Berlin VS Smithsonian

[Glopez1]

not to bring up a past post, but....

I think no one mention the massive water change that happens at a given point in the ocean. so the wisping away of nitrates/ nitrites to other areas of the oceon to be processed makes it seem there are little nitrates. i talked to ed bronakowski who said that adey's system was a good way to slowly kill corals. but he also said if you want a new idea read an old book. IMO the more trys and failures the closer we are to perfection.

[inwall75]

I think that I prefer the Berlin method.

Here's a pic that a friend took when he visited the Biosphere. He said it was disgusting.

[inwall75]

[GreshamH]

Originally posted by CaptiveReef
The reason Kelp beds are not present in Reef environments, is due to water temp. The waters in which Kelp is abundant is alot cooler than reef waters, California has alot of Kelp beds.


CaptiveReef

IIRC California also doesn't have any herbivoris fish that eat the kelp either

[Weatherman]

Originally posted by GreshamH
IIRC California also doesn't have any herbivoris fish that eat the kelp either

California has Purple Sea Urchins. These urchins can mow down a kelp forest very quickly if they’re not kept in check by sea otters.

http://www.calacademy.org/science_no...es/urchin.html

[photobarry]

You are right about the herbivorous fish. Fish can not get enough nutrition out of algae at cold water temps.

[jimbo045]

I feel Berlin is the way to go. Protein Skimming, Like Rock is the trick. JD

[Flatlander]

Originally posted by ReeferMac
ATS (Algal Turf Scrubbers) are used all over the place. Most people that use them, feel that they are very effective. Morgan Lidster and InlandAquatics uses them, sells them, and can fill you in on quite a good deal of info about them.

- Mac

Sure would like to see pics of others using the dump tray ATS systems, Inland once sold. Everytime I start a thread on them it dies out, with my unit being the only one.

If other aquarists are using them, they dont belong to any of the dozen or so boards I,m on.

Plus, after years of use, I cant see where my large unit will maintain a large system by itself, without skimming help.

[CaptiveReef]

Just to show that you can use bio media and still keep your Nitrate levels low, an update on my system is that I tested my water for Nitrate and it is showing 0ppm.
I have a huge bio bin 32 inches long 22 inches deep 18 inches high and it is packed with a load of blue bio balls and bio chem stars. I'm also using a DSB and a 5ft refugium that has wall to wall macro algae growing. And I'm using protein skimming, so you can use bio media and still control Nitrate production.


CaptiveReef

[jimbo045]

I pick the Berlin for the Skimmer and LR. Those two seem to be good helpers. JD

[Flatlander]

Originally posted by Flatlander
Sure would like to see pics of others using the dump tray ATS systems, Inland once sold. Everytime I start a thread on them it dies out, with my unit being the only one.

If other aquarists are using them, they dont belong to any of the dozen or so boards I,m on.

Plus, after years of use, I cant see where my large unit will maintain a large system by itself, without skimming help.

Like I said. Dies quicker than a pary with no entertainment.

[manoverboard]

Ok kinda confused here .What about w/d for removal of ammonia and nitrite,dsb for removal of nitrate and ats for secondary removal of nitrate and removal of phosphate ,skimmer for removal of yellow water and some waste befor it turns into ammonia best of all worlds?

[MiddletonMark]

IMO, the wet-dry does something that is done by other media [substrate, rock, etc] - and since it only does it incompletely, probably best done elsewhere.

I don't think all that many tanks suffer from a lack of bacterial-surfaces, thus question the need for a wet dry [if going for a coral tank, with low nutrient levels].

Do you want to clean the bio-balls every week to keep them free of debris?

[Rascal]

MiddletonMark, what are you saying is done "incompletely" with the utilization of bioballs?

[MiddletonMark]

As I understand, generally bioballs will only reduce things to nitrate.

The end result of using a DSB, or LR for nutrient processing ideally results going one step further, leaving nitrogen gas - not nitrate.

Thus it's only part of the process. IMO, you could probably run 3 different devices for moving things from amm. -> nitrite -> nitrate ... but when one works fine, why do it with three?

Thus if you already have other methods, that allow the possibility [even if imperfect] to further reduce ... why extra redundancy in bioballs for a `reef' tank?

For a fish only or other use, the w/d is mighty useful [esp if high bioload].

Or if it didn't collect lots of debris, become a rarely maintained device all too easily [ever cleaned one? I'm sure glad I'll never do that again]

My opinion, ignore if you don't agree

[Rascal]

Your explanation makes sense.

I am just afraid of confusing people by having them think that "bioballs are bad". As bioballs are only intended for nitrification, they do an excellent job. And the prevailing thought is that their use also has the benefits of oxygenation and gas exchange. Not bad for a little piece of plastic.

[MiddletonMark]

I didn't mean to either.

It's all what kind of system you're going for ... and I took having a DSB to be concerned with Nitrate levels and contradictory possibly to the bioballs/wetdry.

If nitrate isn't going to hassle your livestock/corals or cause a problem that way ... then a wet dry is a very efficient method.

[tankslave]

Well, if the bioballs do a good job of oxygenation, you're protein skimmer will do a great job!
IMO bioballs are only good for FO tanks, and heavily stocked ones at that. No reason to have it in a reef tank, infact its probably a bad idea.

[MCsaxmaster]

Not to dredge anything up, but just to clarify a couple of points:

There have been many articles (see Julian Sprung's The Reef Aquarium, for one) of how treated water returns had to be moved several miles away, because they almost killed the local reef. The sudden increase in nitrate caused the reefs to be overgown in algae.

Sure, a huge influx of soluble nutrients can encourage algal growth beyond what the present herbivore community can deal with. Do realize that this has everything to do with the speed with which changes happened and not the absolute availability of dissolved nutrients. There are a lot of nearshore reefs that recieve a lot of land-based run-off and do just fine. There are plenty of herbivores here. On the other hand, some barrier reefs and atolls recieve smaller dissolved nutrient inputs and have lower (though still very high) productivity. Many reefs form in areas of upwelling where the nitrogen levels can be very high for weeks on end. The corals don't often stress or die and the reef continues to thrive.

There is VERY LITTLE nitrate on a reef. It is not non-existent, but it is so low, that algae is not the dominant life.

There is very little nitrate on a reef as compared to most systems (except the open ocean), but this is a RESULT of large algal populations, not in spite of it. The nitrogen is low because the algae suck it all up as fast as they can, not because it is not available. Algae are in fact the dominant form of life on a coral reef. It was Odum and Odum (I think) that first studied this in the '50's and found algal biomass to outweight coral bymass by a factor of 5 or 6. There is a lot more algae on a reef than coral, but it is mostly cryptic (at least the turf algae is, which tends to be dominant).

Coral reefs are like rainforests, not deserts. There is a lot of life, very high productivity, and tight cycling of nutrients. The nitrogen is all stuck in living and decomposing material, not in nitrate and ammonium. Those get used up almost immediately.

Generally nitrate is low, almost undetectable on a healthy coral reef. But, there is also plenty of algae that is constantly being mowed down and controlled by the herbivores present. Look at what happened to the Caribbean once most all the diadema urchins died off. And, I believe similar things have been observed when Tangs and other herbivores are overcollected.

Exactly right. In controlled experiments and "natural experiments" the removal of herbivores causes a rapid and huge increase in algal biomass. Herbivores control algal growth on reefs, not absolute nutrient availability.

So why do kelp beds exist, but do not co-exist with the reef ecosystem.

Kelp beds exist for two reasons:

1. Most importantly, urchin populations have historically been kept in check by predation by sea otters. The otters eat sufficient numbers of urchins that they cannot graze the kelp down. Where otters have been removed for the fur trade the urchin population has exploded and there are no longer kelp beds.

2. Importantly, but not as much as above, there tends to be a lot of upwelling on the west coast during the warm months of the year. This is due to the geography and prevailing wind patterns. This makes nitrogen more available which promotes production.

The reason Kelp beds are not present in Reef environments, is due to water temp. The waters in which Kelp is abundant is alot cooler than reef waters, California has alot of Kelp beds.

The kelps we're thinking of in particular wouldn't grow on reefs, but lots of other algae do. There are plenty of places in the caribbean where the systems have moved to Sargassum and Dictytota domination due the absense of herbivores. If there weren't enough herbivores on reefs, they would look like kelp forests, not like coral reefs.

Reefs can't be overloaded with nutrients in a short span of time--the herbivore population won't have time to adjust--but it is very, very wrong to see them as nutrient-poor deserts. Coral reefs are very rich in nutrients, though these are mostly not in the form of inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus. Those get sucked up quickly to drive algal productivity. The huge herbivore populations on the reefs keep the algal growth low though, allowing corals to build spatially complex habitat.

Best,

Chris

[tankslave]

This topic has been talked about to death many times. Just try to keep a healthy reef tank with any detectable nitrates OR phosphate (generally the two ingredeints contained in the term "nutrients")

First, algae genreraly feed on organically bound nutrents. Any ionic nitrate/phosphate is used up almost immediately by PHYTOPLANKTON, which is a huge part of the ecosystem, which you seem to have overlooked. Algae exist on reefs feeding on decaying particulate organic matter.

Second. Corals cannot (sp. sps) survive in high (anything near .01ppm) nutrient levels. Corals rely on the fact that they can supply nutrients to their zooanthellae (a species of PHYTOPLANKTON) in higher concentration than what's in the ocean water. Hence the benifit to the zooanthellae. If a condition of high nutrents exists along the reef, these nutrents diffuse into the coral tissue, allowing the zooanthellae in the coral tissue to multiply uncotrolably, causing a browning of the tissue coral. (Ever bought any corals at the store only to have them turn brown in your tank?).

Let me put it this way. Corals are the cacti of the ocean desert. Not that algae doesn't exist, but you have an oversiplified view of the ecology of a reef. Algae can obtain nutrients in many ways, and its not always by direct diffusion from the water. There is plenty of detritus in the lower substrate of the reef for algae to survive and provide food for herbivors, DESPITE nutrient poor water. Corals thrive in these conditions due to the fact that they have developed a symbiotic relationship with a photosynthetic organisim. The coral (an animal) provides the NUTRIENTS (via waste), and the zoooanthellae provides the carbs.

Algae grow much faster than corals, and yet coral reefs arn't overtaken with algae. Its not simply "whats in the water".

Point is, that if our tanks had the nutrient levels found along the reefs, you would have to look really hard to find the algae. Its there, but it sure isn't visible. And the stuff about the coral mass vs algae mass, that's just comparing the actually fleshy tissue that's on the surface of the skeleton. Think about it, the entire reef is made of coral skeletons, but the actual mass that's growing is a small skin on the outside, so of course that's a small amount of mass.

Don't think that the only reason algae isn't covering the reef is because of the herbivors. That is not correct. Corals cannot and do not grow everywhere. They only grow in nutrient poor conditions.

They cannot survive in the same conditions that is benificial to algae growth.
That's the bottom line.

[physicslord]

I nominate the previous as POST OF THE YEAR.

[tankslave]

Originally posted by MCsaxmaster
There is very little nitrate on a reef as compared to most systems (except the open ocean), but this is a RESULT of large algal populations, not in spite of it. The nitrogen is low because the algae suck it all up as fast as they can, not because it is not available

Are you refering to organic or inorganic nitrate? And are you refering to micro algae / photoplankton or macro algae? Are you saying that reefs work effectively on algal turf filters?

The only reason algal turf filters work (when they do) is by mechanically trapping organic debris and using up the nutrients made available by the decaying matter in close proximity.

Yes, ionic nitrate and phosphate are taken up readily by phytoplankton.

Originally posted by MCsaxmaster
Many reefs form in areas of upwelling where the nitrogen levels can be very high for weeks on end. The corals don't often stress or die and the reef continues to thrive.

So why do so many people find it so difficult to grow corals and so easy to grow algae?
Corals don't stress? I'll remember that at the next frag swap...

Originally posted by MCsaxmaster

Coral reefs are like rainforests, not deserts. There is a lot of life, very high productivity, and tight cycling of nutrients.

There is a lot of life in the desert, though most people arn't ecologists and don't know where to find it.

Originally posted by MCsaxmaster
Exactly right. In controlled experiments and "natural experiments" the removal of herbivores causes a rapid and huge increase in algal biomass. Herbivores control algal growth on reefs, not absolute nutrient availability

And of course my tang never poops.

touche.

Originally posted by MCsaxmaster
Not to dredge anything up...

too late...

[MCsaxmaster]

Just try to keep a healthy reef tank with any detectable nitrates OR phosphate (generally the two ingredeints contained in the term "nutrients")

I wasn't meaning to suggest that folks should allow elevated nitrate or phosphate levels in their tanks. I hope people don't interpret what I said that way as that wasn't what I meant at all. I was just trying to clarify some points on reef ecology.

First, algae genreraly feed on organically bound nutrents.

Algae (though it's a loose term) can't use organic sources of nitrogen and for the most part can't use organic sources of phosphorus. They can only use inorganic nutrient sources.

Any ionic nitrate/phosphate is used up almost immediately by PHYTOPLANKTON, which is a huge part of the ecosystem, which you seem to have overlooked.

Nope. Phytoplankton productivity over a reef is relatively small. It is much, much less than the productivity of turf algae or even seagrasses, for example.

Algae exist on reefs feeding on decaying particulate organic matter.

Nope. Bacteria do that, along with a lot of suspension feeders, but not algae.

Corals cannot (sp. sps) survive in high (anything near .01ppm).

You lost me. Corals can certainly survive in higher nutrient concentrations than 0.01 ppm of both nitrate and phosphate though and do so on most reefs not to mention in any aquarium.

Corals rely on the fact that they can supply nutrients to their zooanthellae (a species of PHYTOPLANKTON) in higher concentration than what's in the ocean water. Hence the benifit to the zooanthellae.

Agreed.

If a condition of high nutrents exists along the reef, these nutrents diffuse into the coral tissue, allowing the zooanthellae in the coral tissue to multiply uncotrolably, causing a browning of the tissue coral.

Ok. If this happens chronically it could be a bad thing, but this only occurs during upwellings (or due to coastal polution) in nature. What's your point?

(Ever bought any corals at the store only to have them turn brown in your tank?).

Sure. Some corals lose some coloration when they get moved around, for whatever reason. They are usually nicely colored again within about a month or so (at least for me). Other corals in the tank are brightly colored though and nitrate is below detection (<0.2 ppm).

Let me put it this way. Corals are the cacti of the ocean desert.

How's that?

Not that algae doesn't exist, but you have an oversiplified view of the ecology of a reef.

I do? I don't think myself expert (far from it), but I do think I'm reasonably well-read on the subject.

Algae can obtain nutrients in many ways, and its not always by direct diffusion from the water.

It's not? When did that change, and who changed it?

There is plenty of detritus in the lower substrate of the reef for algae to survive and provide food for herbivors, DESPITE nutrient poor water.

Ok? Algae can't use detritus as a nutrient source though, at least not directly. Indirectly it could be though, hence my comments on nutrient cycling.

Corals thrive in these conditions due to the fact that they have developed a symbiotic relationship with a photosynthetic organisim. The coral (an animal) provides the NUTRIENTS (via waste), and the zoooanthellae provides the carbs.

Sure. Let's also consider azooxanthellate corals though. They also thrive on these same reefs. Some of them (e.g. nephthiids, Tubastrea, etc.) can be extremely prolific and dominant in many areas, even those drenched in sunlight. If reefs were truly deficient in nutrients and not simply inorganic nutrients, how would these heterotrophs survive? For that matter, what about all the fish that live on reefs? If nutrients weren't highly available, how would they survive and reproduce at such rapid rates?

Algae grow much faster than corals, and yet coral reefs arn't overtaken with algae. Its not simply "whats in the water".

Reefs aren't overtaken with algae due to herbivory. I don't understand your last statement.

Point is, that if our tanks had the nutrient levels found along the reefs, you would have to look really hard to find the algae. Its there, but it sure isn't visible.

I'd say that in most healthy tanks, like on a reef, much of the algae present (other than coralline) isn't visible from a distance but is visible up close. Also, every reef I've been to has some pretty evident (and beautiful) turf communities that I wish I could better emulate in my tanks.

And the stuff about the coral mass vs algae mass, that's just comparing the actually fleshy tissue that's on the surface of the skeleton. Think about it, the entire reef is made of coral skeletons, but the actual mass that's growing is a small skin on the outside, so of course that's a small amount of mass.

Ok? Well, I'll use another comparison then. On most surveys turf algae is found to occupy about the same (often times more) substrate than either corals or coralline algae. Not only is there physically more algae, it covers more of the surface than the corals do. People have made serious suggestions that we should refer to the bioherms as algal reefs rather than coral reefs.

Don't think that the only reason algae isn't covering the reef is because of the herbivors. That is not correct.

Believe it or don't, many studies have been performed to examine the effects of herbivory on algal and coral cover and they all confirm that herbivory tips the balance toward coral coverage as opposed to total algal domination. If you think I'm wrong go read the studies. I can provide references if you want. This is pretty black and white though: with sufficient herbivory corals dominate and in its absense algae dominate.

I mean, it's not like I'm making this stuff up. I've spent hundreds of hours in the library and at home looking stuff up and reading. I'm just reporting the facts.

Corals cannot and do not grow everywhere. They only grow in nutrient poor conditions.

That's not precisely true. Corals of all genera and most any species can and do grow in areas that are considered nutrient-rich for tropical oceanic waters. Coral reefs are limited in distribution primarily by temperate (above 18 C) and secondarily by water clarity (no corals near the mouths of the Amazon, for example). Nutrient availability has little to do with it. Most corals have the ability to adapt their physiology and behavior to ambient conditions so that the same species/genus can be found growing on forereefs of atolls, barrier reefs, and fringing reefs as well as backreefs of the same. Nutrient availability in each can be very different (notably, nitrogen tends to rise from the oceanic to the lagoonal side).

They cannot survive in the same conditions that is benificial to algae growth.

I hope the preceeding clarifies why this isn't true, but let me reiterate: there is more algae growing on a coral reef (primarily turf algae, secondarily coralline, and everything else far behind) than coral. This is true by every possible measure, biomass vs. biomass, areal dominance vs. areal dominance, etc. On a healthy coral reef A LOT of algae grows (reefs typically have rates of primary production in excess of 1500 g C fixed/m/yr, but it is eaten just as fast.

Best,

Chris

[MCsaxmaster]

Are you refering to organic or inorganic nitrate?

Nitrate is, by definition, inorganic. It is the ion NO3- with the 3 being a subscript and the - being a superscript.

And are you refering to micro algae / photoplankton or macro algae?

Productivity is highest with turf algae, followed (if I recall correctly) distantly by seagrasses, followed very distantly by everything else (zooxanthellae, macroalgae, phytoplankton, etc.).

Are you saying that reefs work effectively on algal turf filters?

No, I'm not saying that, but I do think this is a very reasonable option. I've seen the tanks at Inland Aquatics twice now--very successful--and I've talked with folks that have run these systems that had great success with them.

The only reason algal turf filters work (when they do) is by mechanically trapping organic debris and using up the nutrients made available by the decaying matter in close proximity.

Ok? I suppose that could be, but I doubt it very much. I don't see that a whole lot of detritus could possibly settle in a dump-bucket--they tend to have high flow rates. I think I recall reading in Dynamic Aquaria that water flowing into the dump-buckets on the Smithsonian reef had 0.5 uM inorganic nitrogen and about 0.05 uM coming out. Something like that. Anyway, that to me is a significant reduction of water-soluble nutrients.

Yes, ionic nitrate and phosphate are taken up readily by phytoplankton.

...and by every other sort of algae...

So why do so many people find it so difficult to grow corals and so easy to grow algae?

A million different reasons. Sometimes they have far too many heterotrophs in a given tank and overload the system, sometimes they don't allow for algal successions to complete, sometimes they keep the salinity low, sometimes they don't have enough herbivores--a million different things.

Corals don't stress? I'll remember that at the next frag swap...

First, you're trying to take that out of context--I said this in reference to upwellings. Second, corals are hardy animals if their basic needs are met.

There is a lot of life in the desert, though most people arn't ecologists and don't know where to find it.

Yes, but there is also very low productivity, unlike in a rainforest. There also tends to be a much smaller standing crop as compared to a rainforest. Coral reefs are more like rainforests than deserts in that productivity is very high despite a low concentration of inorganic N and P sources coupled with a large standing crop. Reefs really aren't like either, but they've been (incorrectly) compared to deserts in the past.

Best,

Chris

[physicslord]

All right, pull 'em out. Let's get a ruler and measure lengths.