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.

 

[sixty_reefer]

@BeanAnimal, now let’s address your own claims and assumptions.

Quote:

“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.”

You’ve labelled each of these observations “unverified” but unverified doesn’t mean incorrect. What evidence do you have that these organisms don’t preferentially graze single cell algae when both are available? What evidence do you have that the pattern I’ve observed isn’t happening? And finally, what evidence do you have that my friendly comment to Robert caused the “damage” you’re claiming?

Even Lasse acknowledged that the available literature on these organisms, particularly in marine systems, is limited. So where exactly are you getting the information that allows you to make these claims with such certainty?

And please don’t reply with another deflection. Reply with the actual evidence supporting what you’ve said so everyone can see it. If the standard is that claims require evidence, surely that standard applies in both directions.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Mocking me, demanding burden reversal, projecting your behavior onto me and appealing to your own authority aren’t providing answers, they are just more deflections.

The damage isn't a claim without support, it's this thread and the pattern repeating in it and other threads. It’s somebody pondering if what you’ve claimed should be bottled and sold. That's not an assertion, it's what's on the record, raw mechanical repetition of claims supported by deflection instead of evidence. You even verified it by pointing out what this is doing to the quality of information on this site, and trying to pin your behavior on me and others asking you to support your claims. You cite thread locks as if your own behavior isn’t the common catalyst. You answer challenges with deflections and escalate the behavior until the challenger exhausts or the thread is locked, then start over with the same process in a new thread. This thread and these exchanges are direct poof. Yes, the damage is real.

You've now openly embraced these as claims, holding your badges, private outreach from people in relevant fields, and 'work' up as credentials. You’ve cited your own article, are you ready to support the claims made there too? So where are the controls? Where's the support for the claims there and here?

You are posting science themed content and refuse to meet even the most basic thresholds of evidence.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Mocking me, demanding burden reversal, projecting your behavior onto me and appealing to your own authority aren’t providing answers, they are just more deflections.

The damage isn't a claim without support, it's this thread and the pattern repeating in it and other threads. It’s somebody pondering if what you’ve claimed should be bottled and sold. That's not an assertion, it's what's on the record, raw mechanical repetition of claims supported by deflection instead of evidence. You even verified it by pointing out what this is doing to the quality of information on this site, and trying to pin your behavior on me and others asking you to support your claims. You cite thread locks as if your own behavior isn’t the common catalyst. You answer challenges with deflections and escalate the behavior until the challenger exhausts or the thread is locked, then start over with the same process in a new thread. This thread and these exchanges are direct poof. Yes, the damage is real.

You've now openly embraced these as claims, holding your badges, private outreach from people in relevant fields, and 'work' up as credentials. You’ve cited your own article, are you ready to support the claims made there too? So where are the controls? Where's the support for the claims there and here?

You are posting science themed content and refuse to meet even the most basic thresholds of evidence.

lol, so no evidence, just deflection and empty words!

 

[sixty_reefer]

Possible claim incoming…

In one of my samples I’ve observed what I believe is an unidentified filamentous algae releasing thousands of what appear to be reproductive propagules into the water column. The visual effect is mind boggling, especially if we consider that these could potentially disperse throughout the aquarium and develop into new algal growth.

The reason I believe this could be relevant to this thread is that in the hunting video, the amoeba like organism appears to engulf one of these propagules (shown in yellow last picture). This raises an interesting possibility, could these organisms be grazing on filamentous algae before it has established itself during its microscopic dispersal stage?

It also appears that the amoeba like organism may not be the only one potentially grazing on them, as we can see in the last few seconds of the video.

Obviously, one observation doesn’t establish how important this interaction is, but it certainly gives me something else to look for.

 

[EnterName]

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.

"Have the amoebas got to your brain?"
Can we not go down that route please?

I've taken the time to go through the article. No scientific references or quotes, not even non-scientific/hobbyist articles are referenced besides a few BRS videos. That's not how scientific research works and not how you can verify your own claims by citing yourself. The burden of proof stays on your end. If we had to disprove something or it defaults to being considered proven, we would still believe in magic and dragons.

Views don't make the article's contents true. That's just the bandwagon fallacy and I don't know why you would even bring that up to strengthen your point.

The article is certainly worded nicely, almost romantic even, and I'm sure that's appealing to many. But that's the danger that is being warned about in this thread (and others): Speaking in a convinced tone of something may mislead others.

That's why you are being asked to either...

- ...actually neutrally observe without adding interpretations, or
- ... back up said interpretations with verifiable evidence that will withstand a review.

I would kindly suggest to take a look at
- the scientific method and burden of proof,
- how controls work,
- how you can use scientific literature and findings to your advantage,
- what the limits of your used tools for observations and measurements are,
- and try to learn a bit about the observed organisms before going over to "interpretations" (post #105, your own words).

 

[sixty_reefer]

"Have the amoebas got to your brain?"
Can we not go down that route please?

I've taken the time to go through the article. No scientific references or quotes, not even non-scientific/hobbyist articles are referenced besides a few BRS videos. That's not how scientific research works and not how you can verify your own claims by citing yourself. The burden of proof stays on your end. If we had to disprove something or it defaults to being considered proven, we would still believe in magic and dragons.

Views don't make the article's contents true. That's just the bandwagon fallacy and I don't know why you would even bring that up to strengthen your point.

The article is certainly worded nicely, almost romantic even, and I'm sure that's appealing to many. But that's the danger that is being warned about in this thread (and others): Speaking in a convinced tone of something may mislead others.

That's why you are being asked to either...

- ...actually neutrally observe without adding interpretations, or
- ... back up said interpretations with verifiable evidence that will withstand a review.

I would kindly suggest to take a look at
- the scientific method and burden of proof,
- how controls work,
- how you can use scientific literature and findings to your advantage,
- what the limits of your used tools for observations and measurements are,
- and try to learn a bit about the observed organisms before going over to "interpretations" (post #105, your own words).

“Have the amoebas got to your brain?” isn’t much different from “Make sure you are not culturing brain eating amoebas. lol” in post #8 by Randy. Both were clearly intended as comic relief. If you have a problem with mine but not Randy’s, isn’t that a bit of a double standard?

As for the rest, I’ve provided evidence for the observations and interpretations I’ve made. Can I also remind you that we’re on a reefing forum, not submitting a paper for peer review, despite how some discussions here sometimes seem to be treated.

And I’ll ask you the same question: if someone challenges another person’s claim by making a counterclaim of their own, shouldn’t they also be expected to provide evidence for that counterclaim? Do you agree? Or are the double standards expanding?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

“Have the amoebas got to your brain?” isn’t much different from “Make sure you are not culturing brain eating amoebas. lol” in post #8 by Randy. Both were clearly intended as comic relief. If you have a problem with mine but not Randy’s, isn’t that a bit of a double standard?

Seriously?

There is a world of difference between a joke that does not attack anyone, and one that implies another member has a brain defect.