Algae release "useful proteins, carbohydrates and metabolites."

[Lasse]

Thank you for the article. Its clear up some things but still not an evidence for remote effects on benthic algae in aquaria. The question is now - why is it possible for aquaria system driven by poly culture macro algae fuges to exist year after year and without any WC?

@Vaughn17 In the late 80:ties - in my job - I read a lot of literature about the environmental situation in Puget Sound (especially pollutants in the sediment) and how its affect the fishes and other animals in the sound. How is the situation today?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Jose Mayo]

Its clear up some things but still not an evidence for remote effects on benthic algae in aquaria. The question is now - why is it possible for aquaria system driven by poly culture macro algae fuges to exist year after year and without any WC?

Science should not quarrel with facts, just observe them.

The answer to the question could be related to the species or strains of algae housed in the aquarium, or to light, circulation, or nutrient conditions, or even to competition between themselves (perhaps by proximity) in the refuge in which they are contained ... that is, in biology there will always be more questions than answers, and perhaps for millennia many of them are unanswered.

But if we even take into account the behavior of certain species in their natural environment, we can have an idea of what to expect them to do, or can do, when we confine them in our little boxes.

Regards

 

[Jose Mayo]

Also, related to allelochemicals of algae, if these are lipophilic (fat soluble) have little chance of acting at a distance, their effects being more evident when there is direct contact of algae with corals, as widely observed. But algae also produce hydrophilic allelochemicals, which are easily transported in the water column and can act at a distance, among other ways, by negative changes in coral holobiont, by severely affecting the bacterial variety that inhabits it, as described in the paper below:

Allelochemicals produced by Caribbean macroalgae and cyanobacteria have species-specific effects on reef coral microorganisms

*As seen, not everything that comes out of the algae is useful and ... Perhaps all this should serve to strongly recommend that, for those who use macroalgae in refuge, but mainly that use an ATS (in which the algae that grow there are not even chosen), the use of activated carbon or Purigen is necessary in the line of water, to avoid unforeseen situations.

Best regards

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

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.

That is not what I asked and not what they claimed.

Maybe it is a translation issue, but there's a big difference (IMO) between thinking something potentially useful is released to saying that the overall effect is "useful".

To meet the criteria of their claim and the basis of my question, the amount released needs to be sufficient to have a perceived benefit to to tank, and it must not have detrimental effects that could possibly override the benefits.

Without an actual experiment of some sort, I do not know how one can make that claim.

Let me give a different example:

Human saliva contains many of the things that are ascribed to release from algae, at least in its major classes, and even more good stuff: proteins, carbohydrates, glucose calcium, magnesium, potassium, bicarbonate, nitrogen sources such as ammonia and urea.

All of those individually might be described as useful in reef tanks in various scenarios.

Is spitting into the tank useful? Why is this not generally recommended for every reef tank?

Might spitting into the tank be more "useful" than the organics released from macroalgae? lol


Maybe this is the better way to rephrase my original question to put some quantitation on it:

Is there any evidence that the release of "proteins, carbohydrates and metabolites" by algae in a refugium is more useful than spitting into the tank once a day?

 

[Gareth elliott]

Tagging along, just read a very long paper on ecosystem entropy thinking it would have some insight into this. It did not lol.

 

[Sallstrom]

This seems to end up with the same old "it's not possible to measure ". So we all have to try ourselves and find out what we think works and not works. Just like a lot of other things in this hobby.
For me testing myself is worth more then who is the best in debating

If anyone is interested in our results with macro algae refugiums in coral systems, feel free to ask in my build tread.

/
David

 

[HolisticBear]

This seems to end up with the same old "it's not possible to measure ". So we all have to try ourselves and find out what we think works and not works. Just like a lot of other things in this hobby.
For me testing myself is worth more then who is the best in debating

That still seems to be missing the OP's point. Anecdotal evidence often precedes published research, yet we're specifically talking about Triton stating as a fact that the breakdown of algae in a refugium makes a significant positive contribution to the coral inhabitants. So what evidence is there to support this statement? To be fair, letting macro algae breakdown rather than manual removal is both unique to Triton and somewhat new. What's supporting that? Is is strong evidence, a theory, a critical feature or mostly a style issue that doesn't have significant positive benefit? It seems a simple question.

One of the R2R mods has excessive die-off in his fuge that basically resulted in a failing tank and full rebuild, where he walked away from the Triton method. That was a huge thread last year. Triton says you should both manually remove when it gets excessive and also allow it to die off, it's always bothered me on the vagueness of what's the right amount of die-off. If the benefit of die-off is not significantly helpful and it's possible to have too much die off, then why not stick with removal and maintain a consistent amount of macro algae?

 

[Lasse]

Maybe spitting in the tank once a day is good idea – I can´t say either – I have not tested it.

But - I have grown both freshwater and marine phytoplankton with my own pee - so why not use spit as carbon and nitrogen source. Further - I should not hesitate to use very small amount of my own pee if I run into N deficiency and did not have any NO3 at home. Urea is a perfect nitrogen source.

The basic question was if macro algae release (export) useful proteins, carbohydrates and metabolites. My links shown that they do release proteins and carbohydrates in rather high amount - up to 30 - 35 % of gross production. Is proteins and carbohydrates useful in a reef aquarium? I think that - according to at least carbohydrates - that’s of no discussion more than 12 years after the introduction of the Vodka method.

The basic question was not if their release was more harmful than useful. But the whole discussion has turned that way. Its also an important discussion – but it was not the question I answered with my links. There is also an interesting twist – if they release toxic substances into the water column in concentrations that depress unwanted algae growth in the DT – is that useful or not? Personally – I am not convinced of this ability – but that another question.

The cited part in the OP had nothing with only die off to do – it was a question of export (release) of useful substances to the aquaria - and I give some examples of that. To say that the principle of die off is both unique to Triton and somewhat new – that´s IMO to give Triton to much credit. The oldest system – I know - using this method it’s about 3.7 billion years old

If it can help in understanding – the original German text is as follow

Ein gesundes Algenrefugium wird tierische Abfallstoffe sowie einige Metalle abbauen, während gleichzeitig nützliche Proteine, Kohlenhydrate und Stoffwechselprodukte generiert warden

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Vaughn17]

Let us know the results, please!

Regards

I wish I had the time to do so...but I did briefly check current red tide closures and found only one inlet in south Puget sound closed for shellfish harvesting due to red tide toxins (Budd Inlet). There were some large areas closed in the north sound and on the Pacific coast, areas that would be expected to have cooler temperatures and flush better; however, the two large bays on the coast were both open. Of course, as you are well aware, there are so many factors involved in the study biological processes, ecosystems, etc. that it seems almost impossible to ascertain anything with any certainty. That said, I'm intrigued with the possibility that an excess of tannins (from logging impacts?), along with allelochemicals from macrophytes might be impacting the occurrence of red tides in certain areas of Puget Sound.

 

[Vaughn17]

Thank you for the article. Its clear up some things but still not an evidence for remote effects on benthic algae in aquaria. The question is now - why is it possible for aquaria system driven by poly culture macro algae fuges to exist year after year and without any WC?

@Vaughn17 In the late 80:ties - in my job - I read a lot of literature about the environmental situation in Puget Sound (especially pollutants in the sediment) and how its affect the fishes and other animals in the sound. How is the situation today?

Sincerely Lasse

Hi Lasse,

There are now about 4.5 millon people living in the Puget Sound area, which has had a detrimental impact on the Sound's water quality due (in part) to runoff and non-point source pollutants. Sediment pollution is still an issue, but that hasn't stopped the harvesting of wild and aquacultured geoducks. NOAA decided that liquefying acres upon acres of subtidal and intertidal shoreline to a depth of approx. three feet has no impact on the health of Puget Sound. Personally, I disagree strongly. Local regulatory agencies are more concerned with habitat issues as opposed to water quality. IMO, water quality is the most important habitat feature. Again, IMO, an ecosystem will adapt to habitat changes but not poor water quality.

 

[Lasse]

Thank you for the update - you have Puget Sound and Chesapeake bay - we have the Baltic Is mercury contamination still an issue?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Monkeynaut]

So, my Cheato soaks up the bad, then decays... Cheato soaks up the decay... Ultimately the goal is to achieve homeostasis with a removal of cheato. Correct?

 

[Vaughn17]

Thank you for the update - you have Puget Sound and Chesapeake bay - we have the Baltic Is mercury contamination still an issue?

Sincerely Lasse

Yes, mercury and PCBs. The most contaminated sites haven been or will be cleaned up. Hopefully, the state hires contractors who know and care what they are doing.

 

[Jose Mayo]

Still in relation to what the macroalgae "export" (in addition to the "good things"), the abstract of a very recent article, published in december 2017:

Macroalgal allelopathy in the emergence of coral diseases

Abstract: "Microbial disease in corals associated with the proliferation of benthic macroalgae are the major contributors to the decline of coral reefs over the past few decades. Several benthic macroalgae species produce allelopathic chemical compounds that negatively affect corals. The emergence of microbial diseases in corals occurs simultaneously with the elevated abundance of benthic macroalgae. The release of allelochemicals by toxic-macroalgae enhances microbial activity on coral surfaces via the release of dissolved compounds. Proliferation of benthic macroalgae in coral reefs results in increased physical contacts between corals and macroalgae, triggering the susceptibility of coral disease. The abundance of macroalgae changes the community structure towards macroalgae dominated reef ecosystem. We investigate coral-macroalgal phase shift in presence of macroalgal allelopathy and microbial infection on corals by means of an eco-epidemiological model under the assumption that the transmission of infection is mediated by the pathogens shed by infectious corals and under the influence of macroalgae in the environment. We perform equilibrium and stability analysis on our non-linear ODE model and found that the system is capable of exhibiting the existence of two stable configurations of the community under the same environmental conditions by allowing saddle-node bifurcations that involves in creation and destruction of fixed points and associated hysteresis effect. It is shown that the system undergoes a sudden change of transition when the transmission rate of the infection crosses some certain critical thresholds. Computer simulations have been carried out to illustrate different analytical results."

Regards

 

[Sallstrom]

Better avoid physical contact then

I'm not saying the macro algae doesn't release chemicals that helps them compete for space or gives them other advantages. I just wonder how much it affects the corals when you have a remote refugium with algae.

/ David

 

[Lasse]

This is one part

In coral reef ecosystems, macroalgae and corals compete intensively for the available space in seabed and the grazing by reef herbivores prevents algae to proliferate. In the absence of herbivory by reef fishes, the faster growing macroalgae often overgrow corals by causing their decline

- the discussion part in the end of the article is brilliant.

The article is very interesting but still have very little to do with the OP more than it once again state

Macroalgae release large amounts of organic carbon into the surrounding environment

. The article highlight that these can serve as carbon source for bacterial pathogens - if they are present. The basic question is therefore if the same organic carbon can be useful for other bacterial processes in an aquarium. My answer is yes - leaning on the success of different organic carbon methods. Yes I know that there is some people that state that all use of organic carbon is dangerous - I am not among those but I am very careful with the use of them and for the moment I not use them - I will see if my fuge is mature enough to handle this matter.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Jose Mayo]

Better avoid physical contact then

I'm not saying the macro algae doesn't release chemicals that helps them compete for space or gives them other advantages. I just wonder how much it affects the corals when you have a remote refugium with algae.

/ David

No direct contact between corals and algae is required, it is sufficient that the coral is downstream of the algae field to be affected; some algae export hydrophilic allelochemicals that dissolve and are transported in the water column.

Whether a refuge can affect corals in an aquarium, or not, depends on many things, besides, of course, the species of algae it contains, and that depends on our choice. An ATS depends on luck, why are not we choosing the algae that grow on it.

Regards

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I guess by this point, since Triton has not answered, that they do not intend to do so.

 

[Jose Mayo]

This is one part


- the discussion part in the end of the article is brilliant.

The article is very interesting but still have very little to do with the OP more than it once again state . The article highlight that these can serve as carbon source for bacterial pathogens - if they are present. The basic question is therefore if the same organic carbon can be useful for other bacterial processes in an aquarium. My answer is yes - leaning on the success of different organic carbon methods. Yes I know that there is some people that state that all use of organic carbon is dangerous - I am not among those but I am very careful with the use of them and for the moment I not use them - I will see if my fuge is mature enough to handle this matter.

Sincerely Lasse

"Organic carbon" may mean many things; macrolides (antibiotics) are "organic carbon", aminoglycosides (antibiotics) are also, and are sugars, both. The practicality of all organic products, including toxins, are "organic carbon", so referring to organic carbon does not apply much light to any discussion.

Unfortunately there are very few works specifically directed to our hobby, which entails more heat than light in the confrontation of opinions, but over time we will be able to develop somewhat more controlled experiments and we will be able to distinguish more easily what serves us or not.

Best Regards

 

[Sallstrom]

No direct contact between corals and algae is required, it is sufficient that the coral is downstream of the algae field to be affected; some algae export hydrophilic allelochemicals that dissolve and are transported in the water column.

Whether a refuge can affect corals in an aquarium, or not, depends on many things, besides, of course, the species of algae it contains, and that depends on our choice. An ATS depends on luck, why are not we choosing the algae that grow on it.

Regards

Maybe, but in the article you quoted they wrote about affect of direct contact (and this was if the corals and macro algae were competing for space, which maybe could be avoided if you put algae in a refugium).
They also wrote that herbivores were the key factor, more herbivores, more resilient reef, more resistant corals against diseases caused by macro algae.
And herbivores are something we can control in an aquarium.

But I agree on that it most likely vary a lot between different species of algae. Some might compete more then others.

Good article! I will have another look

/ David