Bye Cyanobacteria!

[EnterName]

Here’s a blast…

Suppose the reason folks contend that tank maturity deters cyano is really just allowing for time to develop sufficient numbers of viruses that infect cyano to dominate….

Inquiring minds want to know!

Don't give them ideas... Next to bottled bacteria we will have bottled bacteriophages in the LFS aisles soon

 

[BeanAnimal]

Here’s a blast…

Suppose the reason folks contend that tank maturity deters cyano is really just allowing for time to develop sufficient numbers of viruses that infect cyano to dominate….

Inquiring minds want to know!

Full circle, it exposes how insanely complex and interwoven this all is, thought experiment of reality.

@Dan_P -- put that on the lab whiteboard for after the ugly stage experiments.

 

[Euphylliaphyle]

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

The criticism was not about not having answers. Of course all science starts out without answers. It was about your tabloid-worthy headline. Take it or leave it. I'm not going to engage you further than this.

 

[RobertK]

There are three different algal targets being hunted in this video. The red circle is a diatom and it gets engulfed in the video. The blue circle is another type of diatom but I’m not sure how it ended for him as my phone ran out of memory and I was trying to sort it out. The yellow circle is possibly an algal zoospore and that also gets engulfed in the video.

Thanks for the reply. Whatever you are photographing is interesting! Can I ask what type of microscope you are using and at what magnification you are taking these photos and videos? I have a patch of cyano in my tank and want to have a look with my microscope to see if I see anything similar.

 

[sixty_reefer]

@RobertK, thank you. I’m using an old Leica CME microscope and a Celestron NexYZ 3-AXIS Universal Smartphone Adapter to collect images whith my phone. I find myself mainly using 100x and 400x. That particular video was taken at 400x.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Just to add on, @RobertK in the areas where both single cell algae and cyanobacteria were present, they seemed to prefer grazing on the single cell algae. In the areas where I’ve seen them grazing on cyanobacteria, the single cell algae appear to have already been depleted. It’s a possibility that they turn to cyanobacteria as an alternative food source once their preferred food becomes scarce. Hence, if they are present in a reef tank, you may have a better chance of finding them around older scraped glass film.

 

[RobertK]

@RobertK, thank you. I’m using an old Leica CME microscope and a Celestron NexYZ 3-AXIS Universal Smartphone Adapter to collect images whith my phone. I find myself mainly using 100x and 400x. That particular video was taken at 400x.

Thanks, nice looking scope. But that looks new compared to mine! I have a 1974 American Optical Series 10 that I got for free. It is capable of 400X so I should be able to get some comparable images.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Just to add on, @RobertK in the areas where both single cell algae and cyanobacteria were present, they seemed to prefer grazing on the single cell algae. In the areas where I’ve seen them grazing on cyanobacteria, the single cell algae appear to have already been depleted. It’s a possibility that they turn to cyanobacteria as an alternative food source once their preferred food becomes scarce. Hence, if they are present in a reef tank, you may have a better chance of finding them around older scraped glass film.

Do you honestly not understand the difference between observations and claims built on observations?

Wrapping claims in hedge phrasing doesn't absolve them of being claims. It means you get to assert behavior that can't be verified. There is a world of difference, not just semantics.

Here is all that is supported:
"Just to add on Robert, in areas where both single cell algae and cyanobacteria were present, I saw more grazing activity on the algae. In areas where I saw them on cyanobacteria, I didn't see algae present."

Removed:
Preference: unverified.
Grazing at all vs. proximity: unverified.
Depletion: unverified.
Depletion causing the switch: unverified.
Glass film prediction: rests on all four which rest on each other. This is a STACK OF CLAIMS.

The damage here -- Robert doesn't know, he asked, but he walks away thinking he may have learned something, as do others who read the post. They repeat it, then other people repeat it. And here where it started, you can't support it and demonstrably work to prop it all up through a fog of hedges, gamed language, reframes and retreats to more general positions without retracting the claims. The thread turns into a dumpster fire, and a new one pops up with those and more claims, all hedged as observations from somebody who hides behind being a hobbyist fishing around, while using words like experiments and observation, and and writing articles. You even called it your "work", implying science. All of it giving this nonsense real legs.

Stop making claims that you can't support.

 

[Dan_P]

Full circle, it exposes how insanely complex and interwoven this all is, thought experiment of reality.

@Dan_P -- put that on the lab whiteboard for after the ugly stage experiments.

Got it!

I remember wondering if the perfectly round holes that develop in cyanobacteria films were caused by a virus. I never did the obvious to take material from the hole’s edge and add to a new area to see if a hole would develop. Next time I will!

 

[Dan_P]

Here’s a blast…

Suppose the reason folks contend that tank maturity deters cyano is really just allowing for time to develop sufficient numbers of viruses that infect cyano to dominate….

Inquiring minds want to know!

Looks like a fine introduction to a red slime cure “Randy’s Way” and a neat way to sell your old water from water changes, that is, when your tank “matures”

 

[Dan_P]

Do you honestly not understand the difference between observations and claims built on observations?

Wrapping claims in hedge phrasing doesn't absolve them of being claims. It means you get to assert behavior that can't be verified. There is a world of difference, not just semantics.

Here is all that is supported:
"Just to add on Robert, in areas where both single cell algae and cyanobacteria were present, I saw more grazing activity on the algae. In areas where I saw them on cyanobacteria, I didn't see algae present."

Removed:
Preference: unverified.
Grazing at all vs. proximity: unverified.
Depletion: unverified.
Depletion causing the switch: unverified.
Glass film prediction: rests on all four which rest on each other. This is a STACK OF CLAIMS.

The damage here -- Robert doesn't know, he asked, but he walks away thinking he may have learned something, as do others who read the post. They repeat it, then other people repeat it. And here where it started, you can't support it and demonstrably work to prop it all up through a fog of hedges, gamed language, reframes and retreats to more general positions without retracting the claims. The thread turns into a dumpster fire, and a new one pops up with those and more claims, all hedged as observations from somebody who posts "science" but presents as just a hobbyist fishing around, while using words like experiments and writing articles. You even called it your "work", implying science. All of it giving this nonsense real legs.

Stop making claims that you can't support.

Empty barrels make the most noise?

 

[sixty_reefer]

Thanks, nice looking scope. But that looks new compared to mine! I have a 1974 American Optical Series 10 that I got for free. It is capable of 400X so I should be able to get some comparable images.

I haven’t found myself using much past 400x. Good luck with the hunt!

 

[sixty_reefer]

Do you honestly not understand the difference between observations and claims built on observations?

Wrapping claims in hedge phrasing doesn't absolve them of being claims. It means you get to assert behavior that can't be verified. There is a world of difference, not just semantics.

Here is all that is supported:
"Just to add on Robert, in areas where both single cell algae and cyanobacteria were present, I saw more grazing activity on the algae. In areas where I saw them on cyanobacteria, I didn't see algae present."

Removed:
Preference: unverified.
Grazing at all vs. proximity: unverified.
Depletion: unverified.
Depletion causing the switch: unverified.
Glass film prediction: rests on all four which rest on each other. This is a STACK OF CLAIMS.

The damage here -- Robert doesn't know, he asked, but he walks away thinking he may have learned something, as do others who read the post. They repeat it, then other people repeat it. And here where it started, you can't support it and demonstrably work to prop it all up through a fog of hedges, gamed language, reframes and retreats to more general positions without retracting the claims. The thread turns into a dumpster fire, and a new one pops up with those and more claims, all hedged as observations from somebody who hides behind being a hobbyist fishing around, while using words like experiments and observation, and and writing articles. You even called it your "work", implying science. All of it giving this nonsense real legs.

Stop making claims that you can't support.

Have the amoebas got to your brain? Who said I can’t support it? This is my claim.

You really need to read my article. You can click on the link in my tank thread at any time. It’s just below my Article Contributor badge and to the right of my R2R Research badge.

There are over 700 views a day on this thread. If you’re concerned about the quality of discussion on this forum, perhaps consider what these constant personal battles contribute to it. The only person who needs to stop making claims and assumptions they can’t support here is you.

note: did you know I actually get contacted privately by people working in relevant fields about the observations and “work” I share here? Perhaps more often than you might assume. Not everyone who finds something interesting feels the need to turn it into a public argument.