Algae release "useful proteins, carbohydrates and metabolites."

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I´ll turn the question upside down.

Why should not carbohydrates be useful for different microrganism and/or corals in an aquarium like mine that ´s constructed in a way to support biological processes? If you know that they are released and you know their biological importance in a living ecosystem - why can´t you claim that it can be useful ? Proteins that can be broken down to different aminoacids (by bacteria) - why should they not be useful as a nitrogen source for bacteria/corals. Instead of adding organic carbon (in this case carbohydrates) - the algae produce it - why can´t that been seen as useful?

From an ecological point of view - if you look at your aquarium from an ecological standpoint - its for me rather clear that this released compounds are usefully.

I do not know what Triton base their claim on - maybe @Ehsan@triton can clarify that but for me it make sense that my system use this released compounds in the same way as the system use the outside produced compounds of the same group (carbohydrates and protein/aminoacids) that I can buy at my LFS.

I do not run a complete Triton system, but I see my fuge as an integrated part of my system – responsible for many different tasks – there the release of carbohydrates and protein/amino acids is one important thing for at least the microbial life in my aquarium. My prove for this is that we know what macro algae release these compounds and we know how organic carbon and proteins/amino acid works in an aquarium.

Sincerely Lasse

I'm not asking about the theoretical of "IF" it might be useful "IF" it was something in particular and "IF" it was present in enough quantity.

I can a list of as lot of organics that WOULD be useful, but really, only if they were released in sufficient quantity to be useful.

I think dosing vinegar is useful in my system. I added many grams a day. Would you call it useful if 1 ng seeped out of algae in a day? I would not.

Metabolite toxins are only toxic at high enough concentration. You are arguing the concentrations are low. Could be. But why are we looking to concentration effects only on the bad things and not the good things. Do you know there is enough of anything good released to actually be "useful".

So again, I think it is an incredibly simple question: Is there evidence that these organics are being released in a way that is useful? If there is evidence, what is it?

If there is no simple data supporting it and it is just an assertion of what some person assumes is happening, I can accept that, but then it carries a lot less weight (IMO).

 

[Lasse]

I think you will have the data you ask for in the last pdf that I attached In my first post in this thread.

Sincerly Lasse

 

[jack_aubry]

Yes, I expect that is a translation issue. Most English speaking reefers would not describe release of organics from algae using the word export, keeping that term to removing things from the water or from the tank entirely. But technically, it is "exported" from the algae to the water.

Biologists would describe it that way though

 

[Vaughn17]

I'm not asking about the theoretical of "IF" it might be useful "IF" it was something in particular and "IF" it was present in enough quantity.

I can a list of as lot of organics that WOULD be useful, but really, only if they were released in sufficient quantity to be useful.

I think dosing vinegar is useful in my system. I added many grams a day. Would you call it useful if 1 ng seeped out of algae in a day? I would not.

Metabolite toxins are only toxic at high enough concentration. You are arguing the concentrations are low. Could be. But why are we looking to concentration effects only on the bad things and not the good things. Do you know there is enough of anything good released to actually be "useful".

So again, I think it is an incredibly simple question: Is there evidence that these organics are being released in a way that is useful? If there is evidence, what is it?

If there is no simple data supporting it and it is just an assertion of what some person assumes is happening, I can accept that, but then it carries a lot less weight (IMO).

Isn't "useful" relative to specific species? In other words, what might be beneficial to one species might be detrimental to another?

 

[EmdeReef]

I was curious about this as well.

Sounds like advertising on poorly understood processes on the reef, loosely based on - organic carbon released from algae provides food for bacteria, which get eaten by filter feeders...

Except that we know that even a small imbalance can lead to microbial blooms.
I couldn’t find any indication how much algae is necessary to adequately supply an average tank with these “useful” nutrients and then we’d need some background on the actual dieoff rate and release...

One of the reasons why algae is perhaps the most successful organism on the planet is precisely its ability to quickly absorb any nutrients, which begs the question if the remaining algae would get the first pick or generously pass the food to corals and at what rate?!

It would be really nice to see a study behind it. One of the few I’m aware of was published back in the early 2000s (~2004) in which there was an attempt to quantify benthic algacontribution to the GBR’s primary production - one could then make a leap from their findings I suppose. I’ll take pictures of it if I find it.

 

[Lasse]

Metabolite toxins are only toxic at high enough concentration. You are arguing the concentrations are low. Could be. But why are we looking to concentration effects only on the bad things and not the good things. Do you know there is enough of anything good released to actually be "useful".

From an ecological point of view - there is some differences between how a toxin and a growth-limited compound act. As you state - a toxic compound - in most cases – is (from an ecological point of view) of no concern until a certain threshold. In fact – some (many?) toxic compounds – like many trace compounds – is useful up to a certain concentration and deadly after that.

However - a growth limited substance – like organic carbon in aquaria according to bacteria growth – will be of ecological importance from the first molecule.

Who have talk about nano levels of release into the water column – not me. Not the investigation I attached either. Contrary – they have a huge concern that the algae’s release of DOM to the water column will change the relationship between Coral and algae community in the wild. From the article:

Organic carbon quantification of algae incubation waters showed that Halimeda opuntia released 2.29 ±0.11 mg TOC m–2 surface area h–1 (all values are given as means ± SE) during the incubation period. DOC was released in quantities of 2.08 ± 0.20 mg m–2 h–1 (91% of TOC), whereas POC release accounted for only 0.21 ± 0.13 mg m–2 h–1 (9% of TOC).

These findings will lift the question if you can “overdose” a fuge. Certainly – you can – as you can overdose external carbon sources.

But the original question – is there evidences for the claim that algae release useful substances to the water column – IMO – there is and this article show that.

Maybe – there is a difference between culture of argumentation between US and Europe –the claim that algae release useful substances from Triton is not marketing IMO.

If a LFS trying to sell you macro algae and use this claim – its a type of marketing (a true claim or not true claim does not matter). When Triton says that Core 7 for Triton method contain useful substances for macro algae – its a type of marketing too (true or not true - does not matter) but if they highlight a product they do not sell – IMO – it could not be marketing for Triton. It’s a part of their method but independent of their products. The algae will release these compounds even if you not use Triton products.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

I was curious about this as well.

Sounds like advertising on poorly understood processes on the reef, loosely based on - organic carbon released from algae provides food for bacteria, which get eaten by filter feeders...

Except that we know that even a small imbalance can lead to microbial blooms.
I couldn’t find any indication how much algae is necessary to adequately supply an average tank with these “useful” nutrients and then we’d need some background on the actual dieoff rate and release...

One of the reasons why algae is perhaps the most successful organism on the planet is precisely its ability to quickly absorb any nutrients, which begs the question if the remaining algae would get the first pick or generously pass the food to corals and at what rate?!

It would be really nice to see a study behind it. One of the few I’m aware of was published back in the early 2000s (~2004) in which there was an attempt to quantify benthic algacontribution to the GBR’s primary production - one could then make a leap from their findings I suppose. I’ll take pictures of it if I find it.

See attached file

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

I have only taken up substances released directly into the water column - if you take with the recycling through the breakdown process and release from sediment or gravel (do not harvest method) there will be more benefits according to recycling loops. I have not either taken up algae release of DOM and the sponge loop. There is some articles about this too.


Sincerely Lasse

 

[Jose Mayo]

I always have the impression that the effects of algae scrubber are due to allelopathic interactions, but I have not yet been able to test the hypothesis, so I would not argue ... A big point to consider, regarding the "usefulness" of the carbohydrates released by algae , for the aquarium, is the natural dilution of the marine environment against the artificial concentration of anything in the domestic aquarium, by its own volume.

"Dilution is solution," say the older ... "concentration" no!

Regards

 

[Want2BS8ed]

If a LFS trying to sell you macro algae and use this claim – its a type of marketing (a true claim or not true claim does not matter). When Triton says that Core 7 for Triton method contain useful substances for macro algae – its a type of marketing too (true or not true - does not matter) but if they highlight a product they do not sell – IMO – it could not be marketing for Triton. It’s a part of their method but independent of their products. [BOLD]The algae will release these compounds even if you not use Triton products.[/BOLD]

Lasse, you provide interesting data to the discussion in support of your position, however the statement above is contradictory. Yes algae will release the compounds even if you do not use Triton products, however Triton does claim their method enhances the growth of algae implying a release of more compounds and thus improved coral growth. In other words, Triton makes an implicit correlation between their product and coral growth through their methods enhancement of algae growth. Hardly independent.

Let's stay focused on the utility of positive compounds being released. It's much more interesting and is broadening everyone's knowledge.

M

 

[EmdeReef]

See attached file

Sincerely Lasse

Thank you Lasse.

I don't dispute anything written in that article and it goes to my point of a loop of carbon released getting consumed by bacteria etc etc. I also don't think anyone disagrees over the release of substances discussed. However, as this paper states this process is pretty poorly understood and the actual "usefulness" of the "exudates" to corals beyond the basic loop is not discussed. Of course the paper also discusses potential negative aspects including the "microbialization" I mentioned. Algae and corals compete on reefs (with a trend of algae out-competing corals) and therefore in a home tank environment there could be issues of potential bio-accumulation...

Putting research aside for a moment, I struggle with Triton's pretty bold leap in its claim that an unknown rate of dieoff of an unknown quantity of unknown species of algae (they stop at ~10% refugium size) will be "useful" to effectively ALL tanks running the Triton method. That's a very big stretch. I understand their intent of trying to replicate a natural process on the reef, even disregarding all the unknowns for a moment, this runs very contrary to the philosophy of a company that prides itself on data, precision, and analysis...

As a company I think Triton is doing a great job with ICP and one cannot dispute the success of their method and I very much support innovation in this hobby so nothing against Triton.

 

[dricc]

That's why I'm a little hesitant to put macro algae in my fuge. I'm not sure if allelopathy would just affect the nuisance algae i want it to out compete? Or could it have negative consequences for my corals also.( I should say future corals my tank is dry at the moment lol)

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Isn't "useful" relative to specific species? In other words, what might be beneficial to one species might be detrimental to another?

In general, yes, and relative to what is already in the tank..

For example, adding alkalinity is generally "useful" if the alkalinity is currently 5 dKH. Is it useful if the alkalinity is 12 dKH? Depends on where you want it to be.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

But the original question – is there evidences for the claim that algae release useful substances to the water column – IMO – there is and this article show that.

Sorry, I don't agree. The article is a partial analysis of what is released. It makes no clear assessment of whether it is useful in a reef aquarium, but it seems to suggest it might not be.

Your own linked paper actually concludes:

"It also provides essential chemical composition information to link findings documenting deleterious effects of dissolved glucose on corals (Kuntz et al. 2005, Kline et al. 2006) and on interactions between corals and with algae (Haas et al. 2009), with those recent findings hypothetically assigning algae
exudates a key role in microbe-induced coral mortality (Smith et al. 2006). Finally, it supports the assumption that algae-released organic matter facilitates a positive feedback loop created during phase shifts from coral to algal dominance."

Is that desirable in a reef tank where you may want coral dominance?

 

[shred5]

That is from your Triton method description:

https://www.triton.de/en/products-services/triton-method/

"A healthy algae refuge will consume animal waste by-products and some metals while exporting useful proteins, carbohydrates and metabolites."

What is the basis for saying these these released chemicals are useful? Is there any supporting evidence?

Should have asked them about Algae and negative allelopathy instead of just positive?

We know algae also release toxins and some burn corals, just at what concentration and which. Now do we know what these toxin are or even how to test for them? I know there have been studies.

We used to see the effect more when we used to grow caulerpa and other macro algae in a reef. In a fuge it has been observed to have negative effects on coral. I think it was Eric Borneman who suggested we use cheato because it released less toxins.

 

[Sallstrom]

Sorry, I don't agree. The article is a partial analysis of what is released. It makes no clear assessment of whether it is useful in a reef aquarium, but it seems to suggest it might not be.

Your own linked paper actually concludes:

"It also provides essential chemical composition information to link findings documenting deleterious effects of dissolved glucose on corals (Kuntz et al. 2005, Kline et al. 2006) and on interactions between corals and with algae (Haas et al. 2009), with those recent findings hypothetically assigning algae
exudates a key role in microbe-induced coral mortality (Smith et al. 2006). Finally, it supports the assumption that algae-released organic matter facilitates a positive feedback loop created during phase shifts from coral to algal dominance."

Is that desirable in a reef tank where you may want coral dominance?

That is why you have macro algae in a refugium, not in the display tank.

Are you suggesting macro algae might be bad for reef tanks?

/ David

 

[shred5]

That is why you have macro algae in a refugium, not in the display tank.

Are you suggesting macro algae might be bad for reef tanks?

/ David

It can be and well known certain algae can be bad. They release chemicals to compete for space. It has been observed growing next to corals and watching them recede. Allot of people have observed loss in color using macro algae in a fuge including me. Before Cheato was used people used caulerpa mainly and some are known to be toxic to coral.

 

[dricc]

That is why you have macro algae in a refugium, not in the display tank.

Are you suggesting macro algae might be bad for reef tanks?

/ David

Not sure that's why I ask. I have heard about macro algae and allelopathy. I know leather corals and gorgonians allelopathy can adversely affect other corals not sure
about macro algae.( or which varieties are safe are which aren't)

 

[Sallstrom]

It can be and well known certain algae can be bad. They release chemicals to compete for space. It has been observed growing next to corals and watching them recede. Allot of people have observed loss in color using macro algae in a fuge including me. Before Cheato was used people used caulerpa mainly and some are known to be toxic to coral.

Sure, Caulerpa sp will outcompete corals if you put them next to each other. That is why I wrote that they should be kept in a refugium.
Are you sure it's the macro algae's fault the corals lose their colours? I can say the other way around, but how can I prove that I'm right?

/ David

 

[shred5]

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-12/eb/index.php

Quote:
I am not in any way condemning the use of macroalgae in refugia. I am very fond of many of them, although many have quite numerous and toxic secondary metabolites, like soft corals and sponges. In particular, I am very unfond of Caulerpa (Figure 5). It is invasive and very difficult to eradicate. It is toxic to fish and has many metabolites - and releases them when the organism degenerates during spawning. Acidic rhizomes etch carbonate (Figure 6) and these algae can kill other more desirable species by overgrowth. I have had it grow right through the stalks of soft corals. Many aquarists say that it has not been a problem for them. My response? Just wait. It will. I guess my big question regarding Caulerpa is why use it at all when so many more desirable species of macroalgae exist, like Chaetomorpha species, or others (Figures 7 & 8).