Dinoflagellates – Are You Tired Of Battling Altogether?

[Paullawr]

I've been looking at the coral life turbo twist. Kind of a neat concept of having the water flow around the bulb 3-12 times over depending on the size. Also people have been having luck with jebao's.

I had one but never used it so sold it in. Should of kept it....

 

[Paullawr]

Hi, no sorry but the difference is like day and night.

This is extremely positive. UV will not cause them to encyst as it will kill on Co tactics so after a period of time (be good to know what the full life cycle is as in duration) technically when that'd passed they should be gone. In which case safe to turn off UV?

 

[taricha]

I have to admit that I have not read this entire thread but from what I've read on this thread as well as others is that you are most susceptible to dinos while having uln water parameters. My question is can you still get them with higher water parameters? I have something going on in my tank which I suspect to be dinos for the last couple of months but I am not uln. In fact I started seeing them when my phosphates were above 0.613 which is as high as my Hanna ultra low phosphate reader would read. So it could have been higher. And my nitrates we're off the charts

Yes, dinos can grow above those P & N numbers, it's just that they almost never take over a tank and dominate in conditions like that where so many things could grow. Whatever it is, we'd love to see 'scope pics of it.

Update Ozone and UV, So far so good. Will do a second Blackout after a week. I lowered the ORP to 360-375. UV connected with less water flow rate today.

Here's my question. And it's mostly rhetorical. Not aimed at you, but an approach I've seen where people combine every technique that worked for anyone else.
So you've hit all the photosynthetic stuff in your tank with a potent combo of darkness, UV, ozone etc. And the dinos (and algae too) are disappearing.
So what's going to replace them? What is the exit strategy?
Because the niche of a photosynthetic organism that can anchor to the rock/sand and pull available nutrients from the water is still going to be there in any reef tank. Your pest is gone, but the niche can't be eradicated.
Something will move in. And if you don't actively select for something else, decent chance it'll be dinos again.

For example, one big reason that you're still not picking up any P on your tests is that bacteria are hard at work trying to break down the "armor plates" that these dino's leave as detritus when their die.

Dino's make a lot of cells and those skeletonized, dead cells are an extremely concentrated "carbon source" – something like a 3000:1 carbon ratio! – so it takes LOTS of N and P to break all that detritus down. (If you're familiar with garden composting, things like newsprint and sawdust are really high in carbon ratio, but only score something like 400:1.)

That bacterial lock on P is caused by the dino bloom AND it's usually what keeps perpetuating the dino bloom. Pretty nice system they have! ;Bored

Yep, the dinos have these systems on a "Redfield lock" by having constantly available C to deplete any P and N
We've seen people add really large amounts of P - some well upwards of 1.0 ppm PO4 over weeks to process out this C backlog.
I ran some numbers just for my curiosity to get an idea of the size of the C backlog the dinos have created.
Assuming the traditional Redfield ratio 106:16:1 C to N to P just as a ballpark approximation,
If you have a 50 gallon tank and have to add 1ppm PO4, the carbon backlog is the equivalent of 330 ml of vinegar locked away in the tank somewhere.

Something that may be a more affordable option:
The AquaUV 114 watt is basically two 57 watt units connected together in series. You could try running two of the Jebao 55 watt units in series and get something close that might be effective at a significantly lower cost.
Just a thought.

Yeah, I once slow-poured ostreopsis through a 24w UV and they were active 1hr and 24 hrs later, but in tank the UV was very effective.
I interpret this to mean that it's repeated exposure over time, so if this theory is right, a few smaller units ought to work just as well as a large one. But that's speculative, and based on only a single observation, that I'd love to see confirmed or disputed.

yesterday I came home from work and dinos on the glass are dying I think, there is round marks and its getting white as if something is eating it. Its not my snails cose they left zig zac form on the glass when they eat. Here are some pictures from yesterday

What do you think?
Other question there is someone on the treat that menaged to eliminate ostreopsis with only balancing the tank? Or there is always some extra like uv...

When I've had those little rings on glass in the system, examination of the ring showed big population of protists, mostly ciliates very dense at the ring's edge.

P & N dosing has helped some without other interventions, but It takes significantly longer and can look like it's going the "wrong direction" for weeks.

This is awesome information! When you say to deal with a bloom, I should continue to work on getting my P levels to around 0.1, correct? Also, would love any thoughts on the UV sterilizes. Is there any minimum wattage needed to kill Ostreopsis?

Yep that level of PO4 0.1 is sufficient to cause changes we're going for.
Ostreopsis, Prorocentrum, Coolia, and small cell amphidinium (not large cell) have been reduced significantly at UV in the 1watt per 2 gallon range. 1w per 3-5 gallon has been inconsistent- worked for many, but not all.

 

[fishbox]

Yes, dinos can grow above those P & N numbers, it's just that they almost never take over a tank and dominate in conditions like that where so many things could grow. Whatever it is, we'd love to see 'scope pics of it.

Thanks for the reply I'll order a scope and get a proper ID.

 

[mcarroll]

Also, would love any thoughts on the UV sterilizes. Is there any minimum wattage needed to kill Ostreopsis?

There has been a lot of discussion on UV already if you want to see what folks have already used. Check out this thread search: UV

 

[Paullawr]

Yes, dinos can grow above those P & N numbers, it's just that they almost never take over a tank and dominate in conditions like that where so many things could grow. Whatever it is, we'd love to see 'scope pics of it.


Here's my question. And it's mostly rhetorical. Not aimed at you, but an approach I've seen where people combine every technique that worked for anyone else.
So you've hit all the photosynthetic stuff in your tank with a potent combo of darkness, UV, ozone etc. And the dinos (and algae too) are disappearing.
So what's going to replace them? What is the exit strategy?
Because the niche of a photosynthetic organism that can anchor to the rock/sand and pull available nutrients from the water is still going to be there in any reef tank. Your pest is gone, but the niche can't be eradicated.
Something will move in. And if you don't actively select for something else, decent chance it'll be dinos again.


Yep, the dinos have these systems on a "Redfield lock" by having constantly available C to deplete any P and N
We've seen people add really large amounts of P - some well upwards of 1.0 ppm PO4 over weeks to process out this C backlog.
I ran some numbers just for my curiosity to get an idea of the size of the C backlog the dinos have created.
Assuming the traditional Redfield ratio 106:16:1 C to N to P just as a ballpark approximation,
If you have a 50 gallon tank and have to add 1ppm PO4, the carbon backlog is the equivalent of 330 ml of vinegar locked away in the tank somewhere.


Yeah, I once slow-poured ostreopsis through a 24w UV and they were active 1hr and 24 hrs later, but in tank the UV was very effective.
I interpret this to mean that it's repeated exposure over time, so if this theory is right, a few smaller units ought to work just as well as a large one. But that's speculative, and based on only a single observation, that I'd love to see confirmed or disputed.


When I've had those little rings on glass in the system, examination of the ring showed big population of protists, mostly ciliates very dense at the ring's edge.

P & N dosing has helped some without other interventions, but It takes significantly longer and can look like it's going the "wrong direction" for weeks.



Yep that level of PO4 0.1 is sufficient to cause changes we're going for.
Ostreopsis, Prorocentrum, Coolia, and small cell amphidinium (not large cell) have been reduced significantly at UV in the 1watt per 2 gallon range. 1w per 3-5 gallon has been inconsistent- worked for many, but not all.

Regarding UV. Would this not be a case of contact time with the UV against the quartz sleeve.

The larger the organism the longer the exposure time and stronger the wattage is required.

 

[mcarroll]

If you have a 50 gallon tank and have to add 1ppm PO4, the carbon backlog is the equivalent of 330 ml of vinegar locked away in the tank somewhere.

Once again: Wow.

I don't like dino's very much, but as usual I have to admit they are amazing in their capabilities.

 

[taricha]

Regarding UV. Would this not be a case of contact time with the UV against the quartz sleeve.

The larger the organism the longer the exposure time and stronger the wattage is required.

True, Cell size definitely matters. Other things matter too - every photosynthetic organism produces reactive oxygen in the cell, so has to have a way to deal with it. Some classes have strong reactive oxygen scavenging systems. I think Osti's are more susceptible to oxidation than some other dinos. (Why some few people could get results with very reasonable h2o2 doses).
A paper tested out a bunch of different single cell things vs oxidation by peroxide and found that from most sensitive to least was:
cyano, green microalgae (phyto), dinos, and the least sensitive by far was diatoms. Within those classes cll size and cell wall mattered. But the biggest variation was one class vs another.
I've also seen diatoms increase in systems with UV, which may be because they stay attached better and avoid it or it could be because they have really good ways of dealing with reactive oxygen.

 

[taricha]

Once again: Wow.

I don't like dino's very much, but as usual I have to admit they are amazing in their capabilities.

I know. It's amazing every time I see it in comments like someone's been dosing +.10 ppm PO4 for 2 weeks and still testing zero P. People fighting dinos by overfeeding have been wondering for a long time where the heck is all this nutrient input going?
Just think if that's how much straight P you have to add to balance things, imagine how long it would take with dumping food in - which is adding everything - not purely P (&N) to correct that imbalance.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

True, Cell size definitely matters. Other things matter too - every photosynthetic organism produces reactive oxygen in the cell, so has to have a way to deal with it. Some classes have strong reactive oxygen scavenging systems. I think Osti's are more susceptible to oxidation than some other dinos. (Why some few people could get results with very reasonable h2o2 doses).
A paper tested out a bunch of different single cell things vs oxidation by peroxide and found that from most sensitive to least was:
cyano, green microalgae (phyto), dinos, and the least sensitive by far was diatoms. Within those classes cll size and cell wall mattered. But the biggest variation was one class vs another.
I've also seen diatoms increase in systems with UV, which may be because they stay attached better and avoid it or it could be because they have really good ways of dealing with reactive oxygen.

You assume that a UV sterilizer is primarily working to disinfect by oxidation? Do you have evidence of that?

That isn't the normal expectation for UV disinfection, I don't think.

 

[Paullawr]

True, Cell size definitely matters. Other things matter too - every photosynthetic organism produces reactive oxygen in the cell, so has to have a way to deal with it. Some classes have strong reactive oxygen scavenging systems. I think Osti's are more susceptible to oxidation than some other dinos. (Why some few people could get results with very reasonable h2o2 doses).
A paper tested out a bunch of different single cell things vs oxidation by peroxide and found that from most sensitive to least was:
cyano, green microalgae (phyto), dinos, and the least sensitive by far was diatoms. Within those classes cll size and cell wall mattered. But the biggest variation was one class vs another.
I've also seen diatoms increase in systems with UV, which may be because they stay attached better and avoid it or it could be because they have really good ways of dealing with reactive oxygen.

Presumably then why ozone may work, again for some. Certainly for alitoo.

I've only ever thought of UV unravelling the organisms DNA, well damaging/corrupting it.

 

[taricha]

You assume that a UV sterilizer is primarily working to disinfect by oxidation? Do you have evidence of that?

That isn't the normal expectation for UV disinfection, I don't think.

hmm...
I was reading a bunch of stuff on UV used in advanced oxidation processes: UV+h2o2, UV+O3, UV+TiO2, UV+Fe+h2o2 etc like here.
"The Photo-Fenton Oxidation — A cheap and efficient wastewater treatment method"
And in all this stuff, UV is used to generate or upgrade the oxidizing.

And stuff about oxidizer damage to DNA and the light/dark damage/repair mechanisms.
UV-induced DNA damage and repair: A review

Photodynamic reactions are potential mechanisms by which ultraviolet radiation damages living cells. The high energy short-wavelength photons absorbed by chromophoric molecules can lead to the formation of singlet oxygen or free radicals known to destroy membranes and other cellular components. In fact, photons from UV-A radiation and visible light up to 670 nm are also able to generate 1O2 through type II photosensitization reactions.
DNA is obviously one of the key targets for UV-induced damage in a variety of organisms such as bacteria, cyanobacteria, phytoplankton, macroalgae, plants, animals and humans.

but looks like I conflated UV's role in oxidizer damage and my brain read all UV damage as mediated by oxidation. And accidentally read all instances of "photodamage" in my head as being executed by mechanism of reactive oxygen species....

Even under the best circumstances, DNA is constantly subject to chemical modification. Several different types of DNA damage have been identified that result from (i) alkylating agents (essential for a number of biosynthetic processes), that can turn a legitimate base into either a mutagenic, miscoding deviant, or a lethal, noncoding lesion, (ii) hydrolytic deamination that can directly change one base into another and (iii) free radicals and reactive oxygen species formed by various photochemical processes. However, the two major classes of mutagenic DNA lesions induced by UV radiation are cyclobutane– pyrimidine dimers (CPDs) and 6–4 photoproducts (6– 4PPs, which are pyrimidine adducts), and their Dewar valence isomers.

but it sounds like I've been misreading and that's not the case? that UV has sufficient energy to either bust up DNA directly or create reactive products that aren't oxygen species?

 

[Paullawr]

hmm...
I was reading a bunch of stuff on UV used in advanced oxidation processes: UV+h2o2, UV+O3, UV+TiO2, UV+Fe+h2o2 etc like here.
"The Photo-Fenton Oxidation — A cheap and efficient wastewater treatment method"
And in all this stuff, UV is used to generate or upgrade the oxidizing.

And stuff about oxidizer damage to DNA and the light/dark damage/repair mechanisms.
UV-induced DNA damage and repair: A review


but looks like I conflated UV's role in oxidizer damage and my brain read all UV damage as mediated by oxidation. And accidentally read all instances of "photodamage" in my head as being executed by mechanism of reactive oxygen species....

but it sounds like I've been misreading and that's not the case? that UV has sufficient energy to either bust up DNA directly or create reactive products that aren't oxygen species?

Everyone over reads and makes mistakes Taricha. Don't worry about it. Hel1 I do all the time.

 

[Paullawr]

You assume that a UV sterilizer is primarily working to disinfect by oxidation? Do you have evidence of that?

That isn't the normal expectation for UV disinfection, I don't think.

See this is why like you Randy. Very knowledgable.

 

[dragon99]

So I'll apologize for the crummy pics. It's only the $13 microscope, but I still feel like I can do better with some practice.

Are these dinos? And what kind?

 

[Jolanta]

So I'll apologize for the crummy pics. It's only the $13 microscope, but I still feel like I can do better with some practice.

Are these dinos? And what kind?

They look like coolia to me

 

[reeferfoxx]

So I'll apologize for the crummy pics. It's only the $13 microscope, but I still feel like I can do better with some practice.

Are these dinos? And what kind?

Do they look and move like this?

 

[dragon99]

Do they look and move like this?

I'd say that's pretty close.

Here'a motion pic
https://photos.app.goo.gl/cPXhShCDtYu1VyTy2

 

[Paullawr]

Seriously who came up with name coolia. I read it as coolio everytime and think of some blind dude singing gangsters paradise.

 

[Paullawr]

I'd say that's pretty close.

Here'a motion pic
https://photos.app.goo.gl/cPXhShCDtYu1VyTy2

Welcome to the club no one wants to be in.