Are water changes over rated?

[GARRIGA]

Cryptic zone in full darkness filled with various forms of life, but the doc is handled by the numerous live sponge colonies that grow in the darkness

That's what I've been told and seeking to confirm vs reading a ton of literature on why I should be concerned.

Guessing photosynthetic sponges would also handle DOC and I'm starting to find those aesthetically pleasing to the point it might form a large part of my collection. Is that a correct assumption because all I read is cryptic zones as you just mentioned and not sure that's perhaps because easier to promote those sponges and reefers rather not utilize available real estate for anything but corals?

 

[VintageReefer]

That's what I've been told and seeking to confirm vs reading a ton of literature on why I should be concerned.

Guessing photosynthetic sponges would also handle DOC and I'm starting to find those aesthetically pleasing to the point it might form a large part of my collection. Is that a correct assumption because all I read is cryptic zones as you just mentioned and not sure that's perhaps because easier to promote those sponges and reefers rather not utilize available real estate for anything but corals?

I have a fist size yellow sponge colony in my display also, you can’t see it in most photos because it grows in a shaded spot, as they typically prefer.

I also grow a unique “blue rope sponge” in the display, it grows vertical and branches. This one is photosynthetic (i suspect. I know it doesn’t care about light. Does it use it? I think so but really don’t know)

 

[Lasse]

Cryptic zone in full darkness filled with various forms of life, but the doc is handled by the numerous live sponge colonies that grow in the darkness

My aquarium is full of sponges too. I even have elephant slug that eat sponges

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

That's what I've been told and seeking to confirm vs reading a ton of literature on why I should be concerned.

Guessing photosynthetic sponges would also handle DOC and I'm starting to find those aesthetically pleasing to the point it might form a large part of my collection. Is that a correct assumption because all I read is cryptic zones as you just mentioned and not sure that's perhaps because easier to promote those sponges and reefers rather not utilize available real estate for anything but corals?

There’s zero data indicating that sponges have a substantial impact on the health or doc levels in reef aquaria.

I like sponges, grew them, and supported them with silicate and organic carbon dosing.

But folks should not fool themselves that there is data that the are a substantial benefit.

 

[GARRIGA]

Trying to research sponges but google returns mostly kitchen products but I'm trying because perhaps this is the final frontier needed. Seems logical nature found a way to resolve everything and why we don't walk in dino crap and our reefs absent pollution, over fishing of grazers and warming trends has flourished for millions of years. Sponge BOB might become my best friend.

 

[skey44]

Water changes are great. There’s no easier way to keep your tank looking good. I do 2 bucket change in my 80 gallon display every week. Corals/water always look better after, despite me maintaining elements with A4R and skimming heavily. It’s not easy or cheap, but well worth it for me.

 

[GARRIGA]

There’s zero data indicating that sponges have a substantial impact on the health or doc levels in reef aquaria.

I like sponges, grew them, and supported them with silicate and organic carbon dosing.

But folks should not fool themselves that there is data that the are a substantial benefit.

Easy enough to test in home aquariums. Has no one tried this where only means of filtration being sponges? Not having data doesn't disqualify something but test can dismiss it. I haven't seen any and why I ask.

 

[Lasse]

There’s zero data indicating that sponges have a substantial impact on the health or doc levels in reef aquaria

But a lot of data of this from both natural water bodies and reefs therefore I think is interesting to ask if there is any data that suggest that sponges act different in a reef aquarium compare with nature.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[VintageReefer]

Easy enough to test in home aquariums. Has no one tried this where only means of filtration being sponges? Not having data doesn't disqualify something but test can dismiss it. I haven't seen any and why I ask.

Sponge won’t filter all the things that need to be filtered.

That said, my only filtration is live rock, cryptic zone with sponge, and an algae scrubber

I believe from running numerous systems with this setup, each of these items is important in their own way

 

[VintageReefer]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896972300606X

All sponges removed DOC at similar rates but different efficiencies, while the removal of DON by the LMA sponges was higher

https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lno.10634

Three of the seven species exhibited significant DOC removal ranging from 13% to 24% of ambient concentrations

 

[GARRIGA]

Found this a while back but way more reading than time or attention span allows but seemed promising yet how this correlates to shallow water sponges accessible to aquarist unknown but you'd think they all work the same. Meaning the mechanics of how sponges operate doesn't differ based on water depth assuming we are talking about non photosynthetic and I'm guessing photosynthetic likely operate similar to plants. Just generalizing as I haven't confirmed any of this but to me seems reasonable.

https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lno.11652

 

[Timfish]

. . . You mean - its as effective as a 50% WC? , , ,

Obviously not. :grinning-face-with-smiling-eyes: When refractory DOC is broken down it still leaves lots off the component parts in the water. It also can produce significant amounts of CO2. This is the problem with adding labile DOS (carbon dosing), it gives heterotrophic bacteria the means to break down the refractory DOC into components that promote additional microbial growth and creating anoxic conditions in coral' surface boundary layer and microbiomes.

Additional filtration methods will likely remove much of this as well. But now we're talking some pretty complicated methdologies. Since cryptic sponges have already been shown to deal with this anyway it seems using what mother nature has already figured out is the easiest method for aquarists. In the oceans the refractory DOC eventually sinks to the depths ((it would be intersting to see what volocanic vents and hydrodinamics of water in the mantel is doing). As we don't have any deep water to act as sinks for refractory DOC and the methodologies that might work look like a lot of additional complication, water changes look like they are still teh easiest way to dilute the various waste products we need to get rid of to maintain our systems the decades or centuries they should live.

As far as how often water changes need to be done, one rational is to wait until our corals "don't look right". Unfortunately, we still don't have any easy way to quantify how healthy our corals are. We often refere to a coral color as "healthy" but in reality the fluorescing and chromo colors corals make are all to deal with less than ideal environmental conditions or to deal with pathogens/parasites or physical damage. Fast growth has been shown to compramise a corals immune system. These observations deliniate the problem we have:

"Critical to coral disease transmission – or resistance – is the coral's surface mucus layer, which is produced in part by the coral's endosymbionts [12]. The mucus layer hosts a complex microbial community, referred to hereafter as the surface microbial community (SMC). Because the mucus environment is rich in nutrients, microbial population densities there are orders of magnitude higher than in the surrounding water column [20]. Most established and emerging pathogens are endemic to the ecosystem and typically present at low numbers in the SMC. When stressed, the SMC can switch rapidly from a community associated with healthy corals todiseased corals. In field studies during the 2005 summer bleaching event, Ritchie [28] observed that "visitor" bacteria (bacterial groups otherwise not dominant) became the predominant species in mucus collected from apparently healthy Acropora palmata."

Considering how little we know and how even less we can test for, And from what I've seen over the last 4 decades, using water changes to reduce the detrimental stuff, that research shows is being generated, is still essential to achieve normal life expectancies of our systems.

 

[GARRIGA]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896972300606X

All sponges removed DOC at similar rates but different efficiencies, while the removal of DON by the LMA sponges was higher

https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lno.10634

Three of the seven species exhibited significant DOC removal ranging from 13% to 24% of ambient concentrations

Actually found the second article you posted along with others and why I generalized that sponges likely an answer to DOC although not exactly sure why I should be concerned with that.

You'd think there be more aquarium focused studies as there are with macroalgae unless propagation not as profitable and in the end money often drives research.

 

[GARRIGA]

Additional filtration methods will likely remove much of this as well. But now we're talking some pretty complicated methdologies. Since cryptic sponges have already been shown to deal with this anyway it seems using what mother nature has already figured out is the easiest method for aquarists.

By complicated methodologies are you referring to cryptic zones or something else? Please elaborate as best to grasp all the options.

 

[VintageReefer]

I will add that in my experience over the last decade of reef keeping, if aiming for no wc and natural filtration methods, algae scrubbers and their natural carbon dosing + cryptic zone with sponge, + a good amount of healthy established live rock is a solid combination. That’s the formula / combo I use. Works well for me and those I recommended it to

I’ve used this trio both with and without a skimmer, did not notice any benefit to running the skimmer, so I stopped.

 

[Lasse]

Considering how little we know and how even less we can test for, And from what I've seen over the last 4 decades, using water changes to reduce the detrimental stuff, that research shows is being generated, is still essential to achieve normal life expectancies of our systems.

Just counter a little about this. There is other critters in our aquarium that relay on mucus layer as a primary defence barrier against pathogens - our fish. Its known that this mucus can be destroyed by "chemical" water there all organic colloids and DOC have been removed. That´s one of the reasons why I never does any WC the first months with a new aquarium - I want the water to be "biological active" ´before I do WC with our artificial saltwater. IMO - the reasons why - if you have the possibility - natural water many times is better than our salt mixes.

If I am - of some reasons - in the future will do regular WC - I will use Randys method with small - maybe only 0.5 or 1 % daily WC

In contrary to VintageReefer I would not run without a skimmer but the reason is not export issues - it's instead about gas exchange. O2 in and CO2 out during night and the opposite during max light intensity. I run my skimmer very dry - can be weeks between I empty it. Its a very handy air mixer and will not make much noise as an air pump. But I have a lot of fish +40 in a 300 L (80 G) system

Sincerely Lasse

 

[VintageReefer]

Just counter a little about this. There is other critters in our aquarium that relay on mucus layer as a primary defence barrier against pathogens - our fish. Its known that this mucus can be destroyed by "chemical" water there all organic colloids and DOC have been removed. That´s one of the reasons why I never does any WC the first months with a new aquarium - I want the water to be "biological active" ´before I do WC with our artificial saltwater. IMO - the reasons why - if you have the possibility - natural water many times is better than our salt mixes.

If I am - of some reasons - in the future will do regular WC - I will use Randys method with small - maybe only 0.5 or 1 % daily WC

In contrary to VintageReefer I would not run without a skimmer but the reason is not export issues - it's instead about gas exchange. O2 in and CO2 out during night and the opposite during max light intensity. I run my skimmer very dry - can be weeks between I empty it. Its a very handy air mixer and will not make much noise as an air pump. But I have a lot of fish +40 in a 300 L (80 G) system

Sincerely Lasse

I have a rather strong air pump pushing 10LPM into my sump, 24x7. The model I use is silent.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Easy enough to test in home aquariums. Has no one tried this where only means of filtration being sponges? Not having data doesn't disqualify something but test can dismiss it. I haven't seen any and why I ask.

How would you test it?

 

[VintageReefer]

How would you test it?

I think I seen some of dem doc meters on alibaba

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I think I seen some of dem doc meters on alibaba

Never heard of a doc meter. One can send out for a doc test, but that doesn’t really answer how one would test it. How exactly would you set up two identical aquariums, one with and one without sponges?