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

[MnFish1]

___________ is the media within one filter. This functions like my empty ten gallon tank analogy that you can’t cycle to handle fish even if you ramp it up at 4 ppm for six months, not enough surface area.

W Is the media for another filter, surfaces that look like WWWW are packed in the second filter, the actual letter demonstrating the peaks and troughs associated with convoluted high-surface area spiky filter media balls for example. Water is flowing fast over the straight line filter (low surface area) and through the W filter.

The biofilm that filters is the microns thick invisible mass lying on top of the straight line, water shear over the top takes off any extra bac that try to stack, when you feed a formerly 1 ppm an extra 4, because you are trying to ‘get the filter ready’ for a higher fish loading coming up. Water shear keeps the same relative amount of bac stuck to that line no matter how much you feed it, and the length of the line determines your max fish carry, not the numbers of bac on the line because they’re already maxed before you tried to ramp up. even if you slow water pass, to slow shear, all you’ve done by feeding more is make a thicker line, the filtration still happens at the top. Even fed more, a thicker ——— line filter can’t ever increase surface area, still just a line.

Consider the W filter media. What happens if you pack lots of extra feed and bac into that system? Where does the new mass reside, to filter more efficiently? To make the biofilm any thicker means you LOSE surface area on a W system because the troughs in the letter W are now gunked up and the W is functioning like an O, you lose the peaks and troughs that once afforded higher surface area and could carry more fish per gallon

Well - I guess what you're saying is all 'theory' because - even the 'straight line- under the microscope looks like a 'w'. I would also suggest to you that half of an OOOOOOOOOO i.e. a 'gunked' up 'w' has more surface area than the straight line. There is also evidence that though nitrifiers are 'adherent' to a biofilm - that they are not 'trapped inside' and are fully motile. Lastly - I'm not sure what this has to do with the original theory.

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

You can keep repeating it. But its only you that is debating it - everyone else agrees that you're incorrect - as @Lasse stated in the next post. What is the point of discussing it?



Perhaps - but you're also ignoring the article that its not sure that nitrifies even exist in the same kind of 'slime' that other bacteria do - I posted this - as well as the fact that they are motile organisms. I have said - as has @Lasse @Gregg @ ADP etc - that surface area is limiting (probably - though the motility issue suggests this may not be the case). But The key point is that if there isn't enough ammonia generated/added to provide for the nitrifying biomass to 'cover all the surfaces' it won't happen. As we have all discussed - we're talking about nitrifying bacteria here.



The sand rinse experiment shows a 'result or effect' - you have an opinion as to what the 'cause' of that effect is - which is that there are nitrifying bacteria saturated onto all surfaces so taking out the sand doesn't matter. I agree with the 'effect' I disagree with the cause - I think that 1 - when you rinse sand you dont remove 100% of the nitrifiers - and 2 - Im not sure that the 'sand' is the main 'living space' of nitrifiers in the tank.

Additionally - 'stripping peoples filtration in half' in a system that contains fish, etc is totally different than what we're talking about - you are talking about starting with 0 ammonia/food and putting merely rock in a tank and letting it sit. If you put a full component of fish/coral into that tank at the end of 30 days - I dont think you will have the same result as if you took away 50 percent of the filter in a tank containing the same amount of fish and coral. I think they would do fine. In your 30 day experiment - they would not (my opinion).

This is the basic point that I’m not sure how Brandon keeps missing.

Let’s construct a system with ‘x’ daily influx of NH3/4. On this system we have 10 canister filters with enough surface area to accomodate (and not limit) n bacteria. Let’s give the system enough time to populate to (K).

Now, we have established our (K) based on NH3/4 influx. Let’s say n = 1,000,000 bacteria. Our daily influx of NH3/4 supports 1,000,000 bacteria.

Brandon has set up hypothetical systems where we add...I don’t remember, 50?...additional canister filters and has made the claim that despite not increasing [NH3/4], the additional canisters will populate with nitrifying bacteria.

He’s right. That process is called ‘recruitment’...new habitat eventually becoming populated. OK, fine. But I would bet green money (based on fundamental laws of ecology) that if we then counted all the bacteria in all those new canister filters, we would still get n (+/- a few).

Why? No additional NH3/4. It’s really kinda that simple.

 

[MnFish1]

What exactly is this "thesis" you say I have?

I already answered this question pages ago (Start reading at Post 487) I will quote the whole thing below. . I understand that you're not watching every minute of every day - but to repeatedly ask people to walk you back through the thread so you can understand what they're saying is getting slightly old. You have made the statement (several times to several people): 'show me where I said this or that or whatever.' No offense - its not our job to do that. It seems like people are constantly 'misunderstanding' you're posts. Maybe the way you're posting your ideas has something to do with that problem? Again - I'm not trying to slam you at all - Merely trying to figure out why this keeps happening?

YOUR MAIN THESIS SEEMS TO BE 2 THINGS: 1. Recycling solves Darwin's Paradox (you said that nutrient entry into the reef is a minor component) - I asked you for data that says its the major component) - you provided the article quoted below (which directly contradicts that theory). and 2. New biomass will be created independent of the amount of nutrients added (your grouper analogy)

From Post 487:

EC says: Can you please quote me where I contradicted that statement?

I say: Firstly - I didn't say you contradicted that statement. I said that statement contradicted your thesis.
Secondly - You didn't respond to my articles explaining Darwin's paradox yet

But - here is an example. I apologize. I didn't want to go back through all of the pages and get all of the quotes where you suggest that recycling is the major 'solution' to Darwin's Paradox - so I just went to the most recent one.


Quote from EC's Post: Most of the ammonium molecules in the waters of coral reefs were placed there by the creatures of the reef itself. The grouper that just swam by, the school of anthias hanging out above the reef, the bacteria in the reef. In comparison, there are VERY few ammonium molecules entering the reef from outside sources. In other words, the reef is not the cause of the low nutrient water. The reef is recycling the little nutrients it obtains from the low nutrient water.

I say: This statement implies - and correct me if I'm wrong - that the vast majority of ammonia entering the reef relates to recycling. The statement from your article (and in fact the article itself) contradicts this. You have posted many versions of the statement above when talking to @Lasse. Again - I may have been misunderstanding what you were saying. The grouper tank analogy is another example - where you state that even if you keep feeding one mysis cube, that all sorts of new biomass will be created when in fact that can not happen. (I stated that the total biomass - in the end will match the input of the mysis - I don't disagree with the fact that more diversity will occur in such a tank.

So its not confusing - here is the statement that I say contradicts your comments. (the reason it contradicts your comments is that it clearly states that new nutrients are required for new growth - as compared to 'maintaining' a status quo. :

Quote from EC Article: "There are two general sources of nutrients for primary production: New nutrients and regenerated (recycled) nutrients . If only regenerated nutrients were available, gross photosynthesis could not excede respiration (i.e., P/R ratios could not excede 1.0) unless there was a change in elemental ratios (e.g., an increase in the C/N and C/P ratios). Net production (growth) requires the input of new nutrients into the system, as does net export from the system. It is important to point out that nutrient recycling mechanisms, evenwhen 100% efficient, cannot supply nutrients for a positive net production. Furthermore, if recycling mechanisms are inefficient it will take an input of new nutrients to maintain a steady state biomass."

I say: The articles discussing why the great barrier reef was created directly contradict your thesis as well.

Having said that - I'm open to ideas - Im not a marine biologist specifically.

 

[MnFish1]

This is the basic point that I’m not sure how Brandon keeps missing.

Let’s construct a system with ‘x’ daily influx of NH3/4. On this system we have 10 canister filters with enough surface area to accomodate (and not limit) n bacteria. Let’s give the system enough time to populate to (K).

Now, we have established our (K) based on NH3/4 influx. Let’s say n = 1,000,000 bacteria. Our daily influx of NH3/4 supports 1,000,000 bacteria.

Brandon has set up hypothetical systems where we add...I don’t remember, 50?...additional canister filters and has made the claim that despite not increasing [NH3/4], the additional canisters will populate with nitrifying bacteria.

He’s right. That process is called ‘recruitment’...new habitat eventually becoming populated. OK, fine. But I would bet green money (based on fundamental laws of ecology) that if we then counted all the bacteria in all those new canister filters, we would still get n (+/- a few).

Why? No additional NH3/4. It’s really kinda that simple.

I think what he and @Elegance Coral are saying is that heterotrophs will attach as well - and they will provide the ammonia for more nitrifiers as they die. However, the problem with this is that the heterotrophs need energy to start growing as well. Its also not clear why a heterotrophic bacteria survival mechanism would be to provide nutrients to another type of bacteria from an evolution standpoint - in a situation where nutrients are 'low' - ie the tank with sterile rock/sand/etc.

 

[Mortie31]

I think maybe one of us is misunderstanding the other.
Do you mind if I ask a favor? Can you link me to one or two of those "slightly higher nutrient levels with better colour and growth" tanks. Preferably ones I can see time sequence.

Google Sanjay for start

 

[Mortie31]

I think maybe one of us is misunderstanding the other.
Do you mind if I ask a favor? Can you link me to one or two of those "slightly higher nutrient levels with better colour and growth" tanks. Preferably ones I can see time sequence.

Here’s farmerty from on here
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/farmertys-215-gallon-sps-tank.207702/

 

[Lasse]

Your own link clearly shows that if you remove nutrients, you reduce the abundance of algae. It also shows that when the nutrients were higher, there was more algae, despite the fact that there were more herbivores. You can't grow plants without fertilizer. The more fertilizer you have, the more plants you can grow, and the more herbivores you can support. As your link clearly shows. Barring other influences, like man's over fishing, the population of herbivores will rise and fall with the abundance of algae. As your like shows. Algae mass will rise and fall with the abundance of fertilizer. As your link shows. This should be common sense.
If I say it, you try to imply, or simply say, that I'm wrong, because herbivores eat algae. Well, obviously, herbivores eat algae, and through this process reduce its growth. That fact does NOT show that anything I've said is wrong. Please quote me where it does prove I'm wrong, or simply stop making false accusations.

Page after page you say that inorganic nutrients in the water will harm Corals. In this case will quote something that you used before but you used it in another context.

Looking at all types of reef fish, the authors found that the total biomass of the fish population was 48% higher around rat-free islands than around rat-infested islands. 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, 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.

With your thesis - they amount would have been lower there the inorganic nutrient influx was lower. Here they state - that in spite of more bioerosion - the living coral was no lower. The parrotfish grazed the entire surface 3 times more at the rat free islands.

Why do you think that is?????? Where do you think those nutrients went???????? This is exactly what I've been saying!!!!!!!!!

No it is not - you have say that reefs contribute with nutrients to the oceanic water and you have say that I was wrong then I stated that inorganic nutrient was taken up in a coral reef . There is some evidences that N2 fixation on reefs can contribute to the pool of nitrogen in oceanic waters - according to the other major inorganic nutrient - PO4 - there is no such evidences as I have seen. I could be that way that P is a limited factor for growth in reef systems

Water containing X amount of nutrients enters the reef flats. The reef itself strips a percentage of those nutrients from this water, and concentrates/holds them on the reef as it moves downstream. This causes the nutrient content of the reef to be elevated over incoming waters. This process continues as water flows downstream, and the nutrients held in the water is reduced, because those nutrients are now in the reef upstream. This general concept plays out in many habitats around the globe where life traps and holds nutrients in one area and reduces nutrient availability to environments downstream. The everglades here in Florida, and the norther Pacific ocean currents............

However, this is NOT how the vastness of the shallow tropical ocean, where coral reefs are, became nutrient poor. Coral reefs are tiny specks dispersed through the vastness of thousands of square miles of tropical ocean. Their impact on the nutritional content of these enormous waters is minuscule to say the least.

I never ever have said that the coral reefs is the reason for the low containing of inorganic nutrients in the surrounding oceanic water - I have state in more than one post that their uptake make the water of the reefs lower in inorganic nutrients - cause by photosyntetic uptake. It is you that put that statement in my mounth about oceanic water

No one said they couldn't........

You have indicate that more than once when you have state that zoox get their P and N from the host and when you at oter post state that coral probably goes best with zero inorganic N and P in the water column - indicate that is a disadvantage for the corals with inorganic nutrients in the water.

Researchers and myself use the term "nutrients" because nutrients like inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus are produced from the same process.

show me one Researchers that state this - only one. Most marin biologist says that the nitrogen input to the oceans is done by the N2 fixation of cyanobacteria and som bacteria (during natural conditions) The Phosphorus input comes from upwelling, land run off and so one. Never heard about any P fixator - and it can´t exist because P have no general volatile form. The silt layers of the ocean is rich in P but very spare in N because of denitrification and anamox. To use the word nutrient is the same as saying fruit without telling which fruit you talking about.

And as usually you turn everything upside down. I said that the researchers in this paper use the word nutrients but the only nutrient they show figures of and what the whole paper was about is nitrogen. Of three pages - Phosphorus was mentioned 2 times. They was using nutrients as a synonym for Nitrogen - not me

Detecting inorganic nitrogen in an environment is evidence to suggest that inorganic phosphorus is also present

Not at all - in all environment there P is limited for growth - you can find plenty of N - as many lakes and rivers. The opposite is not att all true - if you manure piles you find a lot of P but normally much lesser N. N has an volatile form which means that an nitrogen converted from NO3 (denitrification) to N2 up here i Sweden can be transported down to coral reef and be fixated to NH4 by cyanobacteria on a reef. There is no pathways like that for P.

If we create a compost pile, then use that material to fertilize our garden, we know that the garden is being supplied with both nitrogen and phosphorus.

That´s not total true because this will always give lesser inorganic N than the incoming (to the compost) organic N because nitrogen have many volatile forms beside N2 - NH3 and NOx is some examples. And every one standing beside a manure heap a warm summer day know how NH3 smell like. On a farm with animals - all P can normally be recycled - this is not true for N - there is always loss of nitrogen through one of its volatile forms.

And you use nutrients as a broad synonym for both inorganic nutrients like NH3/NH4 and PO4, organic nutrients like proteins, amino acids and for all living matter. Nutrients for you is allting that content N and P or some of the other compounds that can be nutrients in some stages

Definition of nutrients

From Cambridge Dictionary

nutrient noun [ C ]
us /ˈnu·tri·ənt/

substance that plants or animals need in order to live and grow


Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

Interesting.

I’ve seen studies that try to pinpoint which of NO3 and PO4 is truly the limiting factor for zooxanthellae. I recall one where corals were kept in various nutrient states...I believe it was low NO3/low PO4, low NO3/high PO4, high NO3/high PO4, and high NO3/low PO4.

This was a test done over a long period (maybe 9 months?). The researchers then performed zoxanthellae counts and measurements. They found that the highest incidence of bleaching occurred in the PO4 limited groups. Smaller and far fewer zooxanthellae. It was a pretty significant difference, too.

The thinking re: PO4 being the most important limiting factor is that coral metabolic activity is providing a nitrogen source regardless of the N available in the environment (well, to an extent), whereas PO4 was much more difficult to come by, whether internally or externally.

I’ll have to dig around and see if I can find that study. Pretty interesting.

Please if you found it - publish it in this thread so at least we that want to learn can learn something new

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

Please if you found it - publish it in this thread so at least we that want to learn can learn something new

Sincerely Lasse

Found it this morning.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X17301601

 

[Lasse]

Interesting - here is another

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Elegance Coral]

I already answered this question pages ago (Start reading at Post 487) I will quote the whole thing below. . I understand that you're not watching every minute of every day - but to repeatedly ask people to walk you back through the thread so you can understand what they're saying is getting slightly old. You have made the statement (several times to several people): 'show me where I said this or that or whatever.' No offense - its not our job to do that. It seems like people are constantly 'misunderstanding' you're posts. Maybe the way you're posting your ideas has something to do with that problem? Again - I'm not trying to slam you at all - Merely trying to figure out why this keeps happening?

I think it keeps happening because people have a preconceived notion of what they think I "believe" and are not reading the black and white of what I actually write. That's why I ask for quotes from me that led people to believe I said, or believe, X.

YOUR MAIN THESIS SEEMS TO BE 2 THINGS: 1. Recycling solves Darwin's Paradox (you said that nutrient entry into the reef is a minor component) - I asked you for data that says its the major component) - you provided the article quoted below (which directly contradicts that theory).

There isn't one answer to Darwin's paradox. There are many factors that go into explaining Darwin's paradox. That's why I've repeatedly refereed to "our understanding" when discussing how we solve Darwin's paradox. It is through our understanding of these many factors that we solve Darwin's paradox. Not any one factor alone. If I talk abut one factor, that does not exclude others.

and 2. New biomass will be created independent of the amount of nutrients added (your grouper analogy)

See......... This is one of those cases where I've said no such thing. In order for the biomass of a particular area to grow, it must be supplied with more nutrients than what's required to support the current mass. I've never suggested otherwise. In the grouper analogy we were talking about virgin territory, basically void of biomass. No nutrients were required to support the current mass, outside of the grouper itself. The grouper could release nutrients that could go into new growth because there was no other mass to support. That new life was not being created independent of the amount of nutrients added. It was being created because of the amount of nutrients added.

From Post 487:
But - here is an example. I apologize. I didn't want to go back through all of the pages and get all of the quotes where you suggest that recycling is the major 'solution' to Darwin's Paradox - so I just went to the most recent one


Quote from EC's Post: Most of the ammonium molecules in the waters of coral reefs were placed there by the creatures of the reef itself. The grouper that just swam by, the school of anthias hanging out above the reef, the bacteria in the reef. In comparison, there are VERY few ammonium molecules entering the reef from outside sources. In other words, the reef is not the cause of the low nutrient water. The reef is recycling the little nutrients it obtains from the low nutrient water.

I say: This statement implies - and correct me if I'm wrong - that the vast majority of ammonia entering the reef relates to recycling.

Here, I am speaking directly to ammonium. Not to nutrients in general. There is very very little ammonium entering the reef from outside souses. The anthias was able to produce ammonium because they spend their days above the reef facing the incoming water, and picking off the rare tiny organic particle that drifts in. BTW, This is also why hobbyists consider them hard to keep. There isn't enough particles in the water entering the reef, for them to pig out on, then go rest and make babies, like groupers do. They have to devote large portions of their day to feeding in these nutrient/particulate poor waters in order to get enough to sustain themselves. Ammonium is then produced by the anthias, who obtained the nitrogen to create that ammonium, from solid organic particles that entered the reef. The grouper produced ammonium on the reef by feeding on the anthias. It is through processes like this that we find higher, but still incredibly low, ammonium, and other nutrient, levels in the water directly in/around the reef, than we do in the incoming waters. So, the vast majority of ammonium on/in the reef, ( not "entering" the reef), relates to recycling. The anthias eats the tiny organic particle that enters the reef, and releases organic and inorganic waste. The grouper eats the anthias and releases organic and inorganic waste. Tiny fish, crabs, shrimp, and other organisms feed on the organic particles, and algae and bacteria utilize the inorganics. Other creatures feed on the algae, bacteria, and tiny creatures. Through this process the nutrients remain on the reef for an extended period of time and are recycled.

The statement from your article (and in fact the article itself) contradicts this. You have posted many versions of the statement above when talking to @Lasse. Again - I may have been misunderstanding what you were saying. The grouper tank analogy is another example - where you state that even if you keep feeding one mysis cube, that all sorts of new biomass will be created when in fact that can not happen. (I stated that the total biomass - in the end will match the input of the mysis - I don't disagree with the fact that more diversity will occur in such a tank.

That analogy was to show how life spreads over new territory, even with little incoming food/nutrients. This isn't due to life magically appearing in the absence of food/nutrients. It's through life's ability to reuse the nutrients from that cube of mysis, over and over and over again. If you feed one kilogram of mysis every day, you can produce much more than one kilogram of biomass/life in the system. This isn't some magic, voodoo, stuff. This is possible because much of the nutrients in that kilogram of mysis will remain in the system, and be used over and over, producing more life, until it's used up, or leaves the system, but by then, many more kilograms of mysis will have been added, leading to even more life/biomass.
Like I've pointed out before, the sapling growing in the middle of the amazon will have little dependence on new nutrients entering the forest, and the vast majority of it's nutritional requirements will be met with the nutrients that are already there, and have likely been there for quite some time.
It's not simply the amount of nutrients entering the system that dictates how much life/biomass the system can support, but how long that life/biomass can hold onto the nutrients it receives, or how efficient it is at recycling and those nutrients. Arguably, there's no environment on earth better suited to this task than coral reefs.

So its not confusing - here is the statement that I say contradicts your comments. (the reason it contradicts your comments is that it clearly states that new nutrients are required for new growth - as compared to 'maintaining' a status quo. :

Quote from EC Article: "There are two general sources of nutrients for primary production: New nutrients and regenerated (recycled) nutrients . If only regenerated nutrients were available, gross photosynthesis could not excede respiration (i.e., P/R ratios could not excede 1.0) unless there was a change in elemental ratios (e.g., an increase in the C/N and C/P ratios). Net production (growth) requires the input of new nutrients into the system, as does net export from the system. It is important to point out that nutrient recycling mechanisms, evenwhen 100% efficient, cannot supply nutrients for a positive net production. Furthermore, if recycling mechanisms are inefficient it will take an input of new nutrients to maintain a steady state biomass."

I say: The articles discussing why the great barrier reef was created directly contradict your thesis as well.

Having said that - I'm open to ideas - Im not a marine biologist specifically.

The very first sentence of the quote from the article above, "There are two general sources of nutrients for primary production: New nutrients and regenerated (recycled) nutrients".
One is not exclusive of the other. I have never, ever, in any of my posting, said, or implied, that growth of an ecosystem, or individual, can be achieved without obtaining nutrients. An individual can/may receive all or most of its nutritional requirements from the ecosystem where it lives. The ecosystem itself must obtain nutrients from outside sources, or the life/biomass of that ecosystem will be reduced until it no longer exists.

To get an idea of how efficient life can be at recycling nutrients we only need to look at the planet as a whole. We receive massive amounts of energy on a daily basis, but virtually no nutrients. All the life of this planet is recycling the same nutrients that have been here for billions of years. While smaller ecosystems within our environment are not nearly as efficient, you should still be able to get the idea. Large communities of organisms can be produced with little input, IF those organisms are efficient at recycling what they obtain.

Researchers in one of the links in this thread talk about a debate between scientists as to what answers Darwin's paradox. Recycling, or upwelling/nutrient input. I think this is absurd. These influences will vary from reef to reef, and effect the species that live there. A small patch reef, in the great barrier reef, that's miles from the continental shelf, may have access to much more nutrients, and have less surface area for colonization, than a large shallow reef out in the middle of the south pacific. Recycling of nutrients will not be nearly as important to the small patch reef as it is to the large reef out in the south pacific. The small patch reef will be supported largely by nutrients being supplied by the surrounding environment with little recycling taking place. The large reef out in the south pacific is likely to be much more dependent on recycling of nutrients, and less dependent on incoming nutrients. Understanding these, and other processes is how we solve Darwin's paradox. Not by any one all encompassing process alone.

Peace
EC[/quote]

 

[Mortie31]

I think it keeps happening because people have a preconceived notion of what they think I "believe" and are not reading the black and white of what I actually write. That's why I ask for quotes from me that led people to believe I said, or believe, X.



There isn't one answer to Darwin's paradox. There are many factors that go into explaining Darwin's paradox. That's why I've repeatedly refereed to "our understanding" when discussing how we solve Darwin's paradox. It is through our understanding of these many factors that we solve Darwin's paradox. Not any one factor alone. If I talk abut one factor, that does not exclude others.



See......... This is one of those cases where I've said no such thing. In order for the biomass of a particular area to grow, it must be supplied with more nutrients than what's required to support the current mass. I've never suggested otherwise. In the grouper analogy we were talking about virgin territory, basically void of biomass. No nutrients were required to support the current mass, outside of the grouper itself. The grouper could release nutrients that could go into new growth because there was no other mass to support. That new life was not being created independent of the amount of nutrients added. It was being created because of the amount of nutrients added.



Here, I am speaking directly to ammonium. Not to nutrients in general. There is very very little ammonium entering the reef from outside souses. The anthias was able to produce ammonium because they spend their days above the reef facing the incoming water, and picking off the rare tiny organic particle that drifts in. BTW, This is also why hobbyists consider them hard to keep. There isn't enough particles in the water entering the reef, for them to pig out on, then go rest and make babies, like groupers do. They have to devote large portions of their day to feeding in these nutrient/particulate poor waters in order to get enough to sustain themselves. Ammonium is then produced by the anthias, who obtained the nitrogen to create that ammonium, from solid organic particles that entered the reef. The grouper produced ammonium on the reef by feeding on the anthias. It is through processes like this that we find higher, but still incredibly low, ammonium, and other nutrient, levels in the water directly in/around the reef, than we do in the incoming waters. So, the vast majority of ammonium on/in the reef, ( not "entering" the reef), relates to recycling. The anthias eats the tiny organic particle that enters the reef, and releases organic and inorganic waste. The grouper eats the anthias and releases organic and inorganic waste. Tiny fish, crabs, shrimp, and other organisms feed on the organic particles, and algae and bacteria utilize the inorganics. Other creatures feed on the algae, bacteria, and tiny creatures. Through this process the nutrients remain on the reef for an extended period of time and are recycled.




That analogy was to show how life spreads over new territory, even with little incoming food/nutrients. This isn't due to life magically appearing in the absence of food/nutrients. It's through life's ability to reuse the nutrients from that cube of mysis, over and over and over again. If you feed one kilogram of mysis every day, you can produce much more than one kilogram of biomass/life in the system. This isn't some magic, voodoo, stuff. This is possible because much of the nutrients in that kilogram of mysis will remain in the system, and be used over and over, producing more life, until it's used up, or leaves the system, but by then, many more kilograms of mysis will have been added, leading to even more life/biomass.
Like I've pointed out before, the sapling growing in the middle of the amazon will have little dependence on new nutrients entering the forest, and the vast majority of it's nutritional requirements will be met with the nutrients that are already there, and have likely been there for quite some time.
It's not simply the amount of nutrients entering the system that dictates how much life/biomass the system can support, but how long that life/biomass can hold onto the nutrients it receives, or how efficient it is at recycling and those nutrients. Arguably, there's no environment on earth better suited to this task than coral reefs.



The very first sentence of the quote from the article above, "There are two general sources of nutrients for primary production: New nutrients and regenerated (recycled) nutrients".
One is not exclusive of the other. I have never, ever, in any of my posting, said, or implied, that growth of an ecosystem, or individual, can be achieved without obtaining nutrients. An individual can/may receive all or most of its nutritional requirements from the ecosystem where it lives. The ecosystem itself must obtain nutrients from outside sources, or the life/biomass of that ecosystem will be reduced until it no longer exists.

To get an idea of how efficient life can be at recycling nutrients we only need to look at the planet as a whole. We receive massive amounts of energy on a daily basis, but virtually no nutrients. All the life of this planet is recycling the same nutrients that have been here for billions of years. While smaller ecosystems within our environment are not nearly as efficient, you should still be able to get the idea. Large communities of organisms can be produced with little input, IF those organisms are efficient at recycling what they obtain.

Researchers in one of the links in this thread talk about a debate between scientists as to what answers Darwin's paradox. Recycling, or upwelling/nutrient input. I think this is absurd. These influences will vary from reef to reef, and effect the species that live there. A small patch reef, in the great barrier reef, that's miles from the continental shelf, may have access to much more nutrients, and have less surface area for colonization, than a large shallow reef out in the middle of the south pacific. Recycling of nutrients will not be nearly as important to the small patch reef as it is to the large reef out in the south pacific. The small patch reef will be supported largely by nutrients being supplied by the surrounding environment with little recycling taking place. The large reef out in the south pacific is likely to be much more dependent on recycling of nutrients, and less dependent on incoming nutrients. Understanding these, and other processes is how we solve Darwin's paradox. Not by any one all encompassing process alone.

Peace
EC

[/QUOTE]
Everything you have written here contradicts what you have continually posted in the thread, I don’t know if we’re all thick or you can’t explain s**t, lets take you saying Lasses tank would die as it’s nutrient levels are continually rising due to the increase in starfish, crabs and other detritus eaters, yet this doesn’t fit with what you are saying now, you seem to be back tracking on your previous posts...

 

[MnFish1]

I think it keeps happening because people have a preconceived notion of what they think I "believe" and are not reading the black and white of what I actually write. That's why I ask for quotes from me that led people to believe I said, or believe, X.



There isn't one answer to Darwin's paradox. There are many factors that go into explaining Darwin's paradox. That's why I've repeatedly refereed to "our understanding" when discussing how we solve Darwin's paradox. It is through our understanding of these many factors that we solve Darwin's paradox. Not any one factor alone. If I talk abut one factor, that does not exclude others.



See......... This is one of those cases where I've said no such thing. In order for the biomass of a particular area to grow, it must be supplied with more nutrients than what's required to support the current mass. I've never suggested otherwise. In the grouper analogy we were talking about virgin territory, basically void of biomass. No nutrients were required to support the current mass, outside of the grouper itself. The grouper could release nutrients that could go into new growth because there was no other mass to support. That new life was not being created independent of the amount of nutrients added. It was being created because of the amount of nutrients added.



Here, I am speaking directly to ammonium. Not to nutrients in general. There is very very little ammonium entering the reef from outside souses. The anthias was able to produce ammonium because they spend their days above the reef facing the incoming water, and picking off the rare tiny organic particle that drifts in. BTW, This is also why hobbyists consider them hard to keep. There isn't enough particles in the water entering the reef, for them to pig out on, then go rest and make babies, like groupers do. They have to devote large portions of their day to feeding in these nutrient/particulate poor waters in order to get enough to sustain themselves. Ammonium is then produced by the anthias, who obtained the nitrogen to create that ammonium, from solid organic particles that entered the reef. The grouper produced ammonium on the reef by feeding on the anthias. It is through processes like this that we find higher, but still incredibly low, ammonium, and other nutrient, levels in the water directly in/around the reef, than we do in the incoming waters. So, the vast majority of ammonium on/in the reef, ( not "entering" the reef), relates to recycling. The anthias eats the tiny organic particle that enters the reef, and releases organic and inorganic waste. The grouper eats the anthias and releases organic and inorganic waste. Tiny fish, crabs, shrimp, and other organisms feed on the organic particles, and algae and bacteria utilize the inorganics. Other creatures feed on the algae, bacteria, and tiny creatures. Through this process the nutrients remain on the reef for an extended period of time and are recycled.




That analogy was to show how life spreads over new territory, even with little incoming food/nutrients. This isn't due to life magically appearing in the absence of food/nutrients. It's through life's ability to reuse the nutrients from that cube of mysis, over and over and over again. If you feed one kilogram of mysis every day, you can produce much more than one kilogram of biomass/life in the system. This isn't some magic, voodoo, stuff. This is possible because much of the nutrients in that kilogram of mysis will remain in the system, and be used over and over, producing more life, until it's used up, or leaves the system, but by then, many more kilograms of mysis will have been added, leading to even more life/biomass.
Like I've pointed out before, the sapling growing in the middle of the amazon will have little dependence on new nutrients entering the forest, and the vast majority of it's nutritional requirements will be met with the nutrients that are already there, and have likely been there for quite some time.
It's not simply the amount of nutrients entering the system that dictates how much life/biomass the system can support, but how long that life/biomass can hold onto the nutrients it receives, or how efficient it is at recycling and those nutrients. Arguably, there's no environment on earth better suited to this task than coral reefs.



The very first sentence of the quote from the article above, "There are two general sources of nutrients for primary production: New nutrients and regenerated (recycled) nutrients".
One is not exclusive of the other. I have never, ever, in any of my posting, said, or implied, that growth of an ecosystem, or individual, can be achieved without obtaining nutrients. An individual can/may receive all or most of its nutritional requirements from the ecosystem where it lives. The ecosystem itself must obtain nutrients from outside sources, or the life/biomass of that ecosystem will be reduced until it no longer exists.

To get an idea of how efficient life can be at recycling nutrients we only need to look at the planet as a whole. We receive massive amounts of energy on a daily basis, but virtually no nutrients. All the life of this planet is recycling the same nutrients that have been here for billions of years. While smaller ecosystems within our environment are not nearly as efficient, you should still be able to get the idea. Large communities of organisms can be produced with little input, IF those organisms are efficient at recycling what they obtain.

Researchers in one of the links in this thread talk about a debate between scientists as to what answers Darwin's paradox. Recycling, or upwelling/nutrient input. I think this is absurd. These influences will vary from reef to reef, and effect the species that live there. A small patch reef, in the great barrier reef, that's miles from the continental shelf, may have access to much more nutrients, and have less surface area for colonization, than a large shallow reef out in the middle of the south pacific. Recycling of nutrients will not be nearly as important to the small patch reef as it is to the large reef out in the south pacific. The small patch reef will be supported largely by nutrients being supplied by the surrounding environment with little recycling taking place. The large reef out in the south pacific is likely to be much more dependent on recycling of nutrients, and less dependent on incoming nutrients. Understanding these, and other processes is how we solve Darwin's paradox. Not by any one all encompassing process alone.

Peace
EC

I'm not going to answer this point by point. Firstly - I think its off topic for most readers and secondly It is clear that this is 'your opinion' and there is no way anyone is going to change that. I am not going to go through 50 pages of stuff to debate the minutae of what was said or not said. What I will say - is that every response I have made to you has been in the context of what you said directly before. I do want to point out 2 things that are clearly incorrect in your paragraphs above (they are not the only 2 but the only 2 I wanted to waste my time on):

You say: Here, I am speaking directly to ammonium. Not to nutrients in general. There is very very little ammonium entering the reef from outside souses.

I posted a quote from an article explaining HOW and WHY the Great Barrier Reef was formed (the hypothesis was upwelling in those areas) - and they specifically talk about NH4 which is high in upwellings and rapidly assimilated into the reef:

This article was quoted (you ignored it) :

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.

You say: I have never, ever, in any of my posting, said, or implied, that growth of an ecosystem, or individual, can be achieved without obtaining nutrients. An individual can/may receive all or most of its nutritional requirements from the ecosystem where it lives. The ecosystem itself must obtain nutrients from outside sources, or the life/biomass of that ecosystem will be reduced until it no longer exists.

The discussion we were having was what was the MAJOR factor in the growth of the reef. If you go back and read my posts there are MULTIPLE instances of me saying 'no one denies that recycling occurs - but there is evidence that it is not the MAJOR influence (as you had stated). You said the amounts of inorganic material coming into the reef was minuscule.

I posted 2 articles Quoted below (which you ignored).

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

You then quoted an article to show (supposedly) that recycling was the major reason for reef growth. That article was quoted from (and while it indeed describes recycling) - it also states that without upwelling and other extraneous nutrients GROWTH of the reef could not occur (even if recycling was 100% efficient). Im not going to bother going through it all again - but start with post 487 and read forward. Maybe you'll see why many people here are confused by your opinions, offered without evidence. Again - I am not trying to slam you - but I'm also not going to waste more time having to go back to show you what you've said (vs. what you meant).

 

[Scrubber_steve]

I thought Darwins Paradox was easily explained?

 

[ruskimax]

I think it keeps happening because people have a preconceived notion of what they think I "believe" and are not reading the black and white of what I actually write. That's why I ask for quotes from me that led people to believe I said, or believe, X.


Dude, I just lost several hours of my life to this thread. Im not sure that you guys even really disagree on anything (other than the OP, decent ideas to discuss initially however I think his ADD meds may need adjusting), and not sure why everyones going ballistic on you. Yes, some of your early posts contained possibly vague descriptors, but everyone here has used terms incorrectly/interchangeably. As for tank styles, I have a ~1yr old mixed reef more in line w Lasse's. Drunk hit a telephone pole down the street this morning, power was out for no more than 3.5 hours but that was long enough to finish off all my livestock except 2 clowns (Ammonia 0.25, temp was stable, all other params I check were WNL, assuming that pile of NoPox fish poop in the back went all heterotroph once O2 levels dropped (or vice versa)). Took out most of my sand as Im doing WC's today, would take out some of my LR if I could as well. Anyhoo, Take 'er easy man. And never feed the trolls LOL

 

[MnFish1]

LOL - is the only comment I can think of at this point. Happy New Year.

 

[MnFish1]

I thought Darwins Paradox was easily explained?

If you can explain something in 3 paragraphs its 'easily explained'

 

[C-Reefer]

Hey brandon, i found a thread Cooked Veggies Maybe the Answer?!?!?! that talks about using boiling RODI water to nuke algae, which not only kills it but also softens it so your CUC will eat it. What's your thoughts on this?

 

[brandon429]

Same mechanism that peroxide causes. For a decade we’ve been logging documented actions where the blighting of algae by any method causes cuc members to actually work, neat phenomena agreed, that boiling water trick worked well and spiritwalker on another thread was able to fully take back his tank from a gha infestation with it

Another poster warned of the health risk associated with boiling water and aersolization concerns I agree that’s to be considered

I’m 1000% for any direct kill method doesn’t matter the tool used, people taking back their tanks by force vs waiting and hoping is an awesome trend for 2019 and beyond. Later on when someone posts a vid of using an acetylene cutting torch to blast red brush algae off a huge chunk of live rock, I’m for that not against it heh

 

[brandon429]

I often think about this thread lol and here are the official updates (not to be agreed upon by anyone lol but nonetheless official)

More than one clade/genus/family of bacteria handles nitrification. That’s the big takeaway MN wants to have detailed and I’m glad we discussed it.

they make your test kits give the same reading as dedicated nitrifers. You can’t tell which clade you are working with unless you can genetically sample and ID them for proof. A passed oxidation test is what matters.

I’m referring to the LOT of them as nitrifers though some aren’t nitrosomonas or n bacter. Collectively, these groups of bacteria cause every physicality mentioned here and indeed you can still add any number of filters to an aquarium and the filters will self seed and self feed to add more nitrifer mass without having to increase the bioloading in the main tank



The end measure of ammonia there or not is the same regardless of this exchange in types of bacteria- bac are the toughest creatures we keep, not the weakest. First to come and last to go in any reef tank’s arc of life... They don’t need our help, seeding or feeding, they merely need us to maintain hydration if we’re to keep up the benefits of them being able to oxidize as needed