Chaeto vs. Caulerpa vs. Gracilaria

[Acroholic]

I have a question regarding the use of macroalgae in the refugium for the purpose of nitrate removal. I have been reading a lot of threads here on RC on the subject, and mostly all of them lead to the conclusion that Chaetomorpha is the preferred option over Caulerpa for this use. Though it has been my experience that Caulerpa has a much higher growth rate in the refugium then that of Chaetomorpa, given equal lighting and water paramaters. Now, due to the increased growth rate of the Caulerpa, wouldn’t it consume more nitrates in its accelerated growth process than that of Chaetomorpha, thus making it more of an effective use of macroalgae for the purpose of the removal of nitrates in our aquaria?

[HippieSmell]

Maybe, but you don't have to worry about chaeto becoming invasive or going sexual. If you pack your 30 gal fuge 3/4 full of chaeto, you should be just fine.

[Acroholic]

Originally posted by HippieSmell
Maybe, but you don't have to worry about chaeto becoming invasive or going sexual.

Lets just put aside the ability of Caulerpa to go sexual, as I believe this can be controlled.

Which brings us to the point of Caulerpa becoming invasive. Isn't this what we are striving for, rapid Growth = rapid nutrient export? Now wouldn’t the constant pruning and removal of the excess Caulerpa, also equate to the removal of the accumulated nitrates within the clippings? This is the point I am trying to make. I just don't understand why is everyone on the Chaeto Bandwagon?

[capncapo]

It seems that almost all macroalgae contain some form of toxin.

Caulerpa contains a cemical called caulerpin that, depending on the variety of Caulerpa, can be mildly to somewhat highly toxic . Caulerpin is released every time you trim or whenever it is torn.

Chaetomorpha is also very mildly toxic but not nearly as toxic as Caulerpa.

Couple that with the ability to go "sexual" and you have two fairly good reasons to use Chaeto. It's safer and requires less maintenance/monitoring.

I have several varieties of Caulerpa. They don't seem to grow appreciably faster than my Chaetomorpa.

[engelquist]

Originally posted by CapeCoral
Lets just put aside the ability of Caulerpa to go sexual, as I believe this can be controlled.

How???

[Acroholic]

Originally posted by engelquist
How???

I said that the ability of Caulerpa to go sexual can be controlled, not entirely prevented. Some say that keeping a light cycle of 24/7 can prevent this, but I don’t think so, as I have still seen Caulerpa crashes using the 24/7 light cycle. I personally kept my Caulerpa constantly pruned and the only time I had a crash was when I got lazy and forgot to prune and let it over proliferate. So to answer your question, I think that the ability of Caulerpa to go sexual can be controlled by constant pruning.

This brings us to another benefit of using Caulerpa, a fresh natural food source for some of our inhabitants.
Does anyone feed chaeto to their fish, just curious?

[B]Caulerpa contains a cemical called caulerpin that, depending on the variety of Caulerpa, can be mildly to somewhat highly toxic . Caulerpin is released every time you trim or whenever it is torn.[B]

[B]Chaetomorpha is also very mildly toxic but not nearly as toxic as Caulerpa.[B]

Yes, I have heard of Caulerpin and its toxicity in the aquarium. But is there really any factual evidence or studies on the LEVELS of toxicity with certain species of macroalgae and if it really effects our system? Or is this all just theory, and bandwagon hype? I have grown Caulerpa for years, with constant pruning, and once never saw any ill effects of toxins affecting my corals? And if there are certain levels of toxicity, at what levels are really toxic to our system? How do we even know they have any ill effect at all on our system at all?

[capncapo]

You might want to contact Anthony Calfo about your last question. A quote from his Reef Invertebrates book.

"Caulerpa has been well-studied and documented to leach numerous noxious or toxic exudations above and beyond the scope and potency of most other popular algae."

Sounds to me like there is documentation somewhere.

[Acroholic]

Cool Capo, Thanks..will check into it.

[Acroholic]

QUOTE from Calfo Article: “For those toxins exuded in the water, we sadly cannot practically monitor or assess their "potency" as hobbyists. They are also not easily avoided and, frankly, can become a serious problem with reef keepers that do not change their carbon frequently (small portions changed weekly is best) or do regular partial water changes (25% monthly may not be enough with large colonies of Caulerpa in the system!).�

Interesting conclusion: Carbon and regular water changes (basic responsible aquarium husbandry IMO) can keep toxins produced by Caulerpa at bay.

Another option has sparked my interest.
GRACILARIA, mainly for the following purpose:
QUOTE: “For enthusiasts keeping heavy populations of herbivorous fishes like Tangs/Surgeonfishes, Rabbits/Foxfaces and Angelfishes; the delightfully edible Gracilaria is the way to go.�

Quotes taken from Anthony Calfo article: http://www.reefland.com/rho/0105/main2.php

[Acroholic]

Adding third element to the Macro Algae equation:
GRACILARIA
Keeping with the “efficiency theme� of my proposed aquarium system, I just might prefer the alternative food source provided with the use of gracilaria as a nutrient export in my refugium. It apparently requires a bit more light and flow than that of Caulerpa or Chaetomorpha, which may be well worth the added benefit.
I believe that gracilaria is sold under the name of “Tang Heaven Red� Would be nice to have this on hand growing in the refug.
http://www.ipsf.com/#anchor49645

Or maybe half Gracilaria / half Caulerpa……..

[jpfelix]

if you feed the macro to your fish it is no longer an export.

[hlama]

i know this because i grew up in Hntingto beach Ca. where taxifolia was first found in our waters off the west coast. now live in Redondo Beach, ASSEMBLYMAN TOM HARMAN, district 67, i believe, of Huntinton Beach first introduced the bill to ban caulerpa taxifolia. it was decided to make it illegal. because of the similar looks they also banned 8 other types of caulerpa, not because they are bad or invasive but because they look so close to taxifolia. caulerpa sertuariodes is well documented as a easy to control macro algae, meanning it is not that invasive. it just looks too close to taxifolia.

The ban extends beyond the taxifolia species because it’s difficult to distinguish it from the others enumerated in the law, in the opinion of Fish and Game’s scientists

if you really want to know why all this came about you can read all the assembly disscusion and or state legilation on this. instead of getting little tid bits and draw a conclusion read through what was the actual problems and/or concerns that lead up to banning 9 different species of caulerpa.

[Acroholic]

Originally posted by jpfelix
if you feed the macro to your fish it is no longer an export.

Good point, but ANY food is a nutrient import, so why not just recycle and already available resource? Fish have to eat something....

[Acroholic]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hlama
hey hlama - uhhhhhhhhh.........

[hlama]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CapeCoral

Originally posted by hlama
hey hlama - uhhhhhhhhh.........

what part left you confused?

[Acroholic]

Originally posted by hlama
what part left you confused?

uhhhh...the whole thing. Maybe I am missing something here…..but what, exactly was the premise of your post?

[hlama]

everyone thinks caulerpa is so invasive and toxic but this is not ture. everyone seems to think that because taxifolia can be harmful that this applies to all caulerpa. even some that have been band for other reasons (they look alike not act alike) are thrown into the "bad algae" saying. this is what you said

"Which brings us to the point of Caulerpa becoming invasive. Isn't this what we are striving for, rapid Growth = rapid nutrient export? Now wouldn’t the constant pruning and removal of the excess Caulerpa, also equate to the removal of the accumulated nitrates within the clippings? This is the point I am trying to make. I just don't understand why is everyone on the Chaeto Bandwagon?"

as to way everyone is on the bandwagon. "my premise" they are scared because of taxifolia and say caulerpa does this and that but dont realize they are reading up mostly on the effect of taxifolia. some caulerpa is not at all toxic or invasive and out grows the other macro algae. just an F.Y.I. but you guys are talking like all caulerpa is toxic or noxous, but in fact they are not. some yeah but most no.i believe you can not talk about caulerpa in general terms but need to consider that exact species before for saying caulerpa is toxic. thats all.

[capncapo]

So the varietiies that are not at all noxious or toxic are.......which?

[hlama]

well if you really want to know caulerpa taxifolia is a good choice. i am not talking about the mutated strain from the Mediterranean. here is a link about that: http://www.hdltd.com/technical/article_2.html
here is a something from wetweb:
MAIN MESSAGE: Your comments to the USDA APHIS should state that they not approve either petition at this time. Rather the USDA APHIS should work within the framework of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force's inter-agency "National Management Plan for the Genus Caulerpa," currently in its final stages of approval.

Other points are that the petitions fail to contain scientific or other evidence justifying wholesale listing of an entire genus or the species C. taxifolia and USDA should defer any action pending the receipt of reliable data. As noted in the petitions C. taxifolia occurs as a native species in parts of Hawaii and Florida and is not considered invasive thus any contention that C. taxifolia is "naturally" an invasive species that wipes out huge areas of native species is clearly false.

Secondly, again as noted in the petition, the C. taxifolia that is considered invasive in the Mediterranean "apparently underwent a genetic change while being maintained in aquaria" and "this change is hypothesized to contribute to its invasiveness." If this is true, as claimed, then the chances of C. taxifolia from other areas around the World which have not been exposed to long-term aquarium conditions (meaning Caulerpa on live rock etc.) having undergone genetic change to become invasive is scientifically remote.

Thirdly, as noted on the web page of Dr. Susan Williams (http://www.bml.ucdavis.edu/facresearch/williams.html) species of Caulerpa commonly grow in many tropical marine waters around the world and remain in the understory of seagrass beds which can outcompete Caulerpa. Thus, by her own admission Caulerpa is not a renegade species of algae bent on carpeting the ocean floor which is how her petition reads.

Fourthly, peer-reviewed and published research has shown that the extent of the Caulerpa invasion in the Mediterranean has been overstated by an order of magnitude or more and the establishment of Caulerpa in a seagrass bed does not automatically mean the demise of the seagrasses. All these points and more demonstrate that there is no scientific evidence to support the listing of the entire species or genus as a noxious weed. More research is required as called for in the draft National Management Plan before listing
you can read the rest here http://www.wetwebmedia.com/caulerpafaq4.htm
buy the way being noxous just means it is not native to where it is and out grows/competes/kills/takesover other vegiative matter. just because of one mutated strain does not make the C. toxifolia of hawaii any more toxic then sea grass.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by CapeCoral
Lets just put aside the ability of Caulerpa to go sexual, as I believe this can be controlled.

Which brings us to the point of Caulerpa becoming invasive. Isn't this what we are striving for, rapid Growth = rapid nutrient export?

No, invasive is not desired. Caulerpa will grow roots (not really roots, but whatever) and get a grip on your substrate. It's really hard to remove every little bit from your substrate (rocks, etc.) Chaeto is mostly free living and doesn't attach to stuff.

[BeanAnimal]

hlama

Though your points may be valid and supported by law and science in the context of this macro being introduced to our waterways and resevoirs... it really has nothing to do with the debate about aquarium suitability. Just because it is "not invasive" to a bay or other body of water, does not mean it is not invasive to a captive reef.

The thread is about apples and you are speaking of oranges. I just don't see the relevance of your tangent here.

THe major points (or questions) are the problems with the caulerpa (whatever type) going sexual and causing system crashes and the toxcicity of caulerpin. The reference is to the use in an aqurium and not the envirnonmental or political ramifications.

You own a caulerpa farm or something?

Bean

[Acroholic]

Originally posted by BeanAnimal
hlama

The thread is about apples and you are speaking of oranges. I just don't see the relevance of your tangent here.

You own a caulerpa farm or something?

Bean

Not to be ganging up on you here hlama, I do appreciate your input, as I personally believe bean has a valid point; you are speaking outside the context of this thread, unless of course, you have reference to scientific evidence regarding C. taxifolia being the exception from other species of the genus Caulerpa releasing toxins into our aquaria, due to sexual reproduction.

No, invasive is not desired. Caulerpa will grow roots (not really roots, but whatever) and get a grip on your substrate. It's really hard to remove every little bit from your substrate (rocks, etc.) Chaeto is mostly free living and doesn't attach to stuff.

Hippie: I am growing macro in my refugium, not in my display tank, where the invasive properties of caulerpa could become a major problem. Actually having a a piece of liverock in the refugium for the holdfasts (roots) of the caulerpa to attach to is fine with me as it keeps the thallus in one place, steady in the refug. without being blown around by the flow.

[BeanAnimal]

I have placed cheato in my fuge (20 gallon with 100gph flow) and let it slowely tumble with the current. From my understanding the caulerpa will grow just as well in tumbling ball instead of being held fast in one place. I would be interested to know which way is better for growth and health.

Bean

[Acroholic]

Good question Bean,
In my recent readings, I have found that different algae's require different lighting and flow conditions. My conclusions;
Caulerpa grows better held in place, where as Chaeto and Gracilaria have better growth rates tumbling. Where Gracilaria requires more flow than Chaeto.
Which makes perfect sense, as Caulerpa has a typical holdfast for attachment, whereas Chaeto seems atypical in this aspect. The thallus looks like one big bunch with no distinguishable holdfast, stipe or blade.

[BeanAnimal]

I was given a mixed bag of macro. I had it in the sump, then moved it to the fuge. small pieces break off and travel through out my system every time I disturb it. Kinda like grass clippings. I am starting to wonder if I really want an caulerpa due to the problems listed above. If I remove the mass if it and replace it with pure cheato, will the itty bitty pieces of caulerpa grow into larger masses again? In other words am I going to have a hard time removing this stuff. Little bits are in the display, fuge, and sump.

A macro roundup with the pros and cons of each species would be nice. I think most of us just go by what the well intentioned but somewhat misinformed masses have to say.

Bean