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

[Gregg @ ADP]

@Lasse

I wanted to get back with you on the energetics of coral laying down a base (aka building skeleton) as it might pertain to determining total biomass.

As you might imagine, there is not a whole lot of research (that is underrating it) into that side of coral metabolism. I looked around a bit, but the best I could come up with is simply to make some assumptions based on some general understanding.

Much of the process of obtaining and constructing skeletal material appears to be passive (sequester ions via ambient H2O) and simple chem rxns (precipitation of CaCO3(aq) in low pH), simple diffusion, and with a little extra work on the part of the coral.

Hard to determine the actual amount of energy used. There does appear to be an enzyme-driven Ca+ pump. From what I can find, these pumps can use up to 25% of available ATP w/in any given cell.

Now, the production of CaCO3(s) occurs in caclioblastic ectodermic cells, and the material is secreted (I’m assuming passively through pores going in direction of conc. gradient) out of these cells and adheres to existing CaCO3(s). It appears that this occurs only in a single layer of cells.

In the grand scheme of things, using up to 25% of avail energy (prob less) in a single layer of cells of an entire organism is a negligible at most.

 

[Lasse]

Thanks

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

Follow up: in a way, a coral building a skeleton is analogous to a tree building a trunk and branches (or maybe the other way around, since the corals were here 1st).

Most of a tree is not living...really just a layer of living tissue over dead tissue...similar to stony corals.

I believe the energetic cost to the tree is far higher than for the coral, however. Plants have to build those cellulose cells and deposit them, whereas a coral simply sucks up some ions and they precipitate out. The dead mass of a tree was once living, but the ‘dead’ mass of coral skeleton was never alive in the first place...so that mass could be calculated in determining plant biomass, but is not relevant in determining coral biomass.

 

[Lasse]

@Gregg @ ADP I apparently start you up

There is some interesting things I read lately about the coral skeleton. It is not as solid as we have thought - there is some evidences that it can contain algae - containing chlorophyll F

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

@Gregg @ ADP I apparently start you up

There is some interesting things I read lately about the coral skeleton. It is not as solid as we have thought - there is some evidences that it can contain algae - containing chlorophyll F

Sincerely Lasse

Interesting. Are these algae associated with the coral, or simply living on/in the CaCO3 matrix underneath?

I would have to imagine that there is sufficient light, nutrients, and CO2 under the coral tissue to accomodate algae.

 

[Elegance Coral]

Sorry my friend but the vast majority of serious SPS reefers will completely disagree with you... just browse the SPS forums..

I'm fully aware of that.
Serious SPS reefers thought they understood when the Berlin method came out.
Thought they understood when DSB's were popular.
Thought they understood when BB became popular.
Thought they understood when ULNS's were popular.
Now, this time, with the dosing of NO3 and PO4, surely they understand, and anyone that would suggest otherwise has got to be wrong???????????

Peace
EC

 

[SDchris]

SDchris - can you explain what 'non-testable' means?

Less than what shows up as a positive result on a general hobby test kit.
In the context of my original reply i'm sure you know what I was referring too.

Also - what do you mean by 'very fast growth rates' - based on 'what'

Based on a general average that is achieved in the hobby and known wild rates.

 

[brandon429]

@MnFish1

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/w...r-killed-some-of-my-fish.408871/#post-4842686

That's more we have in common. Very similar freshwater woes, and I still don't know what caused my small fish kill. I just use more dechlor now

Earlier at work I saw the post regarding minimum surface area exposed to fish / goldfish and vs stating what I think, I'd rather wait till we get some base testing here. I've reached my predictive max until some one wets some bricks or garden rocks and does some testing and score a seneye for some work. Dr Reef already has a seneye and if we watch his posts carefully we w get to see some unassisted cycle work he has already set up a test vase with wet substrate, it's just aging now.

 

[MnFish1]

@MnFish1

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/w...r-killed-some-of-my-fish.408871/#post-4842686

That's more we have in common. Very similar freshwater woes, and I still don't know what caused my small fish kill. I just use more dechlor now

Earlier at work I saw the post regarding minimum surface area exposed to fish / goldfish and vs stating what I think, I'd rather wait till we get some base testing here. I've reached my predictive max until some one wets some bricks or garden rocks and does some testing and score a seneye for some work. Dr Reef already has a seneye and if we watch his posts carefully we w get to see some unassisted cycle work he has already set up a test vase with wet substrate, it's just aging now.

Yes very interesting - I wondered about gas - I just put 'stress coat' in the sump of the tank and fill the tank from the tap - have never had a problem. It was crazy though.

 

[SDchris]

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

I don't consider Zeovit low nutrient. From earlier:

Eutrophication would be a measure of the rate at which those inorganic nutrients are produced. Not the rate at which you remove them.
..........................Using things like GFO is only masking that.

If you have lots of phosphate being produced in a tank, then everything in that tank is going to get first shot a taking that up. it does not reach your external filter till after.

 

[MnFish1]

Less than what shows up as a positive result on a general hobby test kit.
In the context of my original reply i'm sure you know what I was referring too.

Based on a general average that is achieved in the hobby and known wild rates.

Yes - I thought I did - but there is so much question about the accuracy of the tests - especially in the low limits I wasn't sure. As to coral growth - I just didnt know how anyone would know what a 'general average' was. Honest question - do you think corals in our tanks grow faster or slower than in the wild (I can see it both ways) - ie. corals kept in ideal conditions in tanks.

 

[Elegance Coral]

Since I used his own article to show that his ideas were incorrect - and he disregarded my articles showing he was incorrect - I have come to the conclusion that he is just messing around here. He being @Elegance Coral. I actually enjoy reading his posts and trying to figure out what is being said - but I have to say - Im almost ready to give up on him. He seems like a really smart guy - but - doesnt know how to have a conversation/discussion.

Sorry man,
I'll get to it first thing in the morning.
One of the communication problems is that I don't have as much time to post as I would like. I say something, people don't agree/understand what I've said, then I don't have time to respond/explain before the thread moves on.
Peace
EC

 

[Elegance Coral]

@Elegance Coral. PS - Just because someone can't 'see' where the nutrients are 'coming from' - for growth to occur - by definition - they must be entering the system. Because Darwin more than a hundred years ago didnt understand 'where they came from' - doesn't mean that they aren't coming from somewhere. (ie. nutrients are not just being recycled)

Trying to catch up on some of these while the wife cooks dinner.

I never said nutrients weren't coming from somewhere, or that they were just being recycled. My very first post in this thread talks about nutrients entering an ecosystem.

Peace
EC

 

[Mortie31]

I'm fully aware of that.
Serious SPS reefers thought they understood when the Berlin method came out.
Thought they understood when DSB's were popular.
Thought they understood when BB became popular.
Thought they understood when ULNS's were popular.
Now, this time, with the dosing of NO3 and PO4, surely they understand, and anyone that would suggest otherwise has got to be wrong???????????

Peace
EC

So why are you saying everyone is wrong?? That is incredibly arrogant as you offer nothing more than your opinion, which everyone on here seems to disagree with!! If you have proof of what your saying then please share and help us all understand, as you have not done this yet I’m not holding my breath...

 

[Mortie31]

I'm fully aware of that.
Serious SPS reefers thought they understood when the Berlin method came out.
Thought they understood when DSB's were popular.
Thought they understood when BB became popular.
Thought they understood when ULNS's were popular.
Now, this time, with the dosing of NO3 and PO4, surely they understand, and anyone that would suggest otherwise has got to be wrong???????????

Peace
EC

You are the one putting forward an alternative solution/theory/ or more likely a dream...; therefore it is upto you to prove that it is correct, not for everyone else to prove its wrong... all of the above systems worked for lots of reefers, did they understand why they worked or not, in the main probably not, but most reefers are not scientists and rely on the so called experts. You my friend offer no science to support your theory or even working examples of it. Your quick to dispel everyone else as wrong but for a self proclaimed scholar who researches every morning, you should be fully aware the burden of proof lies with you. So show us your evidence and stop being a chancer...

 

[Mortie31]

I don't consider Zeovit low nutrient. From earlier:

Ok, could you please explain why not? Maybe I don’t understand the definition of what is ulns , but ZEO was always referred to as ulns, I’m not being arguementive with you just wanting to learn

 

[Lasse]

I'm fully aware of that.
Serious SPS reefers thought they understood when the Berlin method came out.
Thought they understood when DSB's were popular.
Thought they understood when BB became popular.
Thought they understood when ULNS's were popular.
Now, this time, with the dosing of NO3 and PO4, surely they understand, and anyone that would suggest otherwise has got to be wrong???????????

Peace
EC

And your understanding stop at ULNS?

Let us say that I did not agree at all with the ULNS theory - never done that. Let us say that I did not agree with the BB theory either. This is not the same as I say these system do not work - they do - but there is other systems that work as good as these. My understanding stop with the DSB as a start point for building an reef aquarium that is sustainable over a prolonged time. I connect DSB, reverse under gravel filter, refugium, skimmer, doc dosing, GFO, H2O2, recycling the nutrients, adding nutrients and trace elements, using ICP and modern possibilities to control and measure the system with help of powerful aquarium computers in one build a try to compensate every singel components drawbacks and optimize every single components advantages in a try to mimic a real reef.

Since I started with reefs back in 2006 I have always fight the opinions that state PO4 and NO3 as toxic for photosyntetic organism even in low concentrations. The key of life can´t be toxic - however to much (as usually) can be harmfull. It is not my first fight according these issues.

However - you have a point that the coral animal recycle NH3/NH4 and PO4 to the zoox if there is food available. But not all corals eat prey and no one (as I know) of the photosyntetic corals survive if the light disappear but they can survive and grow without prey. I have briefly seen one study that one type of SPS (do not remember the species) have much higher Zooxanthellae concentration and photosynthesis rate if they were feed. I could not access the article - therefore I do not know the inorganic content in their test water.

When you talk of low inorganic nutrients in surrounding waters and the slight increase over the reef. Can you give me some figures of natural values. What is the PO4 concentration in surrounding waters, What is the PO4 concentration over a reef, what is the NO3 levels in surrounding waters and over a reef. I do not want sweeping explanations - I want real figures with references from real measurements. And I want to know if the measurements are as PO4-P or NO3-N or as PO4 and NO3 too. People working with environmental measurements use to refer to the P and N component - normally expressed as PO4-P or NO3-N. We use PO4 and NO3 and there is a large difference in this two ways of report values. 1 ppm reported as NO3-N is around 4.43 ppm as NO3.

Dana refer in an earlier post NO3 levels of 800 ppm in real reefs at Hawaii. This is extreme but it shows the complexity of real life measurements. I want some data that back your statements. You said that you read a lot of literature about coral reefs and inorganic nutrients - it would not be difficult for you to show these measurements. If you ar not capable to convert micromoles to ppm - I know how to do it. You can report micromoles if you want

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Elegance Coral]

@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.

Coral produce waste from feeding. Zooxanthellae utilize this waste as fertilizer to grow and reproduce. Zooxanthellae produce glucose/sugar/energy, through photosynthesis, that's utilized by the coral. Coral also digest their zooxanthellae when needed. In other words, the coral provides nutrients to the zooxanthellae, they grow, then the coral digests those zooxanthellae, and the nutrients return to the coral. "They pass nutrients back and forth."

I posted a link earlier. In that link there was a table. That table clearly showed that the nutrient level away from the reef was lower than the nutrients directly around the reef. Look at any environment, anywhere on the planet, and you'll see this same effect. As the mass of life increases, so does the nutrient level.

Take a worm on the reef as an example. As that worm grows, it traps and "holds" nutrients within it's tissues and within the local environment. The larger it gets, the more nutrients it "holds" and the more nutrients it requires to survive. The more it eats, the more it releases as waste. This waste is "diluted and dispersed" making it available for other organisms in the local environment to utilize and grow. Lets say the average lifespan of this species of worm is one year. At the end of that year, all the nutrients it "held" in its body will be returned to the local environment and utilized by other organisms. This is one tiny creature, in a large group of many many many tiny creatures. All of them doing the same thing. Nutrients are always entering and leaving the environment. If you magically remove all the life in this environment, you remove all the held, dispersed, shared, recycled, nutrients. There will be nothing to slow the nutrient flow that enters and leaves the environment. The nutrient content entering the environment, in the environment, and leaving the environment will all be the same. Return the life, and the nutrient level of the environment goes back up. The more life you add to that environment, the more nutrients it robs from the flow of nutrients entering and leaving the environment, and the higher the nutrient content of the environment becomes. This happens everywhere you look on the planet. Forests, grass planes, temperate oceans, coral reefs, and yes, our systems.

I don't know why I'm doing this, because people on here don't like hypothetical explanations, but here goes........

Lets say we have a coral reef that's in perfect balance with the nutrient flow. Lets give the nutrient content some numbers just to show relation between them. The incoming nutrients for a month are 100. The nutrients held on the reef itself for that month is 1000. The nutrients leaving equals the incoming of 100. In this case, the life of the reef would not grow or be reduced. It would be fixed at a given mass.
Lets say something happens...... climate change??? Life begins to die. The nutrients entering the reef would remain the same, but the nutrients of the reef itself would drop, as the mass of life dropped, and the nutrients leaving the reef would go up. You would get something like 100, 900, 200. If life continued to die off until it was all gone, you would end up with 100, 100, 100.
Lets say the climate change was temporary. A mini ice age brought on by a volcano eruption. As conditions returned to normal, life would begin to return to our reef. Now the nutrient flow shifts in a month to 100, 150, 50. Every month, the life on the reef steals 50 from the flow in and out of the reef, if the growth was magically steady. Every month the nutrients entering the system would remain the same, 100. Every month the nutrients leaving the system would remain the same, 50. That lost 50 every month would remain on the reef and the nutrient content of the reef would increase month after month. 100.150.200.250.300.350....... Until space, or some other factor limited growth.

Going to look for this link you say proves me wrong.
Peace
EC

 

[Elegance Coral]

Can you provide some kind of evidence for this statement? Because it plainly does not make sense. By the way - I dont mean evidence that some nutrients are 'recycled' - clearly thats true. I want evidence that shows that most or even the majority of nutrients is recycling - because for things to grow and reproduce - they need new nutrients.

Here are some interesting articles:

We are satisfied therefore that the Great Barrier Reef is an ecological response to tropical upwelling as suggested by Orr (1933) and propose as a general working hypothesis that a large part of the heterogeneity of coral reef ecosystems is supported by tropical upwelling. This notion has existed since 1933 when Orr concluded his remarks on planktonic succession in the Great Barrier Reef with the generalisation, 'It would be interesting in this connection to investigate the seas in the neigh- bourhood of oceanic coral islands for upwelling'.

Assuredly the reefs of the Great Barrier Reef are influenced by the upwelling mechanisms we have demonstrated. The reefs have grown because they are supplied with particulate matter. The reefs themselves modify the current system as they grow. So there is a feedback system, with the flow patterns modifying the bottom and the bottom modifying the flow patterns. We wonder, finally, if this interplay between nature's phy- sical and biological forces tends towards a steady, or nearly steady balance.

https://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/8/m008p257.pdf

Coral reef ecosystems have long been regarded as paradoxical because their high biomass and gross primary productivity far exceeded that expected for ecosystems in tropical oligotrophic waters. Previous authors have explained the paradox by emphasizing efficient recycling, conservation and storage of nutrients within the reef ecosystem. However, the fact that reefs are net exporters of nutrients and organic matter means that for sustained productivity new nutrients must be imported.

Continuing research on the reef nutrient controversy suggests that there are several paths presently converging upon it's solution: among them the endo-upwelling model seems an adequate explanation for barrier reefs located in clear oligotrophic waters such as the Polynesian ocean.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027843439290044K

Is this the post you're talking about??????????????

Nowhere, in any of my posts, have "I" ever, said anything, about nutrients NOT entering the coral reef, our systems, or any other environment where life is plentiful. Not once.......... Maybe someone else in this thread has, but I have not. I am not responsible for what others say.

If we remove the symbiosis between coral and their zooxanthellae, and life's ability to share and recycle nutrients, the whole system collapses, and coral reefs do not exist. Making this factual statement does not contradict the fact that nutrients MUST enter the system. Without nutrients entering the system, the system fails, and coral reefs do not exist. Giving one all the credit, exclusive of the other, is a flawed view on nature.

There has been a great deal of research done on the subject you quote above, and I have read countless research papers on the subject. I'm 52 years old, and understanding how nature performs the magic that she does, has been my passion all my life. This is what led me to the hobby, and what has kept me intrigued for well over 30 years. The hobby is different for me than it is for most. I do not own a "display" tank.

Your quote above contains this sentence. "The reefs have grown because they are supplied with particulate matter." It would have been more correct had they said, "The reefs have grown, in part, because they are supplied with particulate matter." This particulate matter is largely zooplankton. Zooplankton that originated from the sediments around the reef. Tiny creatures and their larvae that live in these sediment. This "particulate" matter benefits the reef because animals like small fish and CORAL, FEED on these particles. Note that nothing you quoted above says anything about ammonia/ammonium entering the reef through upwelling. While this does happen, it's such a small aspect of the process it's hardly worth mentioning. Inorganic nutrients entering the reef are incredibly minuscule. Nutrients enter the reef largely through solid organic particles that are fed upon by the reef inhabitants, like coral. This feeding produces inorganic nutrients, causing the inorganic nutrient content of the reef environment to be slightly higher than surrounding waters, before these inorganics are quickly converted back into organic form.

Gotta head off to work
Peace
EC

 

[Lasse]

I posted a link earlier. In that link there was a table.

Please repost the link with the table - I have not seen any table of this type in your links - but I can have miss one.

environment to be slightly higher than surrounding waters, before these inorganics are quickly converted back into organic form.

The same - link pleas that prove this

Sincerely Lasse