SPS Temperature Range Poll

[RichConley]

Originally posted by Gary Majchrzak

Thanks for citing a reference that contradicts your own post, Rich.

How does:
"That is, corals that have been exposed more frequently to fluctuations in seawater temperatures or to elevated temperatures may be better able to withstand temperature extremes "

contradict

"Stability in temperature does nothing but cripple your corals ability to thermoregulate."

I misused the word thermoregulate. My point still stands. Temperature stability is killing corals.

[hiepatitis]

Originally posted by RichConley
Not trying to be harsh, but thats a pretty dumb idea. Theres too many variables, and temperature is the least significant of them.


Its like saying "lets see pics of everyone's car so we can see the difference between 89 and 92 octane gas"

I don't think it's such a bad idea. Although SPS success can be attributed to a number of factors, pictures can show proof that a certain temperature range or large temperature swings will not affect coral health, color or grwoth.

[Fliger]

Gary, just give up. This is his MO. He makes terms up or uses them incorrectly and glosses over his mistakes. Eventually he will just disappear from a thread. And Rich's tank makes yours look like a cesspool. TOTM for sure.

"Thermoregulation".

Just look for the "ignore this user" button.

[prop-frags]

good thread - with the exception of some of the somewhat disrespectful commentary.

I am a firm believer of the SPS mantra, "stability promotes success". IMO, this great concise rule of thumb implies that keeping parameters stable is in many ways more critical than the actual values of the parameters themselves (within sensible ranges of course).

However, this thread is thought-provoking in the sense that "stability" may constitute a stable range of parameters. Captive corals seem to do well in a widely-varying set of environmental conditions. And as was pointed out earlier, there are also a pretty wide range of parameters in the wild.

I think it is compelling that corals that are acclimated to regular variances or cycles of variance of parameters would better withstand spikes.

[markandkristen]

i think its good to see what others are doing. from reading many tank of the months i have seen "a cat scinned many ways" so to speak. it seems some keep corals at certain temps while others have success in others.

i think its funny when i watch to newbie thread and somebody will have their salinity at 1.025 and they will say thats your problem... when i have seen numerous tanks kept at 1.024 etc.. doing great..

[Gary Majchrzak]

Originally posted by RichConley
Go with the experts if you want, but thinking that Sprung and Delbek are experts is seriously flawed thinking here. They're just repeating misconceptions that have been around for decades....

C'mon, Rich- I'm sure that you've seen some pictures of the Waikiki Aquarium. You need to stop and think before you post this absolutely crazy nonsense.
Julian helped me identify my Stichodactyla tapetum when Shimek and Borneman ran out of suggestions.
Charles runs some of the most fantastic reef aquaria on planet Earth and he's on the cutting edge. The only person presenting misconceptions here is you.

Originally posted by RichConley
I misused the word thermoregulate. My point still stands. Temperature stability is killing corals.

Good thing this isn't a courtroom.

Temperature stability doesn't kill corals.

I agree that corals that have been exposed more frequently to fluctuations in seawater temperatures or to elevated temperatures may be better able to withstand temperature extremes, but temperature stability does not kill corals.
There's a big difference.

[cayars]

Give Rich a break guys. You guys are picking at his words instead of the intent of the post. This isn't a literature or legal class. If you know what the word meant in the context of it's use then so be it... It doesn't change the intent of the post.

The point Rich is trying to make is that temperature stability doesn't in itself kill any corals. It's when the tank deviates for some reason from your super stable temperatures that you have a problem. They loose the ability to adapt to temperature changes.

Carlo

[fishsoldseprtly]

my tank can run anywhere from 76-83 degrees with NO problems IN the GARAGE.

[Gary Majchrzak]

Originally posted by cayars
Give Rich a break guys. You guys are picking at his words instead of the intent of the post. This isn't a literature or legal class. If you know what the word meant in the context of it's use then so be it... It doesn't change the intent of the post

Yes it does. Why should we "dumb down" this forum because somebody posted inaccurate info? I can go to other websites for that stuff.

The fact remains that the more stable of an environment you can provide, the more organisms you'll likely be successful with. This applies to gigantea anemones as well as "thick finger" Acropora types.
When somebody has a problem with their aquarium inhabitants one of the first environmental parameters to check is temperature.
I agree with such experts as Sprung and Delbeek that a daily or seasonal variance of a few degrees is not a big deal.
A swing between 71 and 90F (during the summer season alone) will surely affect what organisms will survive long term in an aquarium.

[gasman059]

Rich who? lol

[Gary Majchrzak]

I (for one) won't put Rich on 'ignore'.
He does come up with some thought provoking posts. I'd have to rate this thread "better than average" and not just the usual rehash.

[fishdoc11]

Originally posted by Gary Majchrzak

He does come up with some thought provoking posts.

I think it's the type of thoughts that are provoked people have a problem with Gary....arguing just for the sake of arguing gets old after a while.

Chris

[cayars]

Originally posted by Gary Majchrzak
Yes it does. Why should we "dumb down" this forum because somebody posted inaccurate info? I can go to other websites for that stuff.

I myself wouldn't consider it "dumb down". I just don't find the need to pick at someone's words if the intent is correct. I'm here more to learch and share then pick apart somebody's post because they made a mistake or used a word correctly.

Now don't get me wrong, I do find some of the "choice" words used pretty funny but I don't let it take away from the thread.

The fact remains that the more stable of an environment you can provide, the more organisms you'll likely be successful with. This applies to gigantea anemones as well as "thick finger" Acropora types.
When somebody has a problem with their aquarium inhabitants one of the first environmental parameters to check is temperature.

Absolutely agree with that. But what is "stable"? Is it keeping the tank nailed down at 80 all the time 24 7 or is it keeping temps between 79 and 81 during the day. They are both "stable" but I think the 79-81 variable range is more healthy overall especially when you slide it up and down during the year to mimic reef temps during the month. I think the key is using common sense if you do this. A shift of say 2 points from the base in either direction from the daily average is as much as I'd allow. I'd also "round/limit" the average monthly temps and keep them in the 78 to 83/84 range regardless of "true" reef temps.

I think like anything else "moderation" and "common sense" are key. People take ideas to the extreme and when they fail bash the idea. Chances are it was a pore implementation. For example if you have always kept your tank nailed down at a certain temp then you need to implement the change very slowly over months to mimic nature. Changing it over night is bound to cause death in some tanks and stress for sure unless the person is real lucky.

I agree with such experts as Sprung and Delbeek that a daily or seasonal variance of a few degrees is not a big deal.
A swing between 71 and 90F (during the summer season alone) will surely affect what organisms will survive long term in an aquarium.

Totally agree. This is what I was just saying. 71 to 90 is beyond "common sense" or "moderation" and is the extreme!

Carlo

[cayars]

On the same basis as temp changes, how do you guys feel about salinity changes? Nothing drastic here but a couple of points.

As maybe an example. Complete topoff to say 34% salinity and with evaporation allow the tank to get to 36%. I know some people feel strongly about keeping it locked at 35% but is that normal or realistic in the wild? Heck we know that the salinity changes slightly with a temp change.

What do you guys think?

Carlo

[gasman059]

If u can think past the gubli glab yes the thread and ideas seem to stimulate thought process, but then again why try to reinvent the wheel.

Sps temp in captivity is a well documented factor.

[cayars]

That's kind of the point. The "ideal" temps aren't well documented. There are docs of this or that temp but not much on fluctuation temperatures as has been suggested here.

The key here is "ideal" and not just "working" temperatures. I don't think many will argue there is plenty of documentation on "working" temperatures but that doesn't make them "ideal".

Carlo

[RichConley]

Originally posted by Gary Majchrzak
Yes it does. Why should we "dumb down" this forum because somebody posted inaccurate info? I can go to other websites for that stuff.
The fact remains that the more stable of an environment you can provide, the more organisms you'll likely be successful with. This applies to gigantea anemones as well as "thick finger" Acropora types.

No, thats not a FACT, thats your opinion. I have a different opinion.

There is absolutely NO evidence that temperature stability is good for corals, and quite a bit saying that temperature stability limits a coral's ability to deal with spikes.

[hiepatitis]

Does anyone have pics of an SPS tank that experiences more than 5 degree change throughout a day.

[redox]

temp stability .day by day I see the advantages. Killing my corals with stability. sounds like a song from the 70's . Stability of a set temp is what made acros in my green house begin to grow [IMG][/IMG]
[/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]

[redox]

and maybe the polycarb on a greenhouse theory dosnt hold a candle either?

[Gary Majchrzak]

Originally posted by RichConley
No, thats not a FACT, thats your opinion. I have a different opinion.

There is absolutely NO evidence that temperature stability is good for corals, and quite a bit saying that temperature stability limits a coral's ability to deal with spikes.

http://www.isse.ucar.edu/kleypas/PUB...pacon_1995.pdf

Some of the generalized factors of water quality in the coral reef environment are essentially the same for all coral reef animals. They all do best in water that ranges around 36 ppt salinity. Likewise, they all do best with water temperatures in the low 80s F. These, after all, are the generalized conditions of all coral reef habitats (Kleypas, et al. 1999).

After millions of years of evolution coral growth is still limited by these two basic environmental factors.

[gasman059]

TYVM

[reefer1024]

I have given this some more thought and this is what I have come up with.

Corals are a diverse group from many different environments I think we should try to avoid generalizations about their needs. Claims such as all corals do best in temps of (insert favorite # here) seem silly to me. To quote the article you linked to Gary "These values were used to limit coral growth to between 18'C to 31.5'C for most of the globe. In the Red Sea and Arabian Gulf coral growth was limited to 15-35'C" That is a pretty big range of temperature and surely different corals will do better at different temperatures. I have yet to see anyone present any evidence that a 5 degree or larger temp swing will cause any harm, nor have a seen real evidence that stable temps reduce a corals ability to cope with change.

Wile it may seem logical to assume that because corals in the wild can withstand large temp swings that have caused death in some home aquariums, that it is the stability in these home aquariums that cause the coral not to be able to cope. However it is possible that a factor completely non related to temperature makes wild coral stronger and able to cope with larger temperature change.

All I can tell you for sure is that my reef is thriving with an average daily temp swing of 4 degrees or more (79-83 on an average day)and even survived a day at 88.5 with no noticeable stress. Was my unstable temperature what allowed my reef to survive at 88.5? I think so, but it is entirely possible that something to do with water chemistry or some other factor allowed my reef to survive this. I don't think there is enough evidence to make any claims either way at this point.

I think everyone needs to remember to keep an open mind and be willing to experiment with new ideas because that is the only way new things will be discovered and the only way this hobby will advance.

[Gary Majchrzak]

Generalizations should always try to be avoided, but even the term "SPS" is a generalization.
I'm willing to bet that most aquariums fluctuate in temperature.
How long does it take for corals to "learn" how to acclimate to temperature swings?


Look what's happening to aquariums in the heat wave out west:

http://archive.reefcentral.com/forum...readid=1197879

[reefer1024]

^ I live in So. Cal. and its been over 100 every day for a week straight. 107 in the shade on my patio yesterday. To add to all the fun some people are getting rolling blackouts from everyone running their AC. My tank is at 84 right now and looking good, but I think I'm on the verge of heatstroke. If this keeps up I'm moving to Canada.