
2. Nitrifiers are obligate autotrophs - without ammonia they cannot grow.
3. Nitrifiers can be dormant (though you've seemed to agree with this of late - im not sure)
4. The experiment you quote/use to defend your thesis have no control and though 'interesting' - there is no way you can draw the conclusions you do.
5. Goldfish and mollies dropped into a glass bowl will survive - so you cant use that type of fish to prove a 'cycle' exists.
6. Many of @Lasse 's points are simply ignored
7. All of @Gregg @ ADP comments on ecology of populations are ignored.

 

[Elegance Coral]

They say that the parrotfishes destroy the corals. I use the word predation but you for sure understand what I meant

Please tell me you're not taking this statement literally............
"herbivores, grazed the entire surface of the reef 9 times per year"

 

[Lasse]

By the way - last I check - zooxanthella was classified as algae. And as I understand it - a parrotfish in a coral aquarium is not seen to be reef safe - but I can be wrong because I believe the person that state it and have not tested it. However - I have seen parrotfish in action over a natural reef and what I saw there did not contradict the statement that they are not reef safe in any way

Hint - I can be sarcastic sometimes

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Elegance Coral]

There is at least one reef safe parrot fish that we know of, as of right now. The quoyi perrot fish.

 

[Lasse]

0.46 in - beautifully



Sincerely Lasse

 

[Elegance Coral]

There are many species of parrotfish. The article refers to a herbivorous parrotfish.

"Moreover, of all the types of reef fish, the abundance of herbivorous (alga-eating) fishes was the most negatively affected by the presence of rats. Herbivorous fish are particularly important for coral reefs, because their grazing prevents the algae from overgrowing and killing corals. Around rat-free islands, parrotfishes, a group of herbivores, grazed the entire surface of the reef 9 times per year "

They say nothing about fish eating coral, preying on, or killing coral. They talk about how herbivores help protect coral by feeding on algae. Algae doesn't grow on living coral tissue. It grows on the carcasses of long dead coral/limestone. It is the grazing of this material that they're talking about producing erosion. Not feeding on living coral.

 

[Lasse]

We will not come ant further with the discussion of the actual quote. I read one thing - you read another - other readers have to get their own interpretation of the text.

What surprise me is that if your interpretation of the text should be the true - it contradict your general idea that more nutrient por system give more growth of corals. Your interpretation of the text says that the nutrient porer system give not less coral growth (rat infested islands) compared with more nutrient rich system (no rat islands)when you emphasizes that

the amount of living coral was not lower than that on rat-infested islands.

If your general idea about a more nutrient por system give a faster and larger growth compared with one with higher "nutrion" level - the amount of living coral should just be lower at the non rat island compared with the rat infested islands - you contradict yourself. The researcher says that it was not lower in the no rat islands.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Scott Campbell]

Please do not group me in with others. You lack the ability to differentiate between what I say and what others have to say.

I have not claimed that "we" do not see the whole picture. I stated the fact that "you" do not see the whole picture. Please do not put words in my mouth. Especially when it comes to claims that I made statements about others.

I'm not here stating my "values and opinions". For me, this is science. When you confuse "values and opinions", with science, you get your feelings hurt every time someone shows you you're wrong.

You do not see the whole picture. At least you won't allow yourself to admit that you do, because it would contradict your values and opinions.

Your own links show that you do not understand.
An abundance of life is a biomarker to show the presence of nutrients. This is why Darwin had his paradox. The life was there, but he couldn't find the nutrients needed to support it.
Your values and opinions tell you that life is a biomarker to show nutrients are low. (your abundance of sponges shows you that nutrients are low, because sponges "eat" detritus.) Your own links show that's not accurate. You post links to an article where bird poop was removed from a reef. This drop in nutrients led to a reduction in hair algae mass. This reduction in hair algae led to a reduction of hair algae eating damsel fish. These scientists could have easily viewed the reduction of hair algae and inferred that there was a drop in nutrients. As there clearly was. From you values and opinion, the nutrients would have been lower when the algae was abundant because algae utilize nutrients like N and P. That's not how this works, and your link clearly shows this.

You are clearly wrong, but your values and opinions will never allow you to admit it.

BTW, Nature, is a very bias organization. I love their films and articles, but they should be viewed with the knowledge that the organization is very bias, and the information will be presented with a slant.


A quote from your link. "the amount of living coral was not lower than that on rat-infested islands."
The article stated that bird populations dropped, nutrient levels dropped, algae mass dropped, herbivorous fish populations dropped, but they could not say that coral populations dropped. They chose the wording of that statement very carefully.
IMHO, the population of coral is likely to increase with time, if the rats are not irradiated. As nutrient levels shift in our systems, as in nature, the species that prosper also shifts. When nutrients climb, we get an abundance of species that prosper under those high nutrient conditions. Algae, sponges, worms............. When nutrients drop, those populations shift. Organisms that prosper in lower nutrient environments begin to prosper, like reef building corals. Algae, sponges, and worm, populations drop.

I keep reading through your posts trying to make some sense of what you are saying.

No one can argue that more biomass is always bad and less biomass is always good. A rain forest has a lot of biomass. A desert has less. How can anyone say one is better than the other. And it would seem odd to say a coral reef with less life is better than a coral reef with more life. And what would determine a good or bad total level of biomass on a coral reef? It also appears even you consider an increase in hard coral biomass to be a good thing. And finally, it seems obvious that for most of us the point of a reef tank is to grow stuff (i.e. increase biomass).

What it seems you are *really* saying is that there is good biomass and bad biomass. So that a coral reef with a lot of worms, sponges and algae is like an overweight person carrying a lot of needless and harmful weight. (Brandon - this would be an actual example of anthropomorphism.) So that a "healthy" reef tank is like a slim person without the beer gut of algae, bacteria and copepods.

That is an interesting concept. And I think many people accept that analogy. But I am not convinced there is any scientific basis to the analogy. All of these organisms have evolved together as a single eco-system. My corals do better when there are fish in my tank. My fish seem healthier grazing on worms and algae. My digitata corals grow much faster in close proximity to chaeto being eaten by worms. Clearly something of value to the corals is being released into the water column by the consumption of algae. And so on. The interdependence of organisms on a reef is stunningly complex. How can you possibly say corals are good but sponges are bad? Each organism on a reef has a function and role. You can't separate them and maintain the eco-system.

And the diversity of corals alone is amazing. Some corals prefer low nutrients, some don't. Are soft corals bad? Are SPS corals better than LPS corals? Are anemones bad? Is it bad if someone grows ornamental algae like Dragon's Breath in their tank? Are snails bad? Are urchins bad? I don't know where you draw the line between good nutrients/biomass/life and bad nutrients/biomass/life.

It seems to me that you prefer a minimalist aesthetic for your tank. Just hard corals and fish. Clean looking rocks, no algae growth, no microfauna. Just a nice, pristine appearance. Which is cool. And you have developed a methodology to maintain this aesthetic. Clearly a turf scrubber and refugium make no sense for your aesthetic. Less surface area, quick removal of waste, water changes, filter socks - this is the best approach for your desired result.

I take no issue with your aesthetic preference or your methodology. I do react very negatively to your posts, however, because you present your aesthetic as hard science. And then you go further and mock those who do not follow your aesthetic. People are "fools" if they do not listen to your advice. People are stupid to let detritus "rot" in their tanks. You have presented no evidence as to why less diversity is healthier than more diversity. No evidence why nutrients tied up in fish and hard coral are "good" but nutrients tied up in sponges, worms and starfish are "bad". No evidence why biological competition is not an effective means of reducing water column nutrient levels. No evidence why mimicking the actual interdependence of organisms on a coral reef is not a valid methodology for a reef tank. And so on.

So again - I appreciate your religious fervor. And Brandon's. And I understand and acknowledge your aesthetic preference and the methodology behind it. But I don't see any actual science in what you are posting.

 

[Lasse]

In post 409 you said

Lets say we have a magical tank, with a filter, and a grouper in it. That's all. No other life forms. We feed this tank one cube of mysis every 24 hours. The grouper consumes it, uses 20% to build mass, and discharges the rest as waste. With no other life forms, the filter has almost immediate access to the whole 80% waste, and quickly removes it all from the system in that 24 hours, before the next feeding.

In post 411 I said

Describe that filter that can remove all dissolved inorganic nutrients plus all organic waste in 24 hours?

I have still not get an answer on that question - I love to here what type of filter or method that can do this.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

From an article published in march 2018 - my bold - rather interesting

We were focused on trying to understand the biological rates at which organisms transform their environment: what metabolisms are actually at play within this reef structure. The water around the reef is pretty poor in nutrients, meaning that it’s a super efficient system. Part of the reason why these reefs are so beautiful is because things don’t really grow in the overlying water. If there’s some molecule of ammonium, it’s snarfed up immediately. So what you can tell from the water chemistry is not necessarily the best indicator of how the reef functions. It’s really the flux or the rates of nitrogen transformation from one form to another that are much more important. There’s a huge flux of nitrogen that we know of. It’s a finely tuned system. So you could have some immeasurably small ammonium concentration, but the rate at which that ammonium is produced and then consumed can be extremely high. As long as those rates are equal, you would never measure any accumulation within the water column itself, and that’s why we are trying to measure the biological rates rather than just the chemical concentrations.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[SDchris]

Isn't that why they use Chl-a as a measure of nutrients?

Limited PO4 —> limited d-flagellate growth —> limited glucose production —> limited coral mass

Is PO4 from coral metabolism recycled via zoox or associated bacteria? Limited to zoox and limited to coral can be to different cases.
High inorganic phosphate concentration in coral mucus

The dissolved inorganic phosphate (DIP) concentration was 135‐fold higher than in the ambient seawater, probably due to inorganic P release from the coral gut cavity

 

[Lasse]

Further from the same source

Ammonium, one of the nitrogen compounds, is readily available for growth. Nitrate, another one, is also pretty utilizable, but requires extra energy in order to actually create a protein. Nitrite is mostly available but can be highly toxic to fish. N2,

ammonium = NH3/NH4, nitrate = NO3, nitrite = NO2, N2 = nitrogen gas - all of them inorganic forms of nitrogen nutrients.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

Isn't that why they use Chl-a as a measure of nutrients?

Is PO4 from coral metabolism recycled via zoox or associated bacteria? Limited to zoox and limited to coral can be to different cases.
High inorganic phosphate concentration in coral mucus

I can´t reach the full paper but can you rule out another pathway - The abstract propose that the PO4 is released by the gut and bacteria take up PO4 - can`t it be the opposite - heterotrophic bacteria release a lot of PO4 and the decline of the concentration is due to zooxanthella´s uptake?
Sincerely Lasse