Ammonia is our Friend: thoughts needed

[Hans-Werner]

Now the million dollar question is - are corals brown colour a prove that carotenoids is the main contributor to photosynthesis below high light intensity or is it something else - like sunscreen. If we go back and try to define what a colour is

No, it isn't. Now you are repeating your most irritating statement, showing that I didn't get you wrong. Follow my links. (The second one isn't working, try this one or this one.) It is long known that carotenoids are the majority of light harvesting pigments in the LHC of antennae. There are a few hundred pigment molecules in antennae per reaction center.

You can even read directly form the action spectra of photosynthesis of microalgae that caroteinoids must be involved in photosynthesis. If carotenoids would have only protective function, there would not be the high efficiency with which blue-green light drives photosynthesis.

It may shed some light on these findings

I know the publications of Wiedenmann. In its core it says, if phosphate concentration is low, nitrate is particularly damaging. It is the same what the dissertation of Shantz and what I say.

I did not claim otherwise - I just say that the authors suggest that ammonium may inhibit the actual enzyme for NO3 conversion into NH3/NH4. That means that if both NH3/NH4 and NO3 exist - the NO3 uptake should not happen regardless. There was no discussion about competition about the same transporter either from me or from the authors.

Yes, this is just one of several mechanisms causing the "preference" for ammonium. This is exactly what I have stated.

I mean, we don't have to go too much into the biochemical details, they are over the heads of most readers anyways. There are at least two mechanisms explaining the preference for ammonium, one at low and one at higher ammonium concentrations.

 

[Lasse]

You can even read directly form the action spectra of photosynthesis of microalgae that carotenoids must be involved in photosynthesis. If carotenoids would have only protective function, there would not be the high efficiency with which blue-green light drives photosynthesis.

I have not state that carotenoids not is involved in the photosynthesis of zooxanthella. I react on the statement from you that the brown colour of some corals are a prove of this. I do not see the brown colour itself as a prove for carotenoids is active in photosynthesis. I replay that the brown colour of some corals probably more work as a sunscreen than a prove for photosynthetic activity. I do not think that the green montipora and the brown/red montipora have very different systems of light harvesting. Not either that green acropora ´s differ so much from brown variants.

I know that it since the golden age of blue bottle treatment in Germany browning of corals has been seen as a function of an increase of the amount of zooxanthellae that´s suppose to be brown because of the amount of carotenoids in the zooxanthella. Solution - kill the zooxanthella with copper and your corals will show beautiful colours again......

However I´m not the only one that think that carotenoids can be involved in photoprotection even in the molecular level.

This article is worth to read - especially section 7 which is titled - ENERGY TRANSFER & PHOTOPROTECTION

A teaser
'

Light-harvesting (LH) complexes are used by photosynthetic organisms to increase the overall efficiency of photosynthesis. Light is collected by LH complexes; subsequently, energy is funneled to the reaction center, where it is converted into electrochemical potential. Dinoflagellates, unicellular algae constituting one of the most important classes of phytoplankton, use a water-soluble LH complex called peridinin-chlorophyll-a-protein (PCP) with a 4:1 peridinin/chlorophyll ratio (note: PCPs with different stoichiometry also exist, as we will discuss later) [1]. The presence of peridinin (Per) molecules in the PCPs enables the organism to collect light in the visible spectral region where chlorophyll (Chl) poorly absorbs [2]. The absorbed light energy is then transferred to Chl a with high efficiency through energy transfer. Per has also an important photo-protective role as it can quickly and efficiently quench the Chl a triplet state, which could be a source of singlet oxygen.

@Hans-Werner I´m not trying to irritate you - I´m trying to gain more knowledge for myself and the way to do it is to discuss with other people. I do not think knowledge is a static thing that you just serve for the auditorium - IMO - knowledge is gain through discussion with people with different angels of attacking the same problem. I suppose this is also Randys goal with this thread - create a discussion from which he could pick out arguments for his upcoming article. And remember - your native language is german - my Swedish and we try to communicate complicated things in a third language.

In this discussion is the findings that rise of PO4 concentrations above a certain level not change the uptake rate of NO3 meanwhile the acceleration of the uptake rate continue for NH3/NH4. That´s good - let us dose NH3/NH4 instead for NO3 is the direct answer. But hold your horses - this highlight another question - why does the acceleration of the uptake rate of NO3 stop at a certain concentrations of PO4 but not the NH3/NH4 rate?

Here is my wild and speculative answer that maybe is true, false or somewhere between.

We are dealing with photosyntetic organism - a accelerated uptake will result in more photosynthesis - more production of oxygen waste and oxygen radicals as precursors of oxygen gas. The zooxanthellae are primary captured dinoflagellates from the open sea (at least in an evolutionary point of view) and there is no discussions as I know of denying that in open sea NO3 is the most common inorganic N source for photosynthesis during normal conditions. Could this limitation of NO3 uptake rate even if there is an excess of PO4 be a type of photoinhibition evolved earlier in the evolution of these dinoflagellates? The need for the same effect according to NH3/NH4 maybe is not needed because free NH3/NH4 seldom exist in open sea.

Hence - dosing NH3/NH4 (if N not is growth limited) may create problems.

The observations from you that if NO3 as the only inorganic N source could create problems in certain concentrations but if it is both NO3-N and NH4-N present - higher NO3 concentrations is no problem indicate also some regulating effect.

You could speculate that the extra three single O in NO3 could create problems with O radicals but it seems that they are not responsible for any free O radicals neither in the assimilatory or dissimilatory nitrate reduction if these formula is complete. However it could be intermediate step with free oxygen radicals

if phosphate concentration is low, nitrate is particularly damaging.

Yes - the say that it create a PO4 defiency and if PO4 is over a certain figure - excess NO3 do not create this. For me - it is in line with the findings that the acceleration of NO3 uptake stop at a certain PO4 concentration and as I can see - both articles talk about nearly the same PO4 concentrations for the different discussed events - IMO - they can be linked.


Sincerely Lasse

 

[Hans-Werner]

I´m not trying to irritate you - I´m trying to gain more knowledge for myself and the way to do it is to discuss with other people. I do not think knowledge is a static thing that you just serve for the auditorium - IMO - knowledge is gain through discussion with people with different angels of attacking the same problem.

I am sorry, I can't help. When I start to read your replies I always think they are starting with an objection.

 

[Lasse]

I always think they are starting with an objection

As my mother used to say - our family have military ancestors.........

Sincerely Lasse

 

[BeanAnimal]

Ignoring the technical aspects of the back and forth and putting this somewhat back in context to the larger conversation.

It occurs to me (given the current debate tangent) that the coral can (to an extent) adjust to the local baseline food source, with light being a contributing factor. I hesitate to use the word adapt, as I it appears not to be a permanent change.

The NSW levels of both nutrients and light being genetically "preferred" configuration. My question would be is this NSW "preferred" configuration the ideal or, like garden fertilizer, can we adjust the parameters to be better than the NSW baseline. If so, is directly offering ammonia, forcing the coral to adjust (ignoring competition from bacteria for uptake) the most efficient "fertilizer"?

 

[Hans-Werner]

I have not state that carotenoids not is involved in the photosynthesis of zooxanthella. I react on the statement from you that the brown colour of some corals are a prove of this. I do not see the brown colour itself as a prove for carotenoids is active in photosynthesis.

Can you name me one kind of microalgae where this isn't the case, or just one kind of algae? In the real world it is this way.

Did I state the brown color of corals? I think this is a statement that must be misunderstood by some. Finally it is the brown color of zooxanthellae that form a kind of "ground coloration" of corals that may combine to other colors in combination for example with fluorescent colors. I think I have also stated this.

If you follow the last links I have posted you will see more images of antennae, PCPs, LHs etc.

 

[Lasse]

Can you name me one kind of microalgae where this isn't the case, or just one kind of algae? In the real world it is this way.

How do you mean?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

My question would be is this NSW "preferred" configuration the ideal or, like garden fertilizer, can we adjust the parameters to be better than the NSW baseline. If so, is directly offering ammonia, forcing the coral to adjust (ignoring competition from bacteria for uptake) the most efficient "fertilizer"?

That's certainly a more complicated question, and one I think could only be answered with extensive comparative testing.

To some extent the ammonium dosing thread is such a test, seeing if ammonia dosing changes anything compared to nitrate dosing.

But on the preference thing, people have evolved preferences for things that were hard to get historically (salt, fat, protein, sugar), but it is not necessarily in people's best health interest to focus on giving peopel what they prefer when one can provide anything in any amount. Same could possibly relate to corals. I'm not saying it does, but it could.

 

[BeanAnimal]

So the salt lick in the corner of my bedroom ( to sate me between bacon meals) may not be healthy for me even though it makes me visibly happy...

In all seriousness. Between this conversation, the bacteria assay thread, broken buffers and mud... I am amazed that anybody is actually successful. Many of us think how delicate and fragile the balance in these systems is, but in reality they put up with an insane amount of variety in conditions.

 

[areefer01]

So the salt lick in the corner of my bedroom ( to sate me between bacon meals) may not be healthy for me even though it makes me visibly happy...

This made me laugh

In all seriousness. Between this conversation, the bacteria assay thread, broken buffers and mud... I am amazed that anybody is actually successful. Many of us think how delicate and fragile the balance in these systems is, but in reality they put up with an insane amount of variety in conditions.

I'm going to generalize a bit and probably get scolded again but I am of the opinion the successful hobbyist have stronger BS meters and have a longer tenure in the hobby. Pre-social media and a more balanced member forum. No disrespect intended but there is no chemical euphoria or care about what others are doing or using. No budget shaming, etc.

Point is I don't recall being scared of algae or nutrient numbers let alone try to shorten the time from start to coral (cycle). Shrimp, or damsel, or dosing ammonia, grab some books, read, and that was it. A more simpler approach without the market speak or social media influence.

Hope your day is well.

 

[Dan_P]

So the salt lick in the corner of my bedroom ( to sate me between bacon meals) may not be healthy for me even though it makes me visibly happy...

Can water softener pellets be used in place of a salt lick? You know, when traveling or at the theater.

In all seriousness. Between this conversation, the bacteria assay thread, broken buffers and mud... I am amazed that anybody is actually successful. Many of us think how delicate and fragile the balance in these systems is, but in reality they put up with an insane amount of variety in conditions.

My impression is that many fish and invertebrate are killed by this hobby overall. If you are a clever product vendor, you mine this situation for product ideas, not actually do science to improve the success rate. The successful aquarist likely does not rely on these disaster prevention products for success but develops and sticks to a method of aquarium management based on knowledge about the organisms in the aquarium.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Can water softener pellets be used in place of a salt lick? You know, when traveling or at the theater.

No... they make a necklace for that

 

[Dan_P]

No... they make a necklace for that

A fashion statement and fix in one!

 

[Lasse]

Between this conversation, the bacteria assay thread, broken buffers and mud... I am amazed that anybody is actually successful. Many of us think how delicate and fragile the balance in these systems is, but in reality they put up with an insane amount of variety in conditions.

Maybe - its not so fragile as we think. I have always thought that stability in aquarium temperature is important and developed methods where my temperature only varied with around 0,1 degree C. In February this year - I switch my way of temperature regulation and let the temperature vary with up to 1.5 degree C on daily basis. After a half a year with a deliberate daily variation of my temperature between night and day - I can state that the aquarium at least does not work worse than before when it had a stable temperature.

But if you complicate everything - as I love to do - perhaps the margin for fatal error is narrowing.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Doctorgori]

fter a half a year with a deliberate daily variation of my temperature between night and day - I can state that the aquarium at least does not work worse than before with a stable temperature.

not to de rail but are corals that evolutionary wimpy? , heck one cold spell should be worldwide reef armageddon with widespread extinctions

I don’t doubt your sample but I haven’t really used a heater for years and my best tank swung daily from 69F to 72F … so much for that worshiped 78F magic number

But if you complicate everything - as I love to do - perhaps the margin for fatal error is narrowing.,

Agreed and pretty much my thinking with nutrient uptake , water chemistry/params and lighting having a range of acceptable numbers and where the overlaps exist is what is optimal….

it’s feasible could be multiple optimal places where nitrates work in combination with some other param

Maybe corals like ammonium at low light or low temps but prefers nitrate above 75F

anyway just my opinion but I think temp stability is like that … it only matters if something else is outta whack

 

[AC1211]

not to de rail but are corals that evolutionary wimpy? , heck one cold spell should be worldwide reef armageddon with widespread extinctions

I don’t doubt your sample but I haven’t really used a heater for years and my best tank swung daily from 69F to 72F … so much for that worshiped 78F magic number


Agreed and pretty much my thinking with nutrient uptake , water chemistry/params and lighting having a range of acceptable numbers and where the overlaps exist is what is optimal….

it’s feasible could be multiple optimal places where nitrates work in combination with some other param

Maybe corals like ammonium at low light or low temps but prefers nitrate above 75F

anyway just my opinion but I think temp stability is like that … it only matters if something else is outta whack

To some degree it probably heavily depends on what you keep. Some organisms will be able to thrive in a wide range of conditions including conditions they never see in their natural habitat. Some will struggle immensely with even minor shifts.

I don't think we should attempt to answer these questions considering corals as a broad, encompassing group.

We should consider that what may work for 90% of what we may keep may not work for the 10%.

I'm sure many of us have had a singular species that, for whatever reason, has failed to thrive in our system regardless of the number of other species doing well.

We need to be careful when considering our margin for error. It may be very different from tank to tank compared to what we may think.


A tank full of damsels will have much more of a margin for error than a tank with a copper band butterfly or a moorish idol.

 

[Lasse]

To some degree it probably heavily depends on what you keep. Some organisms will be able to thrive in a wide range of conditions including conditions they never see in their natural habitat. Some will struggle immensely with even minor shifts.

I don't think we should attempt to answer these questions considering corals as a broad, encompassing group.

We should consider that what may work for 90% of what we may keep may not work for the 10%.

I'm sure many of us have had a singular species that, for whatever reason, has failed to thrive in our system regardless of the number of other species doing well.

We need to be careful when considering our margin for error. It may be very different from tank to tank compared to what we may think.


A tank full of damsels will have much more of a margin for error than a tank with a copper band butterfly or a moorish idol.

I agree but - IMO - normally all of these discussions tend to try to explain what the 5 % odd species need - not the need of 95 % of the normal inhabitants in a reef aquarium

Sincerely Lasse.

 

[Doctorgori]

To some degree it probably heavily depends on what you keep. Some organisms will be able to thrive in a wide range of conditions including conditions they never see in their natural habitat. Some will struggle immensely with even minor shifts.

I don't think we should attempt to answer these questions considering corals as a broad, encompassing group.

We should consider that what may work for 90% of what we may keep may not work for the 10%.

I'm sure many of us have had a singular species that, for whatever reason, has failed to thrive in our system regardless of the number of other species doing well.

We need to be careful when considering our margin for error. It may be very different from tank to tank compared to what we may think.


A tank full of damsels will have much more of a margin for error than a tank with a copper band butterfly or a moorish idol.

true but my rub comes from when I watched a vid from a well known “ influencer” that said a .5 temp swing stressed corals… What habitat on planet Earth demands evolutionary fitness with that kind of fine tuning ? Coral reefs might be stable more or less but I’m dying to see the data here

I agree but - IMO - normally all of these discussions tend to try to explain what the 5 % odd species need - not the need of 95 % of the normal inhabitants in a reef aquarium

Sincerely Lasse.

…or entire reefing mantra being based on a single observation or study … that worshiped 78F being a prime example

pardon the thread deviation

 

[BeanAnimal]

My reef swung daily with no heater for well over a decade. I keep it stable now, but no particular reason.

 

[GARRIGA]

true but my rub comes from when I watched a vid from a well known “ influencer” that said a .5 temp swing stressed corals… What habitat on planet Earth demands evolutionary fitness with that kind of fine tuning ? Coral reefs might be stable more or less but I’m dying to see the data here

…or entire reefing mantra being based on a single observation or study … that worshiped 78F being a prime example

pardon the thread deviation

Weather impacts daily temperature fluctuations and why I can’t believe either that 78 is magical or a sudden change beyond literature or web can be detrimental. Ocean currents aren’t a constant temperature nor are they a constant flow over any particular spot in the ocean. Even lakes have currents influenced by temperatures and wind. Warming water rises. That’s a current.