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

[Elegance Coral]

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/CREWS/Cleo/St. Croix/salt_river22.pdf

 

[MnFish1]

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.

OK - I never said recycling of nutrients didnt happen or wasn't important. However, If you remove the input of nutrients from upwelling of nutrients, phytoplankton etc - it collapses as well. I haven't given 'one all the credit'. In fact I've said several times that recycling of nutrients occurs. Frankly, you're once again changing the topic. The example YOU GAVE for the recycling of nutrients had nothing to do with N and P recycling within zooxnthellae containing coral - it was the grouper, the blennies, the sponges, etc. My point was that that was not the MAJOR reason that reefs formed and it was not the solution to Darwin's paradox.

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.

Yes - and if you read the summary articles - they say that though recycling occurs between organisms, it is not the major process involved in why reefs (at least Polynesian reefs and the great barrier reef) formed where and how they did.

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.

I quoted 2 articles explaining how nutrients are brought into the reef (via currents and upwelling) - and are thought to be the solution to Darwin's Paradox. In fact those articles state that Darwin's Paradox USED to be explained by recycling - but that the data suggests that this is not possible. You on the other hand provided an article that said that even if recycling were 100% efficient it could not support growth on the reef - and that of course recycling isn't 100% efficient. The article you provided also discusses upwelling and its role in growth on the reef. I don't know why you pick out one sentence of 'my quote' rather than the whole thing. To use your terminology - maybe it would have been better if you did that.

No offense, but everyone knows how 'the food chain' works. So I'm not sure it helps to keep repeating it. All of the above is your opinion - to which you're entitled. But - when your opinion directly contradicts a scientific article - I'm sorry it isnt good enough. Example:

You say (about Upwelling): 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

The articles I quote say:

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'.

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.

By the way Those quotes are from the conclusions of the articles. I will post what they say about ammonia as well below

 

[MnFish1]

@Elegance Coral Concerning Ammonia in upwellings - Ammonia in the upwelling is high - it is rapidly used:

Ammonia was consistently below the detection threshold on all cruises whereas in large scale eastern boundary upwellings, concentrations up to 2.5 pg at NH, 1-' are found as the result of decom- position of phytoplankton organic matter (Treguer and LeCorre, 1979).The low levels we find suggest a fast turnover in recycling of excreted or released ammonia. Darwin's question has perhaps been answered for the reefs near the shelf break: mesoscale intensifica- tions of the East Australian Current over the slope produce upwelling in an Ekman layer on the slope (Garrett, 1979) which presents inorganic nutrient directly to the shelf break. The coherence of the 90 d period suggests that in the evolutionary sense the outer reefs near the shelf break can rely on a perennial, periodic supply of dissolved or particulate nutrients. Long-period upwelling on the slope is produced at this latitude ( 1 8 . 5 "S) by intensifications of the East Austra- lian Current. Similar periodicities are encountered along the New South Wales coast as well (70 d near 27 "S varying to 90-175 d between 27" and 32 "S) and are produced by the same mechanism (Garrett, 1979). The mesoscale deep-sea baroclinic fields which gener- ate the periodicities are well documented as structur- ally similar along the entire east Australian coast (e.g. Scully-Power, 1973; Pickard, 1977) to 34 "S (Andrews et al.,1980).It is highly probable therefore that tropical upwelling enrichment of the shelf break occurs along the entire Great Barrier Reef. Whether shelf break water moves inshore or not is another question.

 

[Scott Campbell]

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

Nothing to disagree with here. My only questions:

1. This perfect balance of nutrient flow you describe - 100 in / 100 out/ 1000 total nutrients. Do you believe your methodology (water changes, low surface area, etc.) is the *only* way to achieve this balance in a reef tank?

2. The 1000 total nutrients - assuming there is always exactly 1000 total nutrients in a tank, would it matter if the 1000 was comprised of other life besides hard coral and fish? Could I trade 50 units of fish for 50 units sponges? Could I trade 100 units of hard coral for 50 units of worms and 50 units of ornamental macroalgae? I ask because my experience has shown that my fish and corals seem "happier" (an absurdly vague term) when the tank environment has more diversity of life. The fish seem to prefer being able to graze on live food throughout the day. The corals seem to grow faster in proximity to consumed algae. That sort of stuff. So if nutrification is fixed at 1000 - does the composition of that 1000 matter?

3. Does the actual fixed nutrient level matter if inflow and outflow are balanced? Wouldn't hard corals be able to prosper at any fixed nutrient level (1000, 5000, 10,000) as long as total nutrients are not increasing or decreasing? (Assuming the tank is large enough to hold a higher fixed nutrient level.)

4. Does the proportional relationship between total nutrients and the level of inflow/outflow matter? In other words - can 100 in / 100 out work just as well relative to 1000 total nutrients as 10,000? Or do you believe a 10,000 level would require a proportionately higher inflow and outflow - like 1000 in / 1000 out?

5. If nutrient levels are fixed and inflow and outflow are balanced - does it even matter that corals are more efficient at passing nutrients back and forth in the context of a reef tank environment?

Just curious.

Scott

 

[MnFish1]

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.

And if you look at the articles I posted, You'll see that the 'nutrient' level in upwellings far exceeds that in the 'surrounding waters' or the 'reef itself'. It makes sense that there are more nutrients in the waters 'around the reef' because there is lots of data suggesting that the reason that the reefs formed the way they did was also to maximize the entrapment of nutrients from upwellings as well. I think this is where @Lasse post about nutrients makes a lot of sense. Are those levels 'chemicals measured' or water samples containing plankton, etc that are analyzed.

In any case - the table doesn't prove anything about the role of 'recycling of nutrients' vs. upwelling/trapping of plankton.

 

[MnFish1]

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.

I dont know why you did this either. (i.e. not sure of the point you're trying to make). Again - you now seem to be implying (though Im not sure) that nutrient inflow is more important than recycling. Again - no one argues that recycling doesn't happen - and of course - as new organisms are growing there are more 'atoms' present on the reef (if there are excess nutrients input as compared to output). All anyone else has been saying here is that the total amount of biomass cannot be higher than the nutrients provided (in total). I.e. recycling itself does NOT increase biomass - It only changes it from one form to another.

In your example - 100-1000-100 there would be no net growth of any of the organisms (except at the expense of death of another). But there would/could be no net new biomass created.

 

[MnFish1]

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.

Yes of course. Who has ever disagreed with that? The point is again - the total biomass can ONLY contain an amount equivalent to the total amount of energy it has received. In fact - thats the whole crux of this thread from the start. Started out with nitrifiers expanding onto every surface of a tank even without nutrient input. Thats what people have been discussing.

In the meantime - you have repeatedly suggested that the 'solution' to Darwin's paradox (ie. how do reefs form/exist in water with low nutrients) is recycling of nutrients within that system. You have discussed this at length with @Lasse. I apologize - as others have said - the target of your posts seem to keep changing to the point.

 

[TheHarold]

In this case, I think real experience with reef aquariums and/or applying hypotheses to a test tank is more valuable than technical knowledge. You can debate all day, debate to the moon. But in the end, the goal is to successfully grow corals/fish long term. Debating about the technicalities of the oceans nutrients, what biomass consists of, etc. doesn't get you there.

That is assuming that the end goal of this thread is to discover a way to improve the health/care of our critters. If the goal is to swing your PHDs and technical knowledge, to prove yours is bigger than the other guys, continue .

 

[MnFish1]

Here is your first post:

To answer the first question, No. The ammonia produced by 3 fish will not limit the potential number of bacteria that can colonize the 6 million gallons of water and surface area as you describe it.

I like to put things into simpler terms that are easier to understand, so here goes.

Take the amazon rain forest as an example. Add up all the nutritional input from external sources. Rain, dust blown in from other places, and erosion from rock. This should give you a total number to represent the amount of nutrients being added, or delivered, to the rain forest every day. (like the ammonia from the three fish)
Now add up the nutritional requirements of every living organism within the rain forest. The microbes, insects, reptiles, birds, mammals, plants....... all of it. This will give you a number to represent the amount of nutrition needed to keep life going in the rain forest every day. [Like the nutritional requirements of bacteria in your 6 million gallons of water]
What you'll find is, there isn't nearly enough nutrition being delivered to the rain forest to sustain the amount of life found there. Not even close. In comparison to the amount of nutrients needed, the amount of nutrients being delivered, is insignificant at best. Yet, the rain forest, and it's abundance of life, is there and thriving. (as the bacteria would be in your canisters)
The reason for this, is the incredible ability of nature to trap, hold, and recycle nutrients in one place. The phosphorus atom found in the calf muscle of an amazonian rodent today, may have, at one point, been in the bicep muscle of a dinosaur that once roamed the Amazon millions of years ago. Naturally, that phosphorus atom would have changed hands many, many, many times over those millions of years.
The point is, that life isn't necessarily dependent on an abundant, and constant, supply of nutrients being delivered to a given area every day. Life can trap, hold, and recycle nutrients, drastically reducing its dependence on new nutrients being added to the environment.

This was my response to your original post: Agreed. I don’t see how that has any link to what we’re discussing here. If you added 50 leopards suddenly to a 1 acre fenced in area what do you think would happen? The question that started this is what if you added 10 large tangs to a tank that was cycled at the level of 3 mollies? According to @brandon429 even an empty tank cycled with nothing for several months will be completely saturated with a maximum amount of nitrifying bacteria meaning this is not a problem. I disagee

@Elegance Coral in reality there have been several times where people have agreed with your basic points. Several times @Lasse, I and @Gregg @ ADP have asked what exactly you were disagreeing with (and what it had to do with the original thread). I reread several posts of yours - I still don't understand where we disagree (except on the Darwin's Paradox thing0 - which is a side discussion). Again - as I've said several times I think we're talking about different things in general. Not to say its not an interesting discussion.

Here is another post from you (in response to @Lasse saying. The total population of nitrifying bacteria can never be larger than the load you put in.:

That statement is only kinda true, and misleading. Even though on the surface is sounds like it should be true.
That's only true when an organism is dependent solely and directly on the additions into the environment where it lives. Nitrifying bacteria are not. Many organisms are not. Especially those that live in mixed communities.
Nitrifying bacteria are not sustaining themselves solely and directly on the additions to the system today. They're sustaining themselves on today's additions, yesterday's additions, the day before, and last month. This accumulation, and recycling, can lead to populations much larger than today's input could support.
If you were to add up the daily nutritional requirements of all the life in a typical established reef tank, and compare it to the daily nutritional input, you'd find a huge discrepancy. The life needs much more than is being added on a daily basis. This is the process that has allowed life to become soooooo abundant on this planet.

I disagree with the bolded part (at least the way you are phrasing it)- which I think is (was) one of your main points. Again - You seem to be talking about 'diversity' of life - rather than 'total biomass'. I'm talking about total biomass. The 'total biomass' will only grow up to the point where the daily nutrient input - the daily nutrient export = 0. At that point there will be no more 'total biomass' added. At this point, the added nutrients will be used to sustain the life of the biomass in the tank - they will not be used to create new biomass. There may be new 'organisms' created as old one's die but this is common sense isnt it?

 

[MnFish1]

In this case, I think real experience with reef aquariums and/or applying hypotheses to a test tank is more valuable than technical knowledge. You can debate all day, debate to the moon. But in the end, the goal is to successfully grow corals/fish long term. Debating about the technicalities of the oceans nutrients, what biomass consists of, etc. doesn't get you there.

That is assuming that the end goal of this thread is to discover a way to improve the health/care of our critters. If the goal is to swing your PHDs and technical knowledge, to prove yours is bigger than the other guys, continue .

LOL - I agree with this - it has become somewhat more of a debate about minutae however, I think the cycling question and the ecology of nitrifying bacteria are what we're really discussing. As well as what happens to nutrients as they build up in a tank. As well as whether a more 'diverse' tank is better worse or the same as a 'cleaner' tank. The problem is (which is why I've harped a bit on definitions) some people don't seem to be able to agree on terminology - and you're correct without knowing what the other person 'means' t becomes a difficult discussion.

 

[Lasse]

My bold

In this case, I think real experience with reef aquariums and/or applying hypotheses to a test tank is more valuable than technical knowledge. You can debate all day, debate to the moon. But in the end, the goal is to successfully grow corals/fish long term. Debating about the technicalities of the oceans nutrients, what biomass consists of, etc. doesn't get you there.

That is assuming that the end goal of this thread is to discover a way to improve the health/care of our critters. If the goal is to swing your PHDs and technical knowledge, to prove yours is bigger than the other guys, continue .

I agree. Then I planned my new tank - all of these things that I have advocate for was in my mind. I want to create a tank that test all of this. Most of these thought you can find in my build thread. You can call it a test tank but I could not have done it without some basic understanding how a reef is working. The goal was (and is) to create a biologicall stable tank with as much diversity as possible. Take care of the cycling of the nutrients but compensate with technical solutions because the reef is located at latitude 57.85 and only 300 litres of water. The picture below is the practical results of what I have write about and is the result of my standpoints in this issue. In Sweden - we have the expression - En bild säger mer än tusen ord - translated to

A picture is worth a thousand words

So here is my thousand words

​

I would love to see Elegance Corals pictures from an aquaria that is run after his ideas. The only thing that he says - is that if you run an aquaria after mine ideas - it will crash.

Your NO3 level is all but irrelevant. Your system will fallow the same path as countless systems, like it, have done in the past. You can see your system becoming more and more nutrient rich as time passes. You don't need a NO3 test kit to see this. This process will not stop on its own. You have enough surface area, and nooks and carnies, within your system to harbor vast amounts of rot and decay. On a daily basis, nutrients are entering your system faster than they are leaving, and those nutrients are building up on those surfaces, and in those nooks and carnies. On day one, you had the equivalent of several microbes rotting away in your system. In time as nutrient levels rose, it became more like several pods rotting away. Then several small fish. As time progresses, those small fish will turn into the equivalent of larger and larger fish, rotting away in your system. Due to all the space you have to harbor rot and decay, at some point it will be equivalent to a large grouper rotting in your tank every day. If something doesn't change, this process will continue until the amount of rot and decay has built up to the point that your system can no longer support higher forms of life, and you will watch your animals die. Just as countless hobbyists have done before you.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[TheHarold]

My bold



I agree. Then I planned my new tank - all of these things that I have advocate for was in my mind. I want to create a tank that test all of this. Most of these thought you can find in my build thread. You can call it a test tank but I could not have done it without some basic understanding how a reef is working. The goal was (and is) to create a biologicall stable tank with as much diversity as possible. Take care of the cycling of the nutrients but compensate with technical solutions because the reef is located at latitude 57.85 and only 300 litres of water. The picture below is the practical results of what I have write about and is the result of my standpoints in this issue. In Sweden - we have the expression - En bild säger mer än tusen ord - translated to

So here is my thousand words

​

I would love to see Elegance Corals pictures from an aquaria that is run after his ideas. The only thing that he says - is that if you run an aquaria after mine ideas - it will crash.



Sincerely Lasse

Pretty tank- very nice. What unique/uncommon techniques are you implementing that you propose can help aquarists?

 

[Scrubber_steve]

I would love to see Elegance Corals pictures from an aquaria that is run after his ideas.

The only thing that he says - is that if you run an aquaria after mine ideas - it will crash.​

​

And Lasse, don't you know that your display will soon be dead & overgrown with algae, because if you use algae filtration this is what happens
LOL

 

[Lasse]

Pretty tank- very nice. What unique/uncommon techniques are you implementing that you propose can help aquarists?

I use all of the bad and domed techniques Reverse flow DSB, not collecting skimmate, a small biofilter, mixed reef, refugium, recycling of some of the grown Chaeto as "juice" Please see my build thread. - Oh I forgot - adding both NO3 and PO4 if I need.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[TheHarold]

I use all of the bad and domed techniques Reverse flow DSB, not collecting skimmate, a small biofilter, mixed reef, refugium, recycling of some of the grown Chaeto as "juice" Please see my build thread. - Oh I forgot - adding both NO3 and PO4 if I need.

Sincerely Lasse

What about element supplementation? Calcium, etc.

 

[SDchris]

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

Low testable N and P and limiting to coral are not mutually exclusive.
Are you basing Zeo = ULNS on the colour of the corals or low testable N and P ?

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Low testable N and P and limiting to coral are not mutually exclusive.
Are you basing Zeo = ULNS on the colour of the corals or low testable N and P ?

Before starting to use ZEOvit, a fundamental part of this dosing regime is to reduce your levels of phosphate and nitrate to what is called “Ultra Low Nutrients”.

 

[Lasse]

What about element supplementation? Calcium, etc.

For the moment I dose Core 7 from Triton and use theirs supplement too. However - steps are taken in order to use my reversed DSB as an calcium reactor. For the moment I only use it as an anaerobic part of the system.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Mortie31]

Low testable N and P and limiting to coral are not mutually exclusive.
Are you basing Zeo = ULNS on the colour of the corals or low testable N and P ?

Low testable N and P

 

[Elegance Coral]

Nothing to disagree with here. My only questions:

1. This perfect balance of nutrient flow you describe - 100 in / 100 out/ 1000 total nutrients. Do you believe your methodology (water changes, low surface area, etc.) is the *only* way to achieve this balance in a reef tank?

2. The 1000 total nutrients - assuming there is always exactly 1000 total nutrients in a tank, would it matter if the 1000 was comprised of other life besides hard coral and fish? Could I trade 50 units of fish for 50 units sponges? Could I trade 100 units of hard coral for 50 units of worms and 50 units of ornamental macroalgae? I ask because my experience has shown that my fish and corals seem "happier" (an absurdly vague term) when the tank environment has more diversity of life. The fish seem to prefer being able to graze on live food throughout the day. The corals seem to grow faster in proximity to consumed algae. That sort of stuff. So if nutrification is fixed at 1000 - does the composition of that 1000 matter?

3. Does the actual fixed nutrient level matter if inflow and outflow are balanced? Wouldn't hard corals be able to prosper at any fixed nutrient level (1000, 5000, 10,000) as long as total nutrients are not increasing or decreasing? (Assuming the tank is large enough to hold a higher fixed nutrient level.)

4. Does the proportional relationship between total nutrients and the level of inflow/outflow matter? In other words - can 100 in / 100 out work just as well relative to 1000 total nutrients as 10,000? Or do you believe a 10,000 level would require a proportionately higher inflow and outflow - like 1000 in / 1000 out?

5. If nutrient levels are fixed and inflow and outflow are balanced - does it even matter that corals are more efficient at passing nutrients back and forth in the context of a reef tank environment?

Just curious.

Scott

I started to answer your questions one by one, but just felt the need to say something, so hopefully this answers some of your questions.

I'm not sure what "my methodology" is exactly. LOL

Science tells us, that in time, a balance will be reached if nutrients in are constant. Nutrients out will also become relatively constant in time. The question is, how high will the nutrients within the tank go before this balance is reached? The more surface area, or nooks and crannies, tiny spaces, we have for life to establish itself, and store nutrients, the higher that number can go.
We have the large number of species we do because they have evolved to live in different habitats. Sometimes vastly different habitats. Nutrient availability is one of the major contributing factors that determines what species lives where. As Lesse's link on bird poop clearly shows. This fact gets lost in our hobby. Most hobbyists view biodiversity in our tiny glass boxes as this wonderful thing that shows how healthy a system is. Just don't ask, "healthy to whom?". As nutrients climb, the system becomes more hospitable to organisms that prosper under high nutrient conditions, (algae, worms, sponges, pods.....) and less hospitable to organisms that prosper in low nutrient environments, (reef building stony corals and other delicate reef creatures). The opposite is also true. Sadly, much of the aquarium literature, that's geared more towards making the industry money, than it is to actually helping hobbyists care for their pets, created this misunderstanding. I don't blame the hobbyist. The industry did this, and now we have a large number of confused hobbyists.

People point to an abundance of organisms like algae and sponges as biomarkers to show the health of the system, while ignoring the reef building stony corals that are receding from the base up because they're attached to nutrient laden rocks, or the LPS corals that are missing tissue, or the clams with no or little growth bands.

The rapid growth of calcium carbonate depositing creatures like reef building corals, and clams is not evidence to suggest that the system is healthy for organisms like algae, sponges, and worms. Rapidly growing algae, sponges, and worms is not evidence that the system is healthy for calcium carbonate depositing creatures like reef building corals, and clams. These creatures prosper in conditions that are very different. One of the main environmental influences that determines who prospers and who doesn't is the amount of available nutrients.

We all keep different systems with different goals in mind. That's one of the cool things about our hobby. No two tanks are alike. I grow chaeto in my clownfish system, but if I put it in my 400 gallon system it will die. For hobbyists to achieve the goals they have in mind, they need to understand the environmental conditions of their system and what those conditions are likely to lead to.

Sorry for rambling.............
Gotta head off to work.
If I have time later, I'll try to be more specific in answering your questions.
Peace
EC