Bye Cyanobacteria!

[sixty_reefer]

Neither do I but I have to give @sixty_reefer an excuse because in my digging I have found the article attached in this post. Its a rather late article (2023) and it cover an experiment to feed freshwater amoebas with the Oscillatoriales from the genus of Oscillatoria. Its freshwater but the microscopic photos are rather alike the photos from sixty reefer. I do not publish the photos - they are in the article - read it.

However - I will made a comment about this thread. Sixty_reefer claimed it was amoebas from the beginning. Lot of people - including me - ask for evidence for this claim. To be honest - there was no evidences reported by Sixty-reefer - only the claim. The thread get rather rough and Sixty_reefer state this


Now it turns out that one of the opponents has dug up an article that can indicate that it could be amoebas you see in your samples. However, I want to strongly point out that I have not found any evidence that marine amoebas can eat in this way. In the study I found, over 20 species were tested but only 3 managed to survive on filamentous cyanobacteria.

Sincerely Lasse

I would just correct one thing though. I didn’t claim from the beginning that these were definitely amoebas. I called them “amoeba like organisms” and when I was directly asked if I was sure they were amoebas, my answer was no. I also didn’t realise initially that what I was sharing wasn’t something widely known, so pardon my ignorance there.

This is actually what I meant about working together to understand an observation rather than trying to prove someone right or wrong. You questioned the identification, went looking for evidence and found a paper that potentially moves the discussion forward. That’s exactly the kind of crowd correction I have no problem with.

It still doesn’t tell us what my organisms are, especially being marine but it gives us another useful pathway to investigate.

 

[EnterName]

So you're fixed on something that I can quite easily acknowledge may be a mistake in identification? In the same way you spent much of the thread questioning whether these were amoeba like organisms and suggesting ciliates instead?
You shared Rev's thread asking everyone to be nice but do you honestly think that's what's happening here? This is exactly what I meant by crowd reinforcement. The focus seems to be on finding something wrong with the observation rather than working together to understand what is actually being observed. I don't see much of the friendly support that you would expect from a forum discussion.

This was the one point multiple people were trying to make for so long in this thread, and it stayed unresolved specifically because it was verifiable and kept getting deflected rather than addressed. I will take your response to Lasse as the acknowledgment, and I would like to keep the discussion anchored to that point. Had this been acknowledged earlier, we would not have needed three pages to settle a single, verifiable claim, and there would have been no need to bring taxonomy or morphology into it.

I am not reopening the previous thread here, only noting that the same pattern showed up there: a verifiable claim, no acknowledgment of it being wrong to this day, and every attempt to raise it was answered with something else instead.

So here is exactly what happened in this thread. The point in question was the Oscillatoriales identification. Nobody was arguing about whether the specimen was cyanobacteria in general, assuming the filaments moved and showed segments. When I asked directly about the identification, the answer shifted to verifying whether the specimen was cyanobacteria (post #62), then to videos of other organisms (post #66 & 68). Neither addressed the actual question. That is a straw man: answering a claim nobody made instead of the one that was asked or seeking confirmation for a point everyone always agreed on like you made a point or corrected someone.

Compare all that to the Frontonia spp. example. I suggested it, you posted a video showing it wasn't a fit, I agreed and we moved on. One claim, one piece of evidence, one resolution, no hard feelings, nothing more needed.

Regarding the currently discussed organisms, I have never argued for or against a specific ID besides offering one potential candidate that we took from the list shortly after. You just saw Lasse supporting the Amoeboid theory with the posted article (Post #97). You are not being worked against.

 

[EnterName]

Thanks for this review. I venture to speculate that amoeba are not a significant threat to a cyanobacteria film.

Very well possible, I don't know enough to evaluate that. I could also imagine that even if they can pose a significant threat to cyanobacteria in OP's tank, this changes in environments with larger nutrient input (like reef tanks with more macroscopic life like fish). Everyone who has removed Cyano mats out of a tank knows how fast they regrow. It's possible amoeba can't keep up with the consumption or would fall victim to being preyed on themselves after a while.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I would just correct one thing though. I didn’t claim from the beginning that these were definitely amoebas. I called them “amoeba like organisms” and when I was directly asked if I was sure they were amoebas, my answer was no. I also didn’t realise initially that what I was sharing wasn’t something widely known, so pardon my ignorance there.

This is actually what I meant about working together to understand an observation rather than trying to prove someone right or wrong. You questioned the identification, went looking for evidence and found a paper that potentially moves the discussion forward. That’s exactly the kind of crowd correction I have no problem with.

It still doesn’t tell us what my organisms are, especially being marine but it gives us another useful pathway to investigate.

That is a mischaracterization of what has transpired here.

So you’re fixed on something that I can quite easily acknowledge may be a mistake in identification? In the same way you spent much of the thread questioning whether these were amoeba like organisms and suggesting ciliates instead?

You shared Rev’s thread asking everyone to be nice but do you honestly think that’s what’s happening here? This is exactly what I meant by crowd reinforcement. The focus seems to be on finding something wrong with the observation rather than working together to understand what is actually being observed. I don’t see much of the friendly support that you would expect from a forum discussion.

That is absolute nonsense directed at one of the most accommodating contributors that has ever entered one of your threads. That he is also pushing back speaks volumes. He couldn't have been any kinder. Nobody is out to get you, none of this is personal. You are being asked to adhere to the most basic standards of conversation and evidence, a rather low bar for a scientific themed thread.

You continue to portray "claims" as "observations" hedged by phrasing and word games. The root of most of the problems in these threads is your refusal to separate the two. In an attempt to separate the two, people ask questions, and instead of answers get deflections, reframes and attempt to reverse burden. You don't own up to being wrong, you just fall back to hedged language and reframes, ceding "maybe" at best. You are still doing it here with hedging a concession with "one correction" to Lasse, accepting everything but the core point he made. Never a true concession, always an excuse or gamed language to not be wrong.

Direct, un-gamed language and answers without deflection and hedges make for much more enjoyable conversations for everyone involved. If you want support, earn it through your actions and words.

 

[sixty_reefer]

This was the one point multiple people were trying to make for so long in this thread, and it stayed unresolved specifically because it was verifiable and kept getting deflected rather than addressed. I will take your response to Lasse as the acknowledgment, and I would like to keep the discussion anchored to that point. Had this been acknowledged earlier, we would not have needed three pages to settle a single, verifiable claim, and there would have been no need to bring taxonomy or morphology into it.

I am not reopening the previous thread here, only noting that the same pattern showed up there: a verifiable claim, no acknowledgment of it being wrong to this day, and every attempt to raise it was answered with something else instead.

So here is exactly what happened in this thread. The point in question was the Oscillatoriales identification. Nobody was arguing about whether the specimen was cyanobacteria in general, assuming the filaments moved and showed segments. When I asked directly about the identification, the answer shifted to verifying whether the specimen was cyanobacteria (post #62), then to videos of other organisms (post #66 & 68). Neither addressed the actual question. That is a straw man: answering a claim nobody made instead of the one that was asked or seeking confirmation for a point everyone always agreed on like you made a point or corrected someone.

Compare all that to the Frontonia spp. example. I suggested it, you posted a video showing it wasn't a fit, I agreed and we moved on. One claim, one piece of evidence, one resolution, no hard feelings, nothing more needed.

Regarding the currently discussed organisms, I have never argued for or against a specific ID besides offering one potential candidate that we took from the list shortly after. You just saw Lasse supporting the Amoeboid theory with the posted article (Post #97). You are not being worked against.

Do you want me to answer that question here?

In the previous thread you asked why I thought what we were seeing was heterotrophic bacteria. It wasn’t intended as a definitive claim, it was my interpretation based on the wider picture of what was happening in the experiment.

The goal of this experiment and some of the previous ones that people may see as repetitive, has been pretty consistent, finding natural ways of increasing microscopic food of different sizes that could potentially be useful for raising NPS corals, which is a personal ambition of mine.

As for why I thought we were seeing heterotrophic bacteria, the experiment started by growing glass film algae. I was regularly scraping large sheets of it and allowing it to decompose to encourage microbial life. Decomposing algae releases organic material into the surrounding water and at the same time I was observing nitrate and phosphate decreasing. That was simply my reasoning for thinking heterotrophic bacteria could be involved, nothing more.

After that discussion I actually went back looking for them. Ironically, it was while doing that at higher magnification that I first came across these amoeba like organisms. At lower magnification it looked like the material itself could be moving but once I looked closer it became clear that wasn’t what I was seeing.

In the end I did make the video I had originally intended and that’s below. The sample came from a patch that had been covered for several days with no light.

(Most likely bacteria, although we’ll probably never know the species. Video taken at 1000x with oil immersion. The background is a single algal filament beginning to lose its pigmentation).

I said I would answer your question, let’s leave it there now.

Now, regarding this thread, my initial identification of Oscillatoria came from comparing what I was seeing with freshwater microscopy images and from a video explaining the characteristic movement associated with Oscillatoria. That information or my interpretation of it, may have been wrong and I have no problem acknowledging that but as I mentioned earlier, there are friendlier ways of questioning someone’s identification and helping them work through it.

 

[Euphylliaphyle]

Constructive criticism for @sixty_reefer from a non-scientist: the subject line of this thread, "Bye Cyanobacteria!" seems a bit sensationalist and overly titillating for even a quasi-scientific thread with so many unanswered questions. Imo, this didn't help get this thread off to a good start.

 

[sixty_reefer]

@Euphylliaphyle, discussions involving biology will always end up with many unanswered questions. It’s just the nature of biology.

 

[BeanAnimal]

In the previous thread you asked why I thought what we were seeing was heterotrophic bacteria. It wasn’t intended as a definitive claim, it was my interpretation based on the wider picture of what was happening in the experiment.

That is an absolute mischaracterization of that thread. You made a serious of claims based off of that ID. You refused to drop the ID or claims and retreated to hedge language when pressed, even after it was proven that such an ID can't be made at the resolution of your microscope, or any similar microscope. You are continuing that with this post.

The goal of this experiment and some of the previous ones that people may see as repetitive, has been pretty consistent, finding natural ways of increasing microscopic food of different sizes that could potentially be useful for raising NPS corals, which is a personal ambition of mine.

You spent considerable time in the other thread trying to portray it as not an experiment or science, but "just fishing". Direct context and quotes can be provided. The context changes depending on the argument being made.

Now, regarding this thread, my initial identification of Oscillatoria came from comparing what I was seeing with freshwater microscopy images and from a video explaining the characteristic movement associated with Oscillatoria. That information or my interpretation of it, may have been wrong and I have no problem acknowledging that but as I mentioned earlier, there are friendlier ways of questioning someone’s identification and helping them work through it.

That is an outright excuse. Direct questions vs questions coated with sugar don't change the answers or your obligation to support your claims.

Not only that, but there and here EnterName has been beyond kind and pleasant, and your doing the same thing to him (this post included) as you to to anybody who doesn't agree with you, deflecting and reframing.

 

[EnterName]

It wasn’t intended as a definitive claim, it was my interpretation based on the wider picture of what was happening in the experiment.

Yes your interpretation, that's the issue you were criticized for because you wanted to observe.

The goal of this experiment and some of the previous ones that people may see as repetitive, has been pretty consistent, finding natural ways of increasing microscopic food of different sizes that could potentially be useful for raising NPS corals, which is a personal ambition of mine.

I can agree with your goal, but I don't necessarily agree with the methodology or interpretations.

In the end I did make the video I had originally intended and that’s below. The sample came from a patch that had been covered for several days with no light.

(Most likely bacteria, although we’ll probably never know the species. Video taken at 1000x with oil immersion. The background is a single algal filament beginning to lose its pigmentation).

That is a completely new sample under completely new conditions and was never argued about in the last thread. I won't engage in another straw man and think that this is a very unprofessional way of dealing with the issue. In the previous thread there was no simple way to distinguish autotrophs from heterotrophs. Even with that new sample I would still be cautious because:

1. At that magnification you will have to account for brownian motion. It's possible you are observing dead particles.
2. Maybe you are observing autotrophs that went dormant (cyst state) due to the lack of light and now enjoy the bright light of your microscope.

Brownian motion example:
I don't want to argue what those particles in your new video are, I have no stake in this and don't care. I just want to point out how difficult the differentiation can be and how complicated it is to isolate stuff. Just keeping a sample dark for a while is very often not enough.

I said I would answer your question, let’s leave it there now.

Ok

Now, regarding this thread, my initial identification of Oscillatoria came from comparing what I was seeing with freshwater microscopy images and from a video explaining the characteristic movement associated with Oscillatoria. That information or my interpretation of it, may have been wrong and I have no problem acknowledging that but as I mentioned earlier, there are friendlier ways of questioning someone’s identification and helping them work through it.

In post #54 I firstly pointed out my problem with the Oscillatoria question. As you will see when looking at it I was criticizing the rough tone directed at me which caught me off guard because I have always tried to respond in a respectful and calm manner. I don't think I have been unfriendly, especially not until after that question.

 

[BeanAnimal]

@Euphylliaphyle, discussions involving biology will always end up with many unanswered questions. It’s just the nature of biology.

You just reframed a valid point that he offered as constructive criticism, to answer a question that he didn't ask. Just more word games.

 

[sixty_reefer]

@EnterName
(my quote button broke, not sure why).

I have my reasons for being a little defensive in some discussion. It can be difficult to relax when it sometimes feels like there’s always someone looking over my shoulder waiting to challenge something (that’s not directed at you).

 

[Dan_P]

Very well possible, I don't know enough to evaluate that. I could also imagine that even if they can pose a significant threat to cyanobacteria in OP's tank, this changes in environments with larger nutrient input (like reef tanks with more macroscopic life like fish). Everyone who has removed Cyano mats out of a tank knows how fast they regrow. It's possible amoeba can't keep up with the consumption or would fall victim to being preyed on themselves after a while.

Have you come across the idea that rotifers are a possible control of cyanobacteria growth?