refugiums

[triggerfish1976]

Both.
Did you get a chance to read this entire thread about the nutrient absorbtion properties of marine plants or lack there of?

[flasher1]

I read about 3 pages of it. Must have missed that one. Can you help me out by qouting it or posting the link?

[triggerfish1976]

Did you read this one?

Originally posted by ichthyman
Ok Spanky Jr., I’ll play. Be nice.

Freshwater Microbiology: Biodiversity and Dynamic Interactions of ... By David C. Sigee

The referenced section of text, page 213 if the document fails to load correctly, is talking about freshwater phytoplankton but is still valid for this discussion. The mechanics involved are basically the same for marine micro and macro species. Carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and a host of other compounds do “leak” out of algae. Compared to mass the percentage of leakage in phytoplankton is small but it is my understanding that the proportion increases significantly with higher algae. Exudate is a better word than leak.

Stimulation of Bacterial DNA Synthesis by Algal Exudates in Attached Algal-Bacterial Consortia, this is an experiment that shows how certain bacteria living on the surface of algae can utilize the above mention exudates.

An example that everyone should here should be able to understand. It is the energy rich exudates that coral polyps utilize from Zooxanthellae.

Unless you’re paying for access to some serious marine science oriented sites this is about the best you can do. I did find a paper about phosphate leaching from saltwater marsh plants but I’m too tired for that much reading. Maybe more tomorrow.

[flasher1]

did you read the part of that article that says it is less the 5%? While that may be significant on a larger scale, it is not in our aquariums. Did you also read the part about the phosphate recycling?

What this journal entry does not specify is if the nutrients are leaked due to a lack of light to stop production of photosynthesis.

I can tell you from personal experience that I have had less algae in my tank when a piece of chaeto made its way into my main display and helped keep my sandbed very clean. After I took the chaeto out (it was unsightly in my display tank) the sandbed immediately started turning reddish brown. I then put my chaeto in the sump and it did nothing at all because it did not have any light.

Also, when the chaeto was in my main display, skimmate was lower and lower every week. I attribute that to the growth of the chaeto.

[The Hawk'ster]

After reading this post of its entirety (including articles) and having lunch with gwaco I have decided to take my refugium off line (refugium running for 3yrs / main tank is 9yrs+ running) Tank Crashed overnight...thanks gwaco JK

Anyways my No3 is running at 26.6ppm and PO4 is .02 maybe less
I will keep you updated.

[flasher1]

hawkster- were those readings before or after you took the fuge offline?..and when did you take it offline? What were the readings before you took it offline?

[The Hawk'ster]

flasher1, those readings were 10mins right before I took it offline and that was yesterday morning. (Sunday 12/09/07)

[WarDaddy]

interesting... I can not wait to see what effect this has, if any.

Good stuff guys!

[gwaco]

Originally posted by The Hawk'ster
After reading this post of its entirety (including articles) and having lunch with gwaco I have decided to take my refugium off line (refugium running for 3yrs / main tank is 9yrs+ running) Tank Crashed overnight...thanks gwaco JK

Anyways my No3 is running at 26.6ppm and PO4 is .02 maybe less
I will keep you updated.

dam dude ! ya had me goin for a minute ! now make sure to keep that skimmer cranked and clean since now you will be exporting loaded bacteria .

[gwaco]

Originally posted by flasher1
Mangroves and other marine plants absorb and metabolize the nitrates and CO2 when exposed to light. At night though (or when your refugium lights turn off) it releases the CO2 back into the water. Photsynthesis uses the CO2 from the water, air, and the citric acid cycle to produce Oxygen.

The nitrates though, are absorbed and then released as nitrites. Therefor, anyone who has undergone the nitrogen cycle (hopefully everyone) has the required bacteria to handle this. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1092268

Refugiums (with mangroves in it) make protein skimmers obsolete over a period of time. http://saltaquarium.about.com/cs/nit...a/aa051398.htmhave you figured out how big your mangrove forest needs to be to make a dent in any reduction ? you need to start with a whole tree since the up take in any store purchased mangrove will not do a thing !

Most LFS will not tell you this because that is a loss in sales for them. I have a protein skimmer myself, only because I do not have enough room in my current sump for a refugium. I hope this information helps with this thread.

Mike

btw for those of you checking credentials, I am a 3rd year biology student at UCF.

have you figured out how big your mangrove forest needs to be ? i would start out with one 'whole" tree as what you buy in the stores will not do a thing !

[gwaco]

try this

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=3&gl=us

[flasher1]

Originally posted by gwaco
try this

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=3&gl=us

from what I have read, this lab report shows that if there are excess nutrients (fertilizer), nitrate leaching is kept to a minimum. In other words, if you have a high bioload in your tank, a refugium would do a great job in recycling these nutrients.

Seeing as if I dont have a huge aqaurium, a mangrove tree would do nothing but leach excess nutrients into my aquarium, which could obviously be detrimental. A mangrove seedling, however, would have a high enough bioload to be beneficial to my tank. I might not even have enough of a bioload for a mangrove to be useful.

In my case, a whole tree would be highly impractical and detrimental. Now, to those of us that have 10000 gallon systems, it might be warranted.

Nutrient recycling is the reason why we need to do water changes to our home aquariums. When these plants leach, they are recycling nutrients (specifically C, N and P) essential to build proteins for growth and carbohydrates for energy.

This is a good thread and I appreciate the backing of your information with sources. This is how ideas are formed which lead to experiments which lead to new techniques. Without it, science wouldnt exist.

Mike

[flasher1]

I forgot to post the link.
http://books.google.com/books?id=nN0...HAV4#PPA188,M1

[gwaco]

and this one
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...1979.tb01659.x open it to a pdf

[ls7corvete]

What is the discussion here? That algae do not remove nitrogen or phosphate from the tank or that they simply are less useful than a skimmer?

[mflamb]

For these reasons, phosphate should be kept below 0.03 ppm. Whether keeping it below 0.01 ppm will yield substantial additional benefits remains to be established, but that is a goal that some aquarists are pursuing with various ways of exporting phosphate. The best ways to maintain low levels of phosphate in normal aquaria are to incorporate some combination of phosphate export mechanisms, such as growing and harvesting macroalgae or other rapidly growing organisms, using foods without excessive phosphate, skimming, using limewater, and using phosphate binding media, especially those that are iron-based (which are always brown or black). Some aquarists have also tried to reduce phosphate by inducing blooms of microorganisms such as bacteria. This last method should, in my opinion, be left to experienced aquarists.

By Randy Holmes-Farley. Here's the link:
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-05/rhf/index.php

[cobra2326]

Not quite sure I get what the naysayers are saying here... From the same article posted above:

For those interested in knowing how much phosphorus is being exported by macroalgae, this free PDF article in the journal Marine Biology has some important information. It gives the phosphorus and nitrogen content for nine different species of macroalgae, including many that reefkeepers typically maintain. For example, Caulerpa racemosa collected off Hawaii contains about 0.08 % phosphorus by dry weight and 5.6% nitrogen. Harvesting 10 grams (dry weight) of this macroalgae from an aquarium would be the equivalent of removing 24 mg of phosphate from the water column. That amount is the equivalent of reducing the phosphate concentration from 0.2 ppm to 0.1 ppm in a 67-gallon aquarium. All of the other species tested gave similar results (plus or minus a factor of two). Interestingly, using the same paper's nitrogen data, this would also be equivalent to reducing the nitrate content by 2.5 grams, or 10 ppm in that same 67-gallon aquarium.

I don't understand? Are you saying that the above information is false? Maybe your claim is that the nutrients cannot reach the macro in sufficient amounts? Not sure here, but I cannot possibly make a reasonable conclusion either way from this thread or it's citations.

[ls7corvete]

http://www.reefland.com/rho/1104/main.php

http://www.reefland.com/rho/0105/main2.php

Great info.

[cobra2326]

Originally posted by triggerfish1976
But that was not what the original poster asked. The thread was started to determine the viable effectiveness that refugiums have on reducing nuisance algae which means phosphate removal. Based on the information provided thus far and personal experience refugium setups as we see them on many RC tanks are not effectively removing phosphates because they are either not maintained properly or just not big enough. Combine that with the data that proves that sand (most refugiums have DSB's) that basically add to the phosphate problem and actually can create bigger problems with nuisance algae and general lack of coral health.
On the subject of soft corals tanks and filtration, many softies like leathers, mushrooms, etc. will "survive" in nutrient rich tanks so they are not a good gauge when trying to prove that a refugium on a skimmerless tank is providing sufficient filtration. Is it better than not having any filtration at all? Sure if the algae is being pruned on a regular basis but unless you are running a fuge the size of your main tank it is not filtering as efficiently as most other methods.
I would also recommend that everyone who uses RC as the be all end all of reef keeping be careful and not read to much into the "science" that gets thrown around by many so-called experts. Most of it changes on a day to day basis and is theoretical at best when it is applied to maintaining life in a small glass box. The most successful hobbyists seem to be the ones who are able keep their tanks stable, are consistant with their husbandry and have a decent understanding of the actual biological and chemical reaction that are happening in their tank regardless of what method they use.
Lastly, for the record, I have seen GWACO's SPS tank and I can vouch that he knows what he is doing.

Can you point me in the direction of the data proving that SB's add to the phosphate problem and reduce coral health?

[gwaco]

Originally posted by cobra2326
Can you point me in the direction of the data proving that SB's add to the phosphate problem and reduce coral health?

take a look here -
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/ocd/sferpm/millero.html

[ls7corvete]

After 20 minutes the phosphate concentration in solution reaches a relatively stable value.

Seems that it absorbs and releases it to fast to become a good phosphate "sponge". IMHO.

[cobra2326]

Still reading... found the final report, also on the NOAA site. Holmes-Farley mentions adsoption and desorption of phosphate on aragonite in his article as well.

[cobra2326]

Originally posted by gwaco
try this

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=3&gl=us

wow. I love palms and spend a regular amount of time on the UFL website as they have great horticulture resources. One thing I CAN tell you is that this article applies to commercial, container-grown plants. Plants that grow in saline soils (ie Cocos nucifera) react totally differently than those that have low tolerance to high levels of dissolved salts.

If that isn't enough, the purpose of this article is to discuss the effects of fertilizers on the environment, and how controlled-release fertilizers can decrease the "leaching." The dynamics will be totally different in a mangrove, which has a submerged root system, a completely different medium (substrate), and higher tolerance for dissolved salts (similar to high levels of fertilizers in potted plants).

Basically, this article has no relevance to our discussion. It appears that you googled it and pasted it without really taking the time to find out what it was about.

[cobra2326]

Originally posted by triggerfish1976
Both.
Did you get a chance to read this entire thread about the nutrient absorbtion properties of marine plants or lack there of?

Lack thereof? If you're talking about plants (like a mangrove or palm), they definitely use nutrients. If you're speaking of algae, check the article by holmes-farley for a link to the percent phosphorus and nitrogen by dry weight of Caulerpa sp. algae.

Yes, it's true from the articles that have been posted that nutrients are leached by plants. However, those same articles show how small a percentage is actually leached. Additionally, they suggest that leaching occurs in the absence of DOCs (i.e. a nutrient-free tank). The article here [url=http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/ocd/sferpm/millero/millero_final.html]http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/ocd/sferpm/millero/mil
clearly states that phosphate is a limiting nutrient in pest algae growth. So, the logical consequence of that would be that algae USES phosphate in it's biological processes.

[flasher1]

I agree with cobra and maintain my original position. In many of those articles, even though most of them have nothing to do with marine plant nutrient absorption, it speaks of nutrient recycling which is important in any environment.

I do not run a refugium but I have a ball of chaeto in my sump. Everytime I trim it back, I always seem to have an algae breakout on my sandbed.