Algae release "useful proteins, carbohydrates and metabolites."

[tastyfish]

The basis of the Triton refugium is not that the algae release sugars, carbohydrates and aminos when they are healthy and growing, but when they die off. The refugium is not designed to be just something to constantly promote green growth in, aggressively harvesting, like you would do with a tumbling ball of chateomorpha, but more of a balance to the ecosystem, with one species dying back, whilst another flourishes. The refugium should be largely left alone IME.

The need for multiple species of algae has been missed by many who just bung in a chaeto ball and use it for NO3 export.

In terms of coral uptake and synthesis, there's an interesting article on Advanced aquarist which gives a decent grounding. http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2015/5/corals

The question is: Do we know what compounds decomposing algae release?

 

[Lasse]

Please remove

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Sallstrom]

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).

Okey. Sure, they can spread. But if you add a sea urchin that wouldn't be a problem.

Not sure all Caulerpa is that toxic. At least two species are eaten as sallad in Japan. And our rabbitfishes seems to do fine even if they eat Caulerpa now and then (even my colleague eats it sometimes..).

Anyway, we have a lot of macro algae refugiums at work and they have been running for 4-6 years. I haven't seen any bad effect yet. I do think it adds something to the ecosystem, makes the systems more stable IMO. But we all like different setups

/ David

 

[dricc]

Okey. Sure, they can spread. But if you add a sea urchin that wouldn't be a problem.

Not sure all Caulerpa is that toxic. At least two species are eaten as sallad in Japan. And our rabbitfishes seems to do fine even if they eat Caulerpa now and then (even my colleague eats it sometimes..).

Anyway, we have a lot of macro algae refugiums at work and they have been running for 4-6 years. I haven't seen any bad effect yet. I do think it adds something to the ecosystem, makes the systems more stable IMO. But we all like different setups

/ David

off topic but what are your favorite macro algaes. thanks

 

[shred5]

Okey. Sure, they can spread. But if you add a sea urchin that wouldn't be a problem.

Not sure all Caulerpa is that toxic. At least two species are eaten as sallad in Japan. And our rabbitfishes seems to do fine even if they eat Caulerpa now and then (even my colleague eats it sometimes..).

Anyway, we have a lot of macro algae refugiums at work and they have been running for 4-6 years. I haven't seen any bad effect yet. I do think it adds something to the ecosystem, makes the systems more stable IMO. But we all like different setups

/ David

Just because something eats something does not mean it aint toxic to other things.

We eat Rhubarb and Rhubarb is toxic if you eat to much it causes kidney issues.


I tend to believe Eric he is one of the smartest people to ever come through our hobby.
http://reefkeeping.com/joomla/index.php/authors/author/13-eric-borneman

I also do not think anyone said all were toxic.. Problem is there are so few studies we do not know which are or how toxic they are.

I used to run a refugium with macros on my 40 breeder and had issues with color and growth. I remove the algae and everything got better. I added back do to dino outbreak to help which it did but then again colors did not color up as good. anecdotal sure but other have observed the same thing. We do not see it as much in the hobby because most use chaeto.

 

[Sallstrom]

off topic but what are your favorite macro algaes. thanks

To eat? I like Caulerpa prolifera, almost looks like seaweed. And there are some beautiful red macro algae, can't remember the names. But if you want to refugium Chaetomorpha sp grows fast and are easy to keep alive.
The dream tank would be a cold water kelp forrest. We're experimenting right now but those tanks are harder to get good then a reef tank


Sorry for all the off topic. Remove if you like.

/ David

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

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

I'm asking what the evidence is that the things it releases are useful. I provided suggested evidence that some things that may be released might be detrimental, but that's not the point.

 

[Tautog]

FWIW, I'm not contending anything about the compounds released in refugia. I'm asking if there is an actual basis to claim they are "useful".

I couldn’t grow any macro algae until recently changing to a grow light 24/7. I had trouble growing Acros, and controlling nitrates. Since the light change, I have a few different algae’s growing, in fact, I have a floating island filled with life. My nitrates are stable at 10-15 ppm. My 2- part amounts increased from 50 ml/day to 300 ml/day over the past year. Coral growth has increased noticeably.
With all the life my refuge has now, it’s evident that macro algae encourages more life. If it wasn’t for the discharge from the algae, what else could feed the tiny stuff that grows among the algae, but doesn’t grow as much any other place but the refuge?

 

[shred5]

I couldn’t grow any macro algae until recently changing to a grow light 24/7. I had trouble growing Acros, and controlling nitrates. Since the light change, I have a few different algae’s growing, in fact, I have a floating island filled with life. My nitrates are stable at 10-15 ppm. My 2- part amounts increased from 50 ml/day to 300 ml/day over the past year. Coral growth has increased noticeably.
With all the life my refuge has now, it’s evident that macro algae encourages more life. If it wasn’t for the discharge from the algae, what else could feed the tiny stuff that grows among the algae, but doesn’t grow as much any other place but the refuge?

Most of those small critters are mainly eating micro algae, phytoplankton and detritus. They grow in the fuge because there are no predators. That macro algae also gives them a place to hide. They do grow in the tank you just see them less.

If you have issues growing acros I would look somewhere else, there have been literally thousandths of great sps tanks that do not grow algae in fuges or any kind of algae filter.

I am not saying people should not have fuges or algae filter/scrubbers. i have seen successful tank with them.

 

[Jose Mayo]

Those passionate about aquarism tend to imagine that what they put there to do "something" only does "something" ... but no. What we put there will do everything in its power, not just what we want.

Macroalgas are complex beings that have evolved to live real estate in an extremely aggressive environment both chemically and biologically. They "have" to be capable of this, otherwise they would not be there.

They are well armed for this war and, not infrequently, they win!

A reef is not a "meeting of friends", but rather a permanent competition of rivals who, in the absence of other arguments, use chemistry.

I believe that everything that algae releases may be useful for themselves (for the species itself), but not for other species and not for other genera and families; they must prevail to find their space in the photic zone.

regards

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

A reef is not a "meeting of friends",

lol Nice.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I couldn’t grow any macro algae until recently changing to a grow light 24/7. I had trouble growing Acros, and controlling nitrates. Since the light change, I have a few different algae’s growing, in fact, I have a floating island filled with life. My nitrates are stable at 10-15 ppm. My 2- part amounts increased from 50 ml/day to 300 ml/day over the past year. Coral growth has increased noticeably.
With all the life my refuge has now, it’s evident that macro algae encourages more life. If it wasn’t for the discharge from the algae, what else could feed the tiny stuff that grows among the algae, but doesn’t grow as much any other place but the refuge?

That an algae-filled refugium may be beneficial is not the question.

I think it would be extraordinarily difficult to distinguish the "benefit" or "usefulness" of released organic matter against a background of all the other things it does (including consuming CO2, producing O2, consuming nutrients of various sorts, consuming trace elements of many types, providing a place for other organisms to live, etc.).

 

[Tautog]

Thanks Randy, I thought for sure my refuge activity was a good sign for great water quality and coral growth which has been great.

 

[Lasse]

As I state - you can overdose "a fuge" also. As you can overdose organic carbon dose from other sources too.

But the original question was if there were any evidences that they release useful substances or not. IMO - that question is answered with a yes.

There is a lot of other "useful" things with a fuge but that´s do not contradict the fact that released DOM itself its useful in the biological processes in a reef aquarium

In this thread there is contra argues going from that they release toxic metabolites (the original question did not address that part) –> they release some substances that can be useful – but so low concentrations that they are not useful -> they release these substances but in so high concentrations that they are harmful.

I am quite confident with my first opinion on this issue – I have not change my mind at all. They are able to release at least carbohydrates and proteins/aminoacids into the water column in sufficient quantity to constitute a useful source of these substances in an aquarium. And also - with all systems you use - there is a risk. The goal is to achieve a balance and you will manage the input to the system through your input of external energy (normally by feeding your fishes and sometimes your corals). You may not use external organic carbon in a system with a thriving macro algae population - or at least - not in the same amount as in fuge-less systems

The basis of the Triton refugium is not that the algae release sugars, carbohydrates and aminos when they are healthy and growing, but when they die off. The refugium is not designed to be just something to constantly promote green growth in, aggressively harvesting, like you would do with a tumbling ball of chateomorpha, but more of a balance to the ecosystem, with one species dying back, whilst another flourishes. The refugium should be largely left alone IME.

The need for multiple species of algae has been missed by many who just bung in a chaeto ball and use it for NO3 export.

In terms of coral uptake and synthesis, there's an interesting article on Advanced aquarist which gives a decent grounding. http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2015/5/corals

The question is: Do we know what compounds decomposing algae release?

In an old study according to DOM release from macro algae the authors conclude

Approximate quantities of total dissolved organic matter released per year have been calculated to be about 39% of gross production in brown algae, about 38% in red algae, and about 23% in green algae.
The rest of the organic matter was released during decomposition of that part of standing stock not consumed by herbivorous animals. About 30% of gross production may be released in this way. Thus, the total flow of dissolved organic matter from seaweeds during growth and after death may be as much as 70% of their gross production.​

@Jose Mayo You have never reflect why its recommend to use a fuge for the macro algae and not have them in the display?



Sincerely Lasse

 

[Jose Mayo]

@Jose Mayo You have never reflect why its recommend to use a fuge for the macro algae and not have them in the display?

Yes, I reflect ... so I do not understand very well why the algae in a refuge, or ATS, serve to "clean" the algae of the display, even with high levels of nutrients present ... do you reflect on this?

My point is allelopathy, and yours?

Regards

 

[Lasse]

My is - have you any evidence of allelopathy caused by macro algae that´s not close or in contact with the victim? - i.e. can macro algae release these substances and produce concentrations so high in the water column that it will affect other organism just through contact with infected water?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Jose Mayo]

My is - have you any evidence of allelopathy caused by macro algae that´s not close or in contact with the victim? - i.e. can macro algae release these substances and produce concentrations so high in the water column that it will affect other organism just through contact with infected water?

Sincerely Lasse

Some substances (hormones, toxins, etc ...) are so active, that even in the concentration of picogram are already active ... this is a common fact of biology.

On the other hand, considering an algae-free display due to the effect of a refuge, or ATS, even if the nutrients are kept at a stable level, if the refuge circuit or ATS are isolated from the system, the algae grow on the display. If the circuit is reconnected, they disappear again ... I find this intriguing, if you think that the control happens through consumption.

And... Yes it is! There are several works available on the internet that demonstrate allelopathic effect using only the water in which certain algae are created. There is no need for "closeness" to this; Allelochemicals act at a distance.

Only that.

Regards

 

[Jose Mayo]

Something about it:

New insights on the species-specific allelopathic interactions between macrophytes and marine HAB dinoflagellates

Regards

 

[Vaughn17]

Something about it:

New insights on the species-specific allelopathic interactions between macrophytes and marine HAB dinoflagellates

Regards

Thanks, Jose! Interesting research article. I live and work on Puget Sound (as a fisheries biologist) and am familiar with macrophytes in the Ulva and Zostera genera. Watersheds surrounding Puget Sound support forests of large coniferous trees that are a source of tannins, an allelochemical mentioned in the article. Now I need to do some red tide research.

 

[Jose Mayo]

Now I need to do some red tide research.

Let us know the results, please!

Regards