- Joined
- Aug 24, 2016
- Messages
- 1,514
- Reaction score
- 2,322
It is just my guess, what I conclude from my own observations and experiments.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Your observations remind us that our reef systems are really pseudo-reefs, not even captive reefs. There is simply no way that we can scale down the physical forces, duplicate the physical events and certainly not reproduce the microbial flora of a reef. The best we can do is figure out what our captive creatures can tolerate and supply it.Yes. In my opinion the loss of diversity with time is rather caused by stability in some way. In my experience, introducing new live rock or live sand is not able to bring back the growth and diversity of the initial conditions. Besides a possible lack of some trace elements I think it is the "establishment" impeding new growth and diversity. Established and highly organized biofilms are able to break down and mineralize the organic materials, that regularily are added to the tank, in a short time. High nutrient (mainly N and P) loads even speed up this mineralization process, speeding up the nutrient increase and so on, a feedback loop. So there is no way to bring back the old diversity that evolved after the tank started.
That throws up the question whether coral reefs are really that stable? Besides minor disturbances like parrotfish and other organisms eroding and throwing around corals and creating fresh surfaces it was found that in heavily destroyed reefs, i. e. by a typhoon or a tsunami, after some time, biodiversity is highest, reaching a peak and decreasing with time.
I was alluding to the comments that I believe Hans Werner made - that diversity is lost in (paraphrased) a poorly functioning tank.What is a ”poorly functioning tank”?
the best quality films I was able to examine were from taking a microscope slide or similar and stick it down in the sand near some nuisance growth for a few days. This one got colonized by some cyano and a pinch of everything else.I plan on looking at detritus and other places that may have a bacterial film, not just the water column.
Yes. In my opinion the loss of diversity with time is rather caused by stability in some way. In my experience, introducing new live rock or live sand is not able to bring back the growth and diversity of the initial conditions. Besides a possible lack of some trace elements I think it is the "establishment" impeding new growth and diversity. Established and highly organized biofilms are able to break down and mineralize the organic materials, that regularily are added to the tank, in a short time. High nutrient (mainly N and P) loads even speed up this mineralization process, speeding up the nutrient increase and so on, a feedback loop. So there is no way to bring back the old diversity that evolved after the tank started.
Very interesting!the best quality films I was able to examine were from taking a microscope slide or similar and stick it down in the sand near some nuisance growth for a few days. This one got colonized by some cyano and a pinch of everything else.
Two normal shots, two heat-fixed (on my coffee warmer) and stained with methylene blue.
The stained shots reveal two structures that didn't show in the normal version:
super tiny filaments far far thinner than cyano
and an occasional pocket of dense single-cells
So another question, can we achieve a more diverse biome by having some of these different zones in our tank?
Yes, I noticed a better "revitalization" of the tanks after adding some biopolymers which are found in or prepared from algae. I think these diverse algal biopolymers are something that contributes to the natural biodiversity in reefs. Algal biopolymers are diatom slimes, slimes and gels of macroalgae, cellulose fibers etc..In the sump, a refugium with macroalgae, inverts, some mud and lower flow, another section in the sump dark with minimal flow (not sure what I would put in here, maybe a bag of oysters).
In my case, I’m not thinking of diversity for diversities sake, but to create a food web of bacteria and other organisms that works together to remove waste and supply ammonia and food for the coral in the main display.
Thanks for sharing your knowledgeWell I’ve been on here for a month or two and I've found a really heavy misunderstanding of bacteria in the aquarium and what they're actually useful for. This is NOT another cycling thread! None of this is opinion unless I say IMO.
First before I begin I'll introduce myself. I have loved aquariums for a long time and my first tank was a 55g saltwater with a undergravel filter and dead coral skeletons. Haha that dates me a little bit. After growing up a bit more I received my masters and PhD in microbiology. My focus has been in the genetics and physiology of Gram-negative human pathogens. My focus has always been in this area because that's where the real edgey science is done. And in case you wondering its not because I think other microbiological fields can't do the top of the line science it is just that they don't have the money that we do.
Again back on topic. I'm going to break this down beginner style.
Okay first I need to introduce what bacteria are and eventually get to why certain bacterial 'types' are the most important in your aquarium. Second I need to introduce the most important concept upfront and that is if someone refers to bacteria you need to know what they're talking about. Why? Well just referring to something as a bacteria is unfortunately meaningless. That's like a doctor treating a human with malaria and then later telling her significant other that she was trying to kill one eukaryote to save the other eukaryote. Technically true but doesn't actually say much...
So for this first topic I'm only going to talk about how bacteria in our aquariums utilize their environment to make energy and acquire carbon.
Let us start with the easiest to understand. That is the
1. Chemoorganoheterotroph -these derive energy from breaking down various organic carbons and they acquire their carbon from these sources as well (they need to eat things). This population is dependent on you feeding the aquarium organic carbon, i.e. food)
2. Chemoautotrophs- these derive energy from the oxidation of electron donors in their environment and acquire carbon through fixing CO2. (Fixing CO2 is when an organism can take CO2 and make sugars from it)
3. Photoautotrophs- these derive energy from light and acquire carbon through fixation.
4. Photoheterotrophs- these derive energy from light and acquire carbon from organic sources.
And if this wasn't confusing enough these categories are not always fixed, as some organisms may switch categories under different environmental conditions.
Phew....Now let us start placing the various bacteria mentioned on the forums into categories.
Chemoorganoheterotrophs- The bacteria that utilize this methodology are the MOST abundant organisms in your aquarium. They're everywhere, on your rocks, in your rocks, in your water column, on your animals, in your animals. Everywhere! Now are they good, bad, indifferent for your aquarium? Well depends, haha! As this category is so diverse in this article I'll just break it down to the two main players we are interested in...
Bacterial pathogens- these feed on an animal you care about. In anthropomorphic terms these are bad guys. They hopefully will be in low abundance in the aquarium.
Bacterial pathogens part two- these feed on an organism you don't like...
'decaying' bacteria- these are the guys who break large 'dead' organics down to small organics. Basically they are by far the number one clean up crew in your tank. Any organic carbon that's not utilized by another animal in your tank these bacteria will eventually digest. I know you think you feed well but some way or another these bacteria will get a major piece of that pie. These are great until you have too many. These types of bacteria are sold in stores.
Okay now chemoautotrophs- This is the most well known on this board because this is were the so called cycling bacteria reside. The two basic types are the nitrifiers. They're found on the surfaces of the aquarium that have access to O2. When I discuss nitrogen in the next article I'll discuss how they fit into the dynamics of a cycling and a well established aquarium. These are also sold in stores.
Photoautotrophs- these are your favorite because this is where we find the cyanobacteria. These guys play an important role in your tanks food chain but access to high nutrients and low predators will cause blooms as you all are aware. They bring more carbon into your aquarium through fixation of CO2. They also produce oxygen by removing hydrogen from water molecules. Don't know anyone who sells cyanobacteria.
Photoheterotrophs-. These guys aren't talked about much. They're in your tank though and they play less of a role in the aquarium. They'll help with decay of organics as well. I know of at least one product that has a strain. Not an advertisement but as far as I am aware only one product, PNS probio, contains a photoheterotrophic strain.
Okay phew... Please let me know if the above helps you My next article will talk about carbon, nitrogen and phosphate flux in the aquarium in relation to the bacteria in your tank. If you have questions let me know below. If you see a mistake let me know as well.
Thanks for reading this far!
Eric
Edit:: haha I forgot to mention what bacteria are. They're single celled organisms that lack a nucleus of the domain bacteria. They can also be referred to as prokaryotes. We are eukaryotes- we have a nucleus. Sorry about that.
I agree with this - I sent in multiple samples from various parts of my tank and got extremely different results from different areas and different methods of sampling. My guess that time of day sampled (which I didn't check) will also make a difference. I guess you could make sense out of sequential data if:Well unfortunately I'm not sure the operation is going to help you much. There can be a completely different microbiome in every nook and cranny of your tank. Basically miniature ecosystems throughout. That being said I think the info is pretty fun, and if you get joy out of it doesn't matter.
Im curious - did you see any variation etc in your diversity over time? Did you see any correlation? IMHO - I think the testing is 'interesting' - i.e. to me it is interesting to compare my tank to others - but to me its not what bacteria is 'added' to a tank (or mud or sand, etc) - its the available nutrients in the tank that will eventually decide how diverse - and which bacteria will predominate in a tank. I know this is heresy - but IMHO - the clamoring for diversity is over-rated - as compared to focusing on good maintenance routines, etc.Yea it’s not really for joy per se, was more hoping to be able to watch trends and make anecdotal inferences About how the corals/fish are doing and see if there’s any Correlation. Unfortunately you’re Not the first person to say that the testing is pretty useless in reality (my paraphrasing, not to put words in your mouth) and more a gimmick than say ICP testing.
couple this with the fact that it takes 1.5-2 months to even get the results, I might be done with it sooner than later.
Seems I may not be the only one feeling this way either with the email they sent around this month.... I’ll be interesting to see weather they can stay in business or not.
It’s kind of a shame though because good testing and understanding of this stuff would be a big change in the right direction for the hobby if anyone is able to achieve it
That is a fundamental misconception of the cause or lack of biodiversity. Biodiversity has nothing to do with strong of weak. In the case of bacteria it is all about substrates and nutrients. A very small bacterium that grows slowly and with little nutrients on a substrate, that is hard to degrade, is it strong or weak? Strong or weak doesn't matter, it may be the only bacterium that can live under these conditions and so it is without competitors on this substrate.
Well I got a bunch of test results but without really anything to understand what those results mean.Im curious - did you see any variation etc in your diversity over time? Did you see any correlation? IMHO - I think the testing is 'interesting' - i.e. to me it is interesting to compare my tank to others - but to me its not what bacteria is 'added' to a tank (or mud or sand, etc) - its the available nutrients in the tank that will eventually decide how diverse - and which bacteria will predominate in a tank. I know this is heresy - but IMHO - the clamoring for diversity is over-rated - as compared to focusing on good maintenance routines, etc.
But yes the graphs and stuff changed from month to month.Im curious - did you see any variation etc in your diversity over time? Did you see any correlation? IMHO - I think the testing is 'interesting' - i.e. to me it is interesting to compare my tank to others - but to me its not what bacteria is 'added' to a tank (or mud or sand, etc) - its the available nutrients in the tank that will eventually decide how diverse - and which bacteria will predominate in a tank. I know this is heresy - but IMHO - the clamoring for diversity is over-rated - as compared to focusing on good maintenance routines, etc.
Lost track of this thread again, will be trying to get the whole series complete over holiday break.There is another interesting facet of zonation in the reef tank I just thought of: catalase positive vs catalase-negative bacteria (if someone ever concerned over that division at all, its at least zonation set naturally)
is this angle is terribly far off flampton:
anyone knows if you gargle 3% peroxide a human mouth will froth, even after brushing, like a wild dog. we're gut-lined in catalase-positive bacteria of genus tbd, but peroxide sets them off most assured.
put in palm of hand...Ive never seen anyone's frizzle ever...there may be some depending on handlings but my hands do not froth in the palm no matter how iong 3% sits, so we have some basic catalase- positive natural zonation for human skin vs epithelial cells in the mouth
and its consistent person to person, very interesting
in reefs, so many people are dosing peroxide in various was for a decade now, patterns stand out. most lps corals will froth around the edges markedly when direct 3% accidentally hits them
but actual live rock, stewing in the same water, does not usually bubble its like adding distilled water droplets/unreactive. try some on a test section submerged just lift out and dribble on some 3% see if it bubbles.
a tuft of hair algae? hardly ever bubbles when directly treated, that's why many think the perx won't kill the tuft in the same hour treated...but in 48 hours its walloped because bubbles or not something is getting oxidized when peroxide is on it, topically at least.
even though we mix these waters strongly, zonations for catalase + v - bacteria clades still differentiate in reefing/interesting pattern imo.
The bubbling in response to peroxide is a confusing signal in our tanks. The bubbling is decomposition of the peroxide, by catalase Etc. Which could mean that the peroxide is being broken down without being able to damage the cells. But also there are many things that are quite sensitive to peroxide that also bubble a lot. Cyanobacteria comes to mind as the best example. My interpretation is that they possess ways to deal with peroxide and other reactive oxygen species because they are generated in small amounts by photosynthetic machinery. But the cyano probably have those enzymes precisely because they are sensitive to h202 Etc and need the protection. (So if we overwhelm it they are fatally damaged.)
That's my best attempt anyway.
I use an oxydator - I do not use it to 'kill bacteria' or 'kill anything' - the concentration that anyone is using would seem to be far too low to 'kill anything' - unless its direct contact (i.e. sprayed directly onto algae, etc). Is there really a thinking/concept out there that aside from increasing dissolved O2 - some - that there is another benefit to H2O2? H2O2 when exposed to organics and even light - rapidly decomposes to O2 and H2O - I cannot conceive it floating around the tank - killing bacteria on rocks or anywhere else Right?hobby can't make any leaps into assumptions about what peroxide does in reefing yet, its untested. Biofilm insulations everywhere, dice roll differently. Try to imagine the level of skepticism facing peroxide use in 2011, the statement that it kills cells was causing literal reef hysteria. Lost two good id's over that row lol/hasta thereeftank and will miss ya reefcentral.
in hindsight...
peroxide dosing helps vs harms, stinging rebuke potential. its used daily
in fish disease control threads
in cyano and dino threads, Troylee has referenced it for us ten years running in a sticky. not showing harm at all.
so it burns teased out cells, on a slide, agreed and I would agree it burns a top layer/within the microcontact zone with water but one thing about a million reports on peroxide dosing into reefing has provided is a stern reminder the rules change within the box
someone does need to get us some detailed testing though on the matter, especially using today's meters for bacterial presence.
3% peroxide is so harmless these are my findings:
I cannot recall in ten thousand posts a single time an overdose of 3% killed a tank's biofilter. Not once. we got ten thousand .25 ammonia reports admitted, but doesn't everybody...
we saw corals wiped out in overdose posts. but not a need to wait 30 days to restart a totally killed system, or any days delay actually.
since ORP meters have universally reported a paradoxical drop in orp after adding into tank water vs the initially-guessed huge boost, we got another new proofing there and nowadays we even have seneye meters hooked to tanks- showing no change in ammonia processing, which matches about a million dose outcomes on file. more opposites to the rules are happening vs being in-line with the rules regarding dosing peroxide into a reef tank.
ill go on record stating peroxide doesn't do measurable harm in a reef when dosed correctly, and even when grossly overdosed the bacteria simply can't be measured as harmed
ok bring on the laser microscopy to confirm/deny Ill enjoy the updates. they need to align with a million peroxide dose search results we can all source in order to be valid findings in my opinion. Doing a big water change kills bacteria
switching out sandbeds because we move homes, or want eden flakes/valid moves. that kills bacteria
skimming kills (exports) bacteria
cleaning biomedia kills (exports permanently) bacteria
but in context, there's no consequence, the hobby wants to know the consequence zone not just a blanket eval
____________________________________________________________________
regarding peroxidase / catalase updates am reading through what you all have posted nice job. that's good biology to read up on.