Everything in Reef Chemistry is a Simplification

[Dan_P]

Tbh, the more I see, the more I suspect that stability issues are what trigger algae. They seem more opportunistic, but if the environment is kept stable and corals are allowed to settle in, then algae seems to chill out a bit.
It recently clicked for me that in my tank, when nutrients drop, especially if they bottom out, I get cyano, but also a TON of algae growth. It's almost like the rock is trying to expel nutrients to equalize with the water, and the algae can use those nutrients faster than corals can pull them from the water column. Also, like I said earlier, stability issues are the trigger.
Also iron. When I dosed iron for my macros I definitely saw an increase in algae growth. Weirdly enough though, I think the algae was still worse when nutrients dropped.

Here are some ideas which might not be included in your thinking.

Unwanted algae growth is a more complicated phenomenon than a weed growing in a lawn.

When you first notice an organism growth, something changed that encouraged it to grow weeks ago. You no longer have information to understand what changed, why, snd the connection to growth.

Much of our thinking about algae seems to be based in information about planktonic species. While both are algae, there are factors that are important only to the benthic species that are not considered in our conjecturing about why it grows.

Growth of algae may not be simply a species growing, but a complex community developing. You only see one organism while the periphyton development started weeks ago.

Explaining what happens in an aquarium based on nitrate concentration might be as valid as explaining an automobile’s performance based on sniffing the exhaust.

Possibly most important is that our record keeping, level of observation, and uncontrolled experimenting cause us to miss the relevant information to understand algae growth.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I agree with the Strontium point.

I guess the issue which is outlined in this broader post is that claims are being made for individual elements to have a certain effect while there is potentially no scientific paper to back this up.

Or it is based on a simple assumption, i.e., coral skeleton analysis, hence it must be important.

From a scientific standpoint I can see why folks might cringe, and push back on these simplified claimed benefits. It is a valuable opposing force.

Now there is two paths to this: as a reefer, I can either wait 10 years or longer until someone finds out through scientific testing that F or Sr or S are good for coral health, or disprove this point, or let others try it out and apply it if it has proven to be beneficial.

What constitutes beneficial is subjective, in the absence of a scientific backup. So it comes down to the motives of the person who claims it is, and the successful visible long term results of folks not (literally) selling the idea and benefit financially from it.

I am glad that when I started reefing not too long ago, there was a shift towards focusing more on the importance on many of these (not scientifically proven) elements, as this allowed me to be successful (at my own definition) quicker than this seems to have been possible in the past.

My concern is that pushing back constantly on what is not scientifically proven in the context of at home reefing oversimplifies the complexity and difference of what happens in a reef tank, vs a lab experiment, and prevents progress, even if later it comes out that 30-50% of what was recommended had no impact to the overall benefits.

Again, I do think this pushback is needed in principle, from a ‘regulatory’ standpoint, I just wish it was less forceful in the context of this hobby (vs. human medicine), where the main risk we encounter is the waste of money, which seems to be negligible in the context of its overall cost.

I get what you are saying, and maintaining everything at natural levels may be a reasonable default position. But if no one said strontium was important, why think it is more likely useful than lead.

Suggesting it is just a lack of a scientific study proving benefit minimizes my reasons to be highly skeptical of strontium. There is likely no scientific paper claiming iron is beneficial to most of the organisms we keep, but we know by the nature of the biochemistry of life overall that it is.

I’d readily accept hobby data, if it was clear in any way, but it is not.

Here are my reasons:


1. There are many highly successful hard coral tanks that do not dose strontium.

2. Chemically precipitating calcium carbonate incorporates an equivalent amount of strontium into the solids, suggesting it is a random event.

3. There is no convincing rationale provided by anyone how strontium provides a benefit.

4. Strontium is studied and known to be used by some organisms. It’s not like no one ever looks at it.

 

[Aquadude1]

I feel like chemistry when taught is oversimplified. In gen chem 1 and 2 I learned about electrons orbiting the nucleus in a simple shell, then later you learn it was just explained that way to make it easier to digest. Same with Bronstead Lowery model of acid and base Proton donation and acceptors.

 

[EnterName]

I agree with the Strontium point.

I guess the issue which is outlined in this broader post is that claims are being made for individual elements to have a certain effect while there is potentially no scientific paper to back this up.

Or it is based on a simple assumption, i.e., coral skeleton analysis, hence it must be important.

From a scientific standpoint I can see why folks might cringe, and push back on these simplified claimed benefits. It is a valuable opposing force.

Now there is two paths to this: as a reefer, I can either wait 10 years or longer until someone finds out through scientific testing that F or Sr or S are good for coral health, or disprove this point, or let others try it out and apply it if it has proven to be beneficial.

What constitutes beneficial is subjective, in the absence of a scientific backup. So it comes down to the motives of the person who claims it is, and the successful visible long term results of folks not (literally) selling the idea and benefit financially from it.

I am glad that when I started reefing not too long ago, there was a shift towards focusing more on the importance on many of these (not scientifically proven) elements, as this allowed me to be successful (at my own definition) quicker than this seems to have been possible in the past.

My concern is that pushing back constantly on what is not scientifically proven in the context of at home reefing oversimplifies the complexity and difference of what happens in a reef tank, vs a lab experiment, and prevents progress, even if later it comes out that 30-50% of what was recommended had no impact to the overall benefits.

Again, I do think this pushback is needed in principle, from a ‘regulatory’ standpoint, I just wish it was less forceful in the context of this hobby (vs. human medicine), where the main risk we encounter is the waste of money, which seems to be negligible in the context of its overall cost.

I get what you are saying, and maintaining everything at natural levels may be a reasonable default position. But if no one said strontium was important, why think it is more likely useful than lead.

Suggesting it is just a lack of a scientific study proving benefit minimizes my reasons to be highly skeptical of strontium. There is likely no scientific paper claiming iron is beneficial to most of the organisms we keep, but we know by the nature of the biochemistry of life overall that it is.

I’d readily accept hobby data, if it was clear in any way, but it is not.

Here are my reasons:


1. There are many highly successful hard coral tanks that do not dose strontium.

2. Chemically precipitating calcium carbonate incorporates an equivalent amount of strontium into the solids, suggesting it is a random event.

3. There is no convincing rationale provided by anyone how strontium provides a benefit.

4. Strontium is studied and known to be used by some organisms. It’s not like no one ever looks at it.

Regarding 4, I have searched around a bit.

Unfortunately I didn't find any "important" microorganisms that need Strontium and would explain how it could actually be useful in a reef tank. The more I read, the more I understand your skepticism.

However, now I want to find an "Acantharia" with my microscope, but I doubt this type of plankton survives in reef tanks :(

 

[Dan_P]

There is nothing inherently wrong with simplification. It’s how almost all types of chemistry become useful.

I am suffering from a one track mind. I see this idea as being reframed as “how much misinformation can each topic tolerate before detectable harm occurs”. For example, an uncalibrated pH probe is a misinformation generator.

What I need to know is what makes a simplifying assumption an oversimplification. What type of questions should I answer to evaluate whether a result of oversimplification is “so what-good enough” or “harmful”. I think that I am asking about risk assessment (potential harm x likelihood).

 

[sixty_reefer]

as explaining an automobile’s performance based on sniffing the exhaust.

I don’t know about that, but I can smell bacon from quite a distance.

 

[Reefer Matt]

I know there are a lot of Reefers that enjoy tinkering with the chemistry of their tanks to achieve certain goals, or just for the fun of it. I believe the majority of beginner Reefers would benefit by having some ignorance of their tank’s chemistry, and focus more on routine maintenance. I think consistency is more important until it’s necessary to supplement the chemistry. For example, water changes without dosing is very possible for a couple years depending on which species are kept. Sometimes simple is better, imo.

 

[Dan_P]

I get what you are saying, and maintaining everything at natural levels may be a reasonable default position. But if no one said strontium was important, why think it is more likely useful than lead.

I would like to change “default position” to “insurance” for consistency. Then I want to add some conjectures to explain why insurance might be the basis of every aquarists thinking, why simplification works and why talking about the right way to manage a reef aquarium is endless.

-we cannot reproduce all the natural reef conditions in an aquarium:
-we reproduce reef conditions where we can in hope of success. These conditions tend to be only the ones we can measure and sometimes measuring something makes it more important than it is; the settings of the other conditions are endlessly debated;
-coral seem to have flexible requirements for growth, allowing them to thrive in aquaria with a seemingly wide range of conditions, leading to endless “discoveries” and claims of what works best.

 

[Alexander1312]

I get what you are saying, and maintaining everything at natural levels may be a reasonable default position. But if no one said strontium was important, why think it is more likely useful than lead.

Thank you for additional insight, I very much appreciate this.

My point was a bit broader than Sr, potentially including F, or S. Or some of the other disputed beneficial elements, if applicable.

And even leaving open that Sr might be one which turns out to be less relevant eventually, or the other two, or only of them but not Sr.

Suggesting it is just a lack of a scientific study proving benefit minimizes my reasons to be highly skeptical of strontium. There is likely no scientific paper claiming iron is beneficial to most of the organisms we keep, but we know by the nature of the biochemistry of life overall that it is.

Is this true that there is really no scientific paper which claims iron is not beneficial to the organism we keep in a reef tank? I thought this was studied as part the of zooxanthellae/photosynthesis related studies, which are documented. Or is this what you are referring to related to biochemistry? My point is that there should be papers around iron.

I’d readily accept hobby data, if it was clear in any way, but it is not.

I think this is the main point - because it is called a hobby, people do often not perform proper science experiment or collecting sufficient baseline data. Lots of potential there.

Here are my reasons:


1. There are many highly successful hard coral tanks that do not dose strontium.

Do you have an example of a highly successful one which is running for a while which e.g., runs Sr significantly below 8 mg/L, and F significantly below 1 mg/L? I am just very curious about this point specifically, no disputing that this is not possible.

2. Chemically precipitating calcium carbonate incorporates an equivalent amount of strontium into the solids, suggesting it is a random event.

Apologies, but this point I could not find anywhere - can you point me to the study or support of this statement? I thought it was the opposite, but it is very likely I am wrong.

3. There is no convincing rationale provided by anyone how strontium provides a benefit.

I feel this is the same point as no. 1, just in other words. What is the benefit other than anecdotal benefits. Hence my point around, what is the downside to get e.g. SR above 8 mg/L? The fact that it is one of the main ions occurring in seawater above 8 mg/L seems at least an indication that there is a chance this is not random.

4. Strontium is studied and known to be used by some organisms. It’s not like no one ever looks at it.

I guess this seems to be an argument to focus on this :). But of course not looked at specifically for reef tank, at least not for a reef tank.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Tbh, the more I see, the more I suspect that stability issues are what trigger algae. They seem more opportunistic, but if the environment is kept stable and corals are allowed to settle in, then algae seems to chill out a bit.

What is stability?

This term keeps getting used as a catch-all. My parameters are all over the place, and I am lazy.

Let’s examine my 25+ year-old reef in its prime.

In a roughly 125-gallon system, I used to let 10 gallons of water evaporate before topping off as fast as the RODI could fill the sump. In the winter, this was every two weeks. In the summer, it was every two days. Those were huge salinity swings, and they also moved alk, calcium, magnesium, and pH based on dilution.

I bolus-dosed 100 ml to maybe 200 ml of alk and calcium at a time. Sometimes I did it on schedule, and sometimes I forgot for a week or three. Alk was all over the map.

My pH swings wildly due to human respiration and how we use the house during different parts of the week.

Sometimes I fed on schedule. Other times, I did not feed for days or weeks.

I stopped using a heater and had no chiller. In the summer, the tank would swing daily from 75 degrees to over 80. In the winter, it would swing from around 73 to 77.

I did not have an algae for years of this and don't know. The only time that I did struggle with algae and coral health was when the phosphates went close to 2, not 0.2 but 2. Looking back I am not sure what else contributed. I blamed "old tank syndrome" because that was the buzz at the time, which I think is now baloney. My tank is super old and has no syndrome.

I can't tell you, but would guess that my current nitrate is close to 0 testable. I have not tested phosphate in over a year. Here are tests from ReefBot Lab from 2025.

April 2025 Nitrate (API)

API Saltwater	0 - 5		Apr 26, 07:54 pm
API Saltwater	0 - 5		Apr 22, 07:54 pm
API Saltwater	0 - 5		Apr 18, 07:51 pm
API Saltwater	0 - 5		Apr 14, 07:51 pm
API Saltwater	0 - 5		Apr 10, 03:06 pm

RedSea Phosphate Low Range

Result	Color	Device	Remove

Redsea Low Range 13 drops	0		RKL0127	Apr 27, 11:04 am
Redsea Low Range 13 drops	0.02 - 0.04		RKL0127	Apr 23, 11:06 am
Redsea Low Range 13 drops	0.04		RKL0127	Apr 19, 11:06 am
Redsea Low Range 13 drops	0.02 - 0.04		RKL0127	Apr 15, 11:06 am
Redsea Low Range 13 drops	0		RKL0127	Apr 11, 11:06 am
Redsea Low Range 13 drops	0.02 - 0.04		RKL0127	Apr 22, 11:18 am

Not a hint of nuisance algae. No refugium, only a skimmer. No water changes in years and no cyano or dinos.

I can't tell you what drive algae outbreaks or what drives cyano, dino's.
I can tell you that "stability" means something different to everyone and I don't think it can be applied without direct definition and context, and even then it would appear that correlation to "success" is anecdotal and that even depends on how success is defined.

Cheers!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Is this true that there is really no scientific paper which claims iron is not beneficial to the organism we keep in a reef tank? I thought this was studied as part the of zooxanthellae/photosynthesis related studies, which are documented. Or is this what you are referring to related to biochemistry? My point is that there should be papers around iron.


I think this is the main point - because it is called a hobby, people do often not perform proper science experiment or collecting sufficient baseline data. Lots of potential there.


Do you have an example of a highly successful one which is running for a while which e.g., runs Sr significantly below 8 mg/L, and F significantly below 1 mg/L? I am just very curious about this point specifically, no disputing that this is not possible.


Apologies, but this point I could not find anywhere - can you point me to the study or support of this statement? I thought it was the opposite, but it is very likely I am wrong.


I feel this is the same point as no. 1, just in other words. What is the benefit other than anecdotal benefits. Hence my point around, what is the downside to get e.g. SR above 8 mg/L? The fact that it is one of the main ions occurring in seawater above 8 mg/L seems at least an indication that there is a chance this is not random.


I guess this seems to be an argument to focus on this :). But of course not looked at specifically for reef tank, at least not for a reef tank.

What is curious is that it seems to be up to me to prove strontium (and barium and rubidium and other odd trace
Elements) are NOT useful, as if the default has become they must be because it has been repeated so many times. Should not the onus be on those claiming a benefit to show it?

I’ll hereby declare uranium is critical for coral skeletal structure. They are well known to take it up. Since you surely cannot find a stidy proving that corals do not need uranium, I win. I’ll retire on sales of uranium supplements. lol

We keep large numbers of organisms and I’m certain some have not been studied with respect to iron. Maybe most have not been studied. Studies are time consuming and expensive. Unless someone sees a good reason to pay for a study, they do not get done. In any case, if I asked you to find a study showing what happens to a particular coral or anemone in the absence of iron, do you think you can find one for any species?

Lots of folks neither monitor nor dose strontium, and yet have been successful for a long time. This was especially true in the past when folks often used kalk only for alk and calcium. That’s all I did. My strontium was 5.5 ppm when I measured it by icp years ago. It was not an SPS heavy tank, but it grew many lps hard corals well enough to sell them. If others had greatly different results I’d have a different opinion, but it does not (did not) appear that they do.

I reviewed strontium in detail years ago (2003).the link below has over 40 references and the abiotic precipitation discussion. I gave it a very balanced review and even proposed in that paper that despite lack of clear evidence of utility, that folks Maintain natural levels.

In it, I noted all of the known organisms that actually need strontium (at the time), as well as the extremely common study of coral skeletons and abiotic precipitation as an ancient temperature monitor as the amount that gets deposited is temperature dependent.

I no longer think maintaining it is important, but also note that doing so causes no harm except cost.

https://reefs.com/magazine/aquarium-chemistry-strontium-and-the-reef-aquarium/

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I feel this is the same point as no. 1, just in other words. What is the benefit other than anecdotal benefits. Hence my point around, what is the downside to get e.g. SR above 8 mg/L? The fact that it is one of the main ions occurring in seawater above 8 mg/L seems at least an indication that there is a chance this is not random.

I did not intend them to convey the same idea.

In 1 I simply say that many folks have kept hard corals without adding strontium at levels needed to maintain it.

In 3 I am questioning what the theoretical advantage of having strontium in a coral skeleton actually is. I do not recall anyone proposing a mechanism whereby it might/could/does provide a benefit. Barium has the same problem (IMO).

I can give decent theoretical reasons for a lot of trace element needs. Parts of enzymes, for example, or participating in redox reactions the organism wants to do. Getting incorporated covalently into needed organics is another. Strontium does not do any of these. Why would having a poorly fitting ion incorporated into a calcium carbonate skeleton be an advantage? Putting defects into a crystal structure would seem to weaken it, though I have never seen anyone ever test such an idea with a coral skeleton for any added ion.

 

[sixty_reefer]

What is stability?

This term keeps getting used as a catch-all. My parameters are all over the place, and I am lazy.

Let’s examine my 25+ year-old reef in its prime.

In a roughly 125-gallon system, I used to let 10 gallons of water evaporate before topping off as fast as the RODI could fill the sump. In the winter, this was every two weeks. In the summer, it was every two days. Those were huge salinity swings, and they also moved alk, calcium, magnesium, and pH based on dilution.

I bolus-dosed 100 ml to maybe 200 ml of alk and calcium at a time. Sometimes I did it on schedule, and sometimes I forgot for a week or three. Alk was all over the map.

My pH swings wildly due to human respiration and how we use the house during different parts of the week.

Sometimes I fed on schedule. Other times, I did not feed for days or weeks.

I stopped using a heater and had no chiller. In the summer, the tank would swing daily from 75 degrees to over 80. In the winter, it would swing from around 73 to 77.

I did not have an algae for years of this and don't know. The only time that I did struggle with algae and coral health was when the phosphates went close to 2, not 0.2 but 2. Looking back I am not sure what else contributed. I blamed "old tank syndrome" because that was the buzz at the time, which I think is now baloney. My tank is super old and has no syndrome.

I can't tell you, but would guess that my current nitrate is close to 0 testable. I have not tested phosphate in over a year. Here are tests from ReefBot Lab from 2025.

April 2025 Nitrate (API)

API Saltwater	0 - 5		Apr 26, 07:54 pm
API Saltwater	0 - 5		Apr 22, 07:54 pm
API Saltwater	0 - 5		Apr 18, 07:51 pm
API Saltwater	0 - 5		Apr 14, 07:51 pm
API Saltwater	0 - 5		Apr 10, 03:06 pm

RedSea Phosphate Low Range

Result	Color	Device	Remove

Redsea Low Range 13 drops	0		RKL0127	Apr 27, 11:04 am
Redsea Low Range 13 drops	0.02 - 0.04		RKL0127	Apr 23, 11:06 am
Redsea Low Range 13 drops	0.04		RKL0127	Apr 19, 11:06 am
Redsea Low Range 13 drops	0.02 - 0.04		RKL0127	Apr 15, 11:06 am
Redsea Low Range 13 drops	0		RKL0127	Apr 11, 11:06 am
Redsea Low Range 13 drops	0.02 - 0.04		RKL0127	Apr 22, 11:18 am

Not a hint of nuisance algae. No refugium, only a skimmer. No water changes in years and no cyano or dinos.

I can't tell you what drive algae outbreaks or what drives cyano, dino's.
I can tell you that "stability" means something different to everyone and I don't think it can be applied without direct definition and context, and even then it would appear that correlation to "success" is anecdotal and that even depends on how success is defined.

Cheers!

I would agree that what you’ve described is very close to my definition of parameter instability. Salinity, temperature, alkalinity and nutrient input all appear to have fluctuated considerably.

Where I think there may be another layer to the discussion is biological stability. By biological stability, I mean the ability of the aquarium to maintain a healthy and resilient biological community over time.

Of course, the two are linked, sufficiently large parameter swings can affect biological stability, and some of the swings you’ve described could be enough to stress or even kill certain sensitive stony corals.

What I find interesting is that despite what appears to be considerable parameter instability, your aquarium appears to have maintained a high degree of biological stability, no persistent nuisance algae, no recurring Cyanobacteria, no dinoflagellates and long-term success.

To me, that suggests biological stability may be the more meaningful endpoint, while parameter stability is just one of several factors that can contribute to it.

Out of curiosity, do you keep many SPS corals in you’re aquarium?

 

[Dan_P]

I would agree that what you’ve described is very close to my definition of parameter instability. Salinity, temperature, alkalinity and nutrient input all appear to have fluctuated considerably.

Where I think there may be another layer to the discussion is biological stability. By biological stability, I mean the ability of the aquarium to maintain a healthy and resilient biological community over time.

Of course, the two are linked, sufficiently large parameter swings can affect biological stability, and some of the swings you’ve described could be enough to stress or even kill certain sensitive stony corals.

What I find interesting is that despite what appears to be considerable parameter instability, your aquarium appears to have maintained a high degree of biological stability, no persistent nuisance algae, no recurring Cyanobacteria, no dinoflagellates and long-term success.

To me, that suggests biological stability may be the more meaningful endpoint, while parameter stability is just one of several factors that can contribute to it.

Out of curiosity, do you keep many SPS corals in you’re aquarium?

When biological stability can be defined and measured, the term will no longer be a meaningless junk term. Right now the discussion about it is all quack science.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I would agree that what you’ve described is very close to my definition of parameter instability. Salinity, temperature, alkalinity and nutrient input all appear to have fluctuated considerably.

Where I think there may be another layer to the discussion is biological stability. By biological stability, I mean the ability of the aquarium to maintain a healthy and resilient biological community over time.

Of course, the two are linked, sufficiently large parameter swings can affect biological stability, and some of the swings you’ve described could be enough to stress or even kill certain sensitive stony corals.

What I find interesting is that despite what appears to be considerable parameter instability, your aquarium appears to have maintained a high degree of biological stability, no persistent nuisance algae, no recurring Cyanobacteria, no dinoflagellates and long-term success.

To me, that suggests biological stability may be the more meaningful endpoint, while parameter stability is just one of several factors that can contribute to it.

Out of curiosity, do you keep many SPS corals in you’re aquarium?

You opened by agreeing with me, ignored my core point and immediately redefined my tank as only parameter instability, so that you could introduce biological stability as the more meaningful endpoint. That is not agreement. That is a reframe.

It was an attempt to use my post as evidence for your framework so that you could introduce a new undefined term in place of the original undefined term. That is a circular definition.

I asked what stability means. Your answer is biological stability.

“Stability is not parameter stability, it is biological stability”

That is not a definition. What is biological stability, how specifically is it measured, and what specific practice produces or protects it?

 

[sixty_reefer]

You opened by agreeing with me, ignored my core point and immediately redefined my tank as only parameter instability, so that you could introduce biological stability as the more meaningful endpoint. That is not agreement. That is a reframe.

It was an attempt to use my post as evidence for your framework so that you could introduce a new undefined term in place of the original undefined term. That is a circular definition.

I asked what stability means. Your answer is biological stability.

“Stability is not parameter stability, it is biological stability”

That is not a definition. What is biological stability, how specifically is it measured, and what specific practice produces or protects it?

I think you’ve misunderstood what I was trying to do.

I wasn’t attempting to redefine stability or replace one undefined term with another, I was trying to point out that your example may illustrate the danger of oversimplification that Randy is discussing in this thread.

Looking only at the parameters you described, many aquarists would conclude that the aquarium was unstable, yet the biological outcomes you described were largely positive.

My point was simply that evaluating an aquarium may be more complicated than looking at parameter fluctuations alone.

Whether biological stability is the best term for that observation is certainly open to debate but I think your example demonstrates that it depends on what outcome we’re actually trying to assess.

 

[sixty_reefer]

When biological stability can be defined and measured, the term will no longer be a meaningless junk term. Right now the discussion about it is all quack science.

Perhaps but I think that’s also part of Randy’s point about oversimplification.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I think you’ve misunderstood what I was trying to do.

I wasn’t attempting to redefine stability or replace one undefined term with another, I was trying to point out that your example may illustrate the danger of oversimplification that Randy is discussing in this thread.

Looking only at the parameters you described, many aquarists would conclude that the aquarium was unstable, yet the biological outcomes you described were largely positive.

My point was simply that evaluating an aquarium may be more complicated than looking at parameter fluctuations alone.

Whether biological stability is the best term for that observation is certainly open to debate but I think your example demonstrates that it depends on what outcome we’re actually trying to assess.

Three direct questions were asked and not answered.

You absolutely replaced one undefined term with another. The reframes do not change that and retreating to "it depends" does not answer them. The questions are specific and the context has been clear.

What is biological stability, how specifically is it measured, and what specific practice produces or protects it?

Perhaps but I think that’s also part of Randy’s point about oversimplification.

Randy's point about oversimplification does not define biological stability or make it measurable and it certainly is the opposite of layering on abstractions. Dan's question stands along side mine.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Three direct questions were asked and not answered.

You absolutely replaced one undefined term with another. The reframes do not change that and retreating to "it depends" does not answer them. The questions are specific and the context has been clear.

What is biological stability, how specifically is it measured, and what specific practice produces or protects it?


Randy's point about oversimplification does not define biological stability or make it measurable and it certainly is the opposite of layering on abstractions. Dan's question stands along side mine.

It depends but I think that discussion would take us well beyond the scope of Randy’s original topic.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

FWIW, I do not see a reason to think algae growth is related to any sort of what I would refer to as instability.