|
#276
|
|||
|
|||
That's an interesting idea, which seems to jive with what I've seen.
It also explains why so many have run elevated Alk levels [esp back 5 years] without issue - which is something that IMO needs an answer which fits both the new observations + old observations.
__________________
read a lot, think for yourself |
#277
|
|||
|
|||
One of my most dramatic color changes so far....a very finicky wild tricolor....from this in mid october:
To this now:
__________________
Peter Click my red house to see my tank :-) |
#278
|
|||
|
|||
Greetings All !
Quote:
I do not pretend to have a definitive answer ... In my read of the threads pertaining to this subject in ZEOville, there appear to be four main tangents: (1) Damage resulting from a correlation with either excessive intensity, or excessive photoperiod (frequency = ~50%); (2) Damage resulting from a correlation with what is perceived as respiratory (or metabolic, if you prefer) behavior of the coral host, and/or its associated bacteria (frequency = ~30%); (3) Damage which currently cannot be directly correlated to either intensity, photoperiod, or respiraton (frequency = ~10%); (4) Damage that is subsequently identified as resulting from another cause, i.e., transport shock, careless handling, pest infestation, frenzied dwarf angelfish attacks ... et cetera (frequency = ~10%). It is perhaps worth noting that the damage (when not associated with "another" cause) is typically temporary (~65%), and its progression is usually halted by either raising the lighting, by decreasing the photoperiod, and/or by altering "dosing" (typically lowering). For the record, I discount the 'clearer water' ... hmmm ... "explanation". I have a hard time reconciling a relatively minor turbidity shift as the fundamental cause of the so-called RTN or STN that's being described. JMO ... HTH
__________________
Mesocosm Last edited by mesocosm; 12/31/2007 at 10:36 PM. |
#279
|
|||
|
|||
Happy New Year all!
Sorry Mesocosm, didn't mean to put words in your mouth The challenging part with the four hypothesis posited, is that the hobby doesn't have a means to, in the very least, come any closer to the "truth". It'd take scientific effort, time and $$$. Even some of the 'big names' that are both in the hobby and work as scientists have equated Zeovit with starving corals... I've seen the clearer water effect and can say that it's more clear than actively pushing the water column through a lot of carbon. The other variable in play seems to be the "burned tips" vs. "basal recession".... Though I don't think the later to be related to vodka/carbon dosing/probiotic approaches... |
#280
|
||||
|
||||
Greetings All !
Quote:
And rightly so ... fruit loops, anyone? The thing is, I would suggest that we CAN get at stuff alot more useful than the mere correlations with which we're currently hobbled. MiddletonMark suggested THE entirely correct question. When we figure out what the common variable (or set of variables) which reconciles the "classic" data set with the "bacterioplankton" data set with regards to alkalinity is ... we will have figured out something worth knowing. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
JMO ... HTH
__________________
Mesocosm Last edited by mesocosm; 01/01/2008 at 10:26 PM. |
|
|