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

[MnFish1]

We don't use the rule of incremental remove in the sand rinse thread because it's misnomer science. So, agreed I'm on the anecdote train but by all means track the sand rinse thread for the next decade and see results of not following bunk thread science.

So here is an interesting story. The other day - I decided to clean out my discus tank - with about 12 large discus - a 200 gallon. and change water - now - I always change 80% of the water every week or so - so nothing new. But this time I used the Python to vacuum the sand. As I started filling the tank - I noticed all of the fish looked funny. 10 minutes later they were all floating at the top. I kept filling the tank - but I literally for 3 hours held a fish in front of the flow pump (maxspect) and watched them float to the other end of the tank while I picked up another one and did the same in rotation. In the end 2 died - but I have no clue whether I stirred something up or whether the water company added more sanitizers but... There's an anecdote.

 

[MnFish1]

This is not nutrients - it is living matter. And this is the major problem for you - you se all things as nutrient - Please show me one accepted definition of living matter as nutrients - it can give you nutrients if you are a heterotroph organism but living matter is not by it self a nutrient. However

Warning - @Elegance Coral - Im going to counter @Lasse here. Only. because I think this is another misunderstanding. Phytoplankton are not nutrients - until they are ingested - but once ingested - the waste products (from whatever ingested them) become nutrients.

 

[Mortie31]

Warning - @Elegance Coral - Im going to counter @Lasse here. Only. because I think this is another misunderstanding. Phytoplankton are not nutrients - until they are ingested - but once ingested - the waste products (from whatever ingested them) become nutrients.

Can a small fish as it’s eaten by a shark be then classed as a nutrient as well...

 

[MnFish1]

Can a small fish as it’s eaten by a shark be then classed as a nutrient as well...

Edited - NO I DON'T THINK SO But I think @Lasse is using a 'strict' scientific definition. I.e. - a small fish contains nutrients - but is not a 'nutrient'

 

[Lasse]

Warning - @Elegance Coral - Im going to counter @Lasse here. Only. because I think this is another misunderstanding. Phytoplankton are not nutrients - until they are ingested - but once ingested - the waste products (from whatever ingested them) become nutrients.

It not contradict me - you complement me - that´s what I try to say but this produced inorganic (mostly) nutrients will not end up as NH3/NH4, NO2 or NO3 in the water column for a long time - they will be consumed directly of one or another of the primary producer of the reef. And if the plankton come from the outside it will give new inorganic nutrients (through been eaten) to the reef, directly bound in biomass.

Can a small fish as it’s eaten by a shark be then classed as a nutrient as well..

Is the same here - it is food that will contain organic nutrients for the shark (heterotroph organism) and the waste from the shark will come out as inorganic NH3/NH4 or organic urea CO(NH2)2 (because it is a shark) This urea will later be broken up of heterotrophic bacteria with the waste inorganic NH3/NH4. If the prey (the fish) was from the reef itself - it is a recycling of nutrients - if the fish was from the outside (pelagic or from another reef) it was an import of mostly inorganic nutrients that promote primary producers inclusive zooxantheller. If the shark was a migrating species and the fish from the reef - you have some export to. If the predator was a grouper - forget the urea part

But I think @Lasse is using a 'strict' scientific definition.

Yes I do use a strict definition because if one call an apple for a banana - it is impossible to discuss.

Let us use Wikipedia´s definition of nutrient and try to use the defined words inorganic and organic nutrients. Autotrophs (primary producers) and heterotrophs (consumer) is good to use too.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Elegance Coral]

• I appreciate this thoughtful response. Thank you.
  
  Here is what I still don't understand:
  
  If nutrients available in the water column increase (especially if the increase is somewhat rapid) then I can understand why sponge, algae and worm populations would increase. These organisms are more opportunistic. Which I suspect is what is happening in the Florida Keys. So growth of sponges might certainly be an indicator of increasing water column nutrients.
  
  But that is not the same as long-term "nutrification" of a system. If tank "A" is filling up with beautiful acropora - that tank is increasing in biomass and increasing in overall nutrification. If tank "B" shows the exact same increase in total biomass and the exact same overall nutrification at the exact same rate; but the resulting biomass is a mix of corals, algae and sponges - is tank "B" somehow not as good as tank "A"? What makes it not as good? All of these organisms evolved together in an inter-connected ecosystem. There are no reefs without algae, bacteria, sponges and microfauna. I can understand not letting algae take over a tank - but again, that seems more a matter of nutrients available in the water column. A tank slowly increasing in biomass that is a diverse and balanced mix of organisms doesn't seem at all worrisome to me. And you have not indicated *why* it is worrisome except as a bio-marker of nutrification. But acropora growth would also be a bio-marker of nutrification. Nutrification / growth of biomass over time is not bad in and of itself. We all want stuff to grow in our tanks.

  
  
• It's not simply the mass of life, but the type of life, that's an indicator of nutrient levels.

Large quantities of algae require large quantities of inorganics, like N and P. Without this, we can not have large quantities of algae.
We do not typically add inorganic N and P to our systems. We add organically bound N and P. These organics must be broken down by other organisms like, bacteria, sponges, worms, pods, and fish, before the N and P it contains is available to algae. In other words, a large mass of algae tells us that there is some cobination of these types of organisms present, that are capable of producing the inorganics needed.

You and I consume far more food than we use to build and repair tissue. The reason we must consume such large quantities of food, is to meet our energy/carbon/carbohydrate/sugar needs. Sponges, worm, pods........ are similar to us in this regard. They consume large quantities of food/organics, to obtain energy, and simply discharge much of the N and P it contains. (which is then utilized by algae) This tells us that these organisms require large quantities of food to survive.
In comparison, photosynthetic corals do not need to consume nearly as much food. The numbers can vary but, zooxanthellae inside these corals can meet up to 100% of the corals energy needs. This drastically reduces the amount of food required. Their main reason for eating is to repair tissue, grow, and reproduce, not to obtain energy. Much of the small amount of N and P these corals do consume, but don't build mass with, isn't just released back into the environment, like other organisms do, it's used as fertilizer for their zooxanthellae. This enables these corals to live in very nutrient poor waters. This evolutionary leap, of zooxanthellae living inside coral, is what made tropical coral reefs possible. Without this symbiosis, very little could live in these nutrient poor waters.

So, a large mass of coral, does not tell us the same thing about the environment that a large mass of algae, sponges, worms, and pods would tell us.

Peace
EC

 

[Lasse]

Lot of algae on coral reefs is not a sign of high nutrients - it is a sign of low amount of grazers as many investigation have shown - take away the grazers - the algae will grow even in your nutrient por water and invade the reef. You state that the nutrient the coral gain goes to the zooxanthella - not to energy - why in the whole world does the coral animal use zooxanthella if it only be a burden. As an algae - the zooxanthella can gain inorganic nutrients from the water both for themselves and for the coral animal. The animal get nutrients both from the algae and its own food - therefore photosyntetic corals grow faster than their cousins that is only heterotrophic - NPS or non photosynteric stony corals. They also can use nutrients from bacteria activity in their mucus - direct as food or through the mineralization done by bacteria.

Today standard among many aquarist is to maintain a PO4 level of 0.02 - 0.08 ppm and NO3 levels between 2 - 5 ppm. In many aquaria populated with many photosyntetic corals it is impossible to maintain these levels and dosing NO3 has been a standard - followed of PO4 dosing.

A question what type of energy does the coral animal get from the zoox?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Scott Campbell]

• 
  
  
• It's not simply the mass of life, but the type of life, that's an indicator of nutrient levels.

Large quantities of algae require large quantities of inorganics, like N and P. Without this, we can not have large quantities of algae.
We do not typically add inorganic N and P to our systems. We add organically bound N and P. These organics must be broken down by other organisms like, bacteria, sponges, worms, pods, and fish, before the N and P it contains is available to algae. In other words, a large mass of algae tells us that there is some cobination of these types of organisms present, that are capable of producing the inorganics needed.

You and I consume far more food than we use to build and repair tissue. The reason we must consume such large quantities of food, is to meet our energy/carbon/carbohydrate/sugar needs. Sponges, worm, pods........ are similar to us in this regard. They consume large quantities of food/organics, to obtain energy, and simply discharge much of the N and P it contains. (which is then utilized by algae) This tells us that these organisms require large quantities of food to survive.
In comparison, photosynthetic corals do not need to consume nearly as much food. The numbers can vary but, zooxanthellae inside these corals can meet up to 100% of the corals energy needs. This drastically reduces the amount of food required. Their main reason for eating is to repair tissue, grow, and reproduce, not to obtain energy. Much of the small amount of N and P these corals do consume, but don't build mass with, isn't just released back into the environment, like other organisms do, it's used as fertilizer for their zooxanthellae. This enables these corals to live in very nutrient poor waters. This evolutionary leap, of zooxanthellae living inside coral, is what made tropical coral reefs possible. Without this symbiosis, very little could live in these nutrient poor waters.

So, a large mass of coral, does not tell us the same thing about the environment that a large mass of algae, sponges, worms, and pods would tell us.

Peace
EC

It seems odd to say 10 lbs of animals that contain algae is ultimately different from 10 lbs of other animals and algae. But maybe. I will let others more knowledgeable than me chime in.

 

[Elegance Coral]

You state that the nutrient the coral gain goes to the zooxanthella - not to energy - why in the whole world does the coral animal use zooxanthella if it only be a burden.
Sincerely Lasse

How did you get that from what I wrote?????????? Please read it again. Nice and slow.

Today standard among many aquarist is to maintain a PO4 level of 0.02 - 0.08 ppm and NO3 levels between 2 - 5 ppm. In many aquaria populated with many photosyntetic corals it is impossible to maintain these levels and dosing NO3 has been a standard - followed of PO4 dosing.

That's because they don't understand the relationship between coral and their zooxanthellae. These corals can grow just fine with undetectable NO3 and PO4. I would argue even faster, but that's a totally different subject.

 

[Mortie31]

That's because they don't understand the relationship between coral and their zooxanthellae. These corals can grow just fine with undetectable NO3 and PO4. I would argue even faster, but that's a totally different subject.

Are you sure??? SPS keepers have repeatedly found too low PO4/ NO3 levels leave to paling and dying corals, which is why the current trend is to keep these levels higher, at about the level Lasse quoted above.. Hence the previously strived for ULNS tanks are declining fast, and more and more are dosing NO3/ PO4 to feed there corals with good results..

 

[Elegance Coral]

It seems odd to say 10 lbs of animals that contain algae is ultimately different from 10 lbs of other animals and algae. But maybe. I will let others more knowledgeable than me chime in.

With other animals and algae, the nutrients are dispersed, and diluted, through the environment. This means that more nutrients need to be in the environment for any one organism to capture enough to survive. With coral and their zooxanthellae, the nutrients are passed back and forth inside the coral. It's a much cleaner system, and few nutrients are dumped into the environment.

Peace
EC

 

[SDchris]

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?

From memory it didn't say.
My interpretation is that corals keep control of its symbiotic community by partitioning N to zoox and P to bacteria.

 

[SDchris]

Today standard among many aquarist is to maintain a PO4 level of 0.02 - 0.08 ppm and NO3 levels between 2 - 5 ppm.

In that case, you have to also explain why aquariums with no testable nitrate and phosphate can have very fast growth rates.

 

[MnFish1]

With other animals and algae, the nutrients are dispersed, and diluted, through the environment. This means that more nutrients need to be in the environment for any one organism to capture enough to survive. With coral and their zooxanthellae, the nutrients are passed back and forth inside the coral. It's a much cleaner system, and few nutrients are dumped into the environment.

Peace
EC

@Elegance Coral I think you are (and Im sorry if this is wrong) a troll of some kind. That is perhaps more insulting that it should be and I guess I cant think of the correct word. Im literally not trying to insult you - as I said - I enjoy your posts. You just want to debate. You ignore evidence. you just keep repeating over and over.

The comment above makes no sense based on the comments you have made before. Zooxanthellae do not pass nutrients back and forth - they capture new 'energy' - Sunlight, N and P - from the water and provide it to the coral. According to you (before) nutrients are immediately captured - and 'held' by the organisms. Longer and longer. Now you say they are diluted and dispersed. Its is like some kind of weird German movie from the 1970's where reality plays a back seat to the film.

 

[MnFish1]

In that case, you have to also explain why aquariums with non testable nitrate and phosphate can have very fast growth rates.

SDchris - can you explain what 'non-testable' means? Does that mean 'zero' or does it mean that nutrients are taken up almost immediately (as they would be on the reef). Non-testable does not mean non-existent. Also - what do you mean by 'very fast growth rates' - based on 'what'. Everyone keeps using terms that have no definition - as if everyone else knows what they are talking about.

 

[Mortie31]

In that case, you have to also explain why aquariums with no testable nitrate and phosphate can have very fast growth rates.

But then why are systems like the ZEOvit ulns getting rarer and rarer... if growth was so good???

 

[Lasse]

You state that the nutrient the coral gain goes to the zooxanthella - not to energy - why in the whole world does the coral animal use zooxanthella if it only be a burden.

How did you get that from what I wrote?????????? Please read it again. Nice and slow.

Yes I will do that

Their main reason for eating is to repair tissue, grow, and reproduce, not to obtain energy

-And as you state everywhere - food is nutrients (and I can live with that when an organism is eaten)

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

It seems odd to say 10 lbs of animals that contain algae is ultimately different from 10 lbs of other animals and algae. But maybe. I will let others more knowledgeable than me chime in.

Of course what he says doesnt make sense. This quote: In comparison, photosynthetic corals do not need to consume nearly as much food. The numbers can vary but, zooxanthellae inside these corals can meet up to 100% of the corals energy needs. This drastically reduces the amount of food required. doesnt make sense to me - OK - so the photosynthetic corals dont need to consume nearly as much food - but the zooxanthellae do - Matter, atoms, chemicals, etc are not created from nothing. In order for the zooxanthellae to provide enough food for the coral - they need to consume the amount of energy the coral needs - or the coral will not grow/survive.

The recycling theory that he is suggesting is the major issue on the reef has been discussed and to at least my reading disproven - in the 2000's. It certainly plays a role - but its an old theory.

 

[MnFish1]

But then why are systems like the ZEOvit ulns getting rarer and rarer... if growth was so good???

Conversely - to play devils advocate - if it didnt work (an ulns) why would it have been marketed - and successful. My guess is that part of it is cost - and that its not any better than other 'systems'. Its like Triton - Use our chemicals and a refugium. OK - so it may work well - but is there any reason it works better than using cheaper chemicals and a refugium?

 

[Lasse]

That's because they don't understand the relationship between coral and their zooxanthellae. These corals can grow just fine with undetectable NO3 and PO4. I would argue even faster, but that's a totally different subject.

That was the believe 5 years ago - not today - reality have shown it wrong

Sincerely Lasse