Does having a reef packed with corals take up fish space?

[Auquanut]

1) Do coral take up fish space in our reef tanks?
Yes. Of course. A good thing that can become a less than good thing. Corals are good biofiltration and give added cover and security to the finned inhabitants. At a certain point, without proper pruning, the corals (especially SPS) can become restrictive. It really comes down to tank maintenance. I admit that I have been way too lax on the pruning side.
2) At what point(s) should this factor into our reef planning?
It depends on who you are talking to. In my opinion, the new reefer should worry more about which corals to try first and where to place them to prevent warfare than overgrowth. Let's face it. When we first start the coral adventure, ability to grow corals trumps eventual space limitations. By the time space starts to become a factor, the reefer is far more prepared to deal with the issue.

For the experienced reefer who is setting up a new tank, the vision of what you want to achieve long term is probably more defined. For those, factoring in space would more likely be something to consider from day one. That's what I'm going to do.

 

[duke62]

I haven’t noticed any stressed fish whatsoever. Matter of fact it’s the opposite. Fish look incredibly healthy and a lot less aggression

 

[RSnodgrass]

If a reefer filled a tank full of rock amassing an area the same as a single stag, colt, sinulara, toadstool, monti cap, ect. that can fill the entire 1/3rd - 1/2 of a 125 gal we'd say it's cruel and unhealthy. Being a pretty coral does not constitute a pass for me.

Putting a 7' guy in a house with 5' doors doesn't make for an acceptable house so why would it for fish? Doesn't matter if the door is 5' or if it's a picture hanging in the way of the height.

I under estimated my coral growth specifically around overhangs. My fish as a result push all the sand away to make room so I'm having to redo it 4 yrs later. No amount of trimming will reduce the problem because the fish also got bigger so I have to remove the coral or fix the overhangs. Neither is easy and many would never get around to it IMO.

 

[shakacuz]

i got fish that stay relatively small and are not generally active swimmers in order to focus on stuffing my 40B with corals. that being said, i do try to envision what corals will grow out to be like so i can plan around any potential changes (having to move rockwork around, or even corals, etc)

 

[brahm]

Nah, i’ve had tanks with corals growing out of the water and from edge to edge.

Now my tank is new (1 year or so), frags are still frags my fish pretty much swim and spend most of their time under the cover of rock work, Including my tangs.

Unless you have large groups of fish I find very few fish swim around openly much. The tank I have now I built the rock work about halfway and left the front 1/3rd open. 99% of the time all my fish are in the rock work or below the rock line.

half the tank is open water. 2 tangs, 2 clowns, 2 blennies, 2 gobies and a filefish. 4x3x2

.

 

[damsels are not mean]

If you're a stickhead that is going to double the size of your scape via acro skeleton growth, you should think ahead with your fish stocking choices. Damsels, gobies, blennies, chromis, wrasses, etc. in large numbers can add the motion of the big swimmers but they appreciate the crevices between branches and some fishes like the shade created by large tabling acros and plating montis. That is not to say tangs and angels can't be kept in these spaces but do consider that the usual rules for swimming space and tank size are different when you're talking fish only vs packed full of big skeletons. Do you want to grow a lot of corals or do you want to have big fishes? You can do both, but you will need a bigger tank than you think, and you need to consider the growth when you build your rockscape.

Of course, if you're gonna do a tank full of zoas, mushrooms, and a few gorgonians, who cares?

 

[The_Skrimp]

Honestly the more stuff I throw in the tank, the happier the fish seem to be. I think they like the extra hiding spots.

 

[bxclent]

Ok, so at first brush this question may seem like it has an obvious answer. Still I wonder how many of us have given thought to this. We know that fish need a certain amount of swimming space (how much per species is certainly up for debate), so when we start packing corals into a tank, should we be factoring this in? At what point does it become something we need to worry about? As corals grow, they take up more and more space. We've all seen those reef tanks that are packed to the brim with coral colonies, was there a sacrifice made there to balance livestock (i.e. less fish, smaller fish, less active fish, etc.)? I'm hoping this might be a fun topic for our discussion today. So...

1) Do coral take up fish space in our reef tanks?
2) At what point(s) should this factor into our reef planning?

Photo of @glennf's beautiful packed reef! (You can check out his build thread HERE)

OK, so I have a Biocube 29/32. I already have 2 Percula clownfish and am planning on only adding 2 other smaller fish plus a CUC. No news. How many corals does everyone recommend ? It can be a rough guest.

 

[Paul B]

Nobody keeps the same tank long enough to find out anymore.

I do.

But if you want to see how much space fish need, go SCUBA diving and watch them. Many fish live in the corals and the rest swim over them.

 

[hart24601]

I have some chalk bass in my waterbox 100.3 (36”x24”) and it’s mostly sps. Almost every on of them has lost an eye from dashing and hitting coral. Plenty of spots to hide, but they dart seemingly without a real direction and hit the coral. So yes, it can be a huge issue even if you have a reasonable fish in a suitable size tank.

 

[Kiwi reefer]

Fish will adapt but should they have to?

We for the most part have planned there lives, and a tank full of coral is always amazing to look at but some of our fish (tangs) are gonna get big and will need more room

but to me sounds like it’s time for a bigger tank haha

 

[ReeferMadness01]

I don’t see an issue with it. Once your corals grow I find it provides more cover for them to hide behind.

 

[WallyB]

If the overgrowth is SPS, pruning can solve large colony growth (we all wish we could have). But that takes years if tank is properly sized.

Packing SPS frags too close (my biggest mistake I keep making) can be mitigated by mounting SPS on movable rocks.

Soft corals and other non SPS corals is a totally different ball game when it comes to invasive coral spreading and overgrowth.

 

[J1a]

One of the often neglected issue is the reduction of the hiding place as the colonies grow bigger.
In my opinion, the reduction could easily cause the hiding place to be too small for the original tenant. That is something we need to be mindful about.

I believe the planning should be done right from the start. The appeal of keeping corals, is to establish mature colonies (my tank is not there yet). If we have to hack off half of it ever so often, then it will be very difficult to have the matured look.

 

[Paston1]

It should be planned for but not by coral I think. More with the rock work. We place the coral on the rock and continue husbandry on corals. Sadly we don’t do this on rocks.
For example I realized that most tanks aren’t wide enough even if they are long. My working theory here is swim space is more important than total volume. Example 8 ft x 2ft x 3 ft. This is a massive tank but it’s either in front or behind the rock basically to hide. But consider a 4x4x2 tank. Well you just added additional depth and locations for isolation along with ability to roam in any give direction. I think that provide the ability to be secluded, group together, hang out, go for weekly lap and potentially reduce aggression due to ability to get away and not be seen
Put it frankly testing this theory on the new build lol.

 

[Stigigemla]

It can sometimes be a problem having fishes from open gravel bottom in a reef tank.
They usually swim away from danger. Reef fishes hide in the nearest safe spot like a crevice or a coral.
The size of the tank is for many species not only in gallons but more the number of good hiding places.
I did a quick search on chalk bass so here You can see some videos on where they live. (Google: Chalk bass spawning)

 

[casey012293]

Massive reef structures do of course take up space - fish can't swim through coral (grin). On the other hand, there are species like some basslets that really prefer coral crevices.

Years ago, I kept finding myself at odds with the tang police. Turns out, it was mostly due to different interpretations of what "100 gallons" is. To me, 100 gallons is a cube of water about 72'x18'x18". In my mind's eye, you can put "X" amount of fish in that much water. To a reef aquarist however, their 100 gallon tank might only have 48"x12"x12" of open water for tangs to swim in!

Earlier this year, I posted my fish swimming space article here:

Estimating the Need for Swimming Space for Aquarium Fishes

This article explores required aquarium sizes for marine fishes

www.reef2reef.com

Jay Hemdal

I think your article brings up great points about husbandry compared to space to make fish happy. There is obviously huge consideration to the overall size that a fish gets, but why is someone with a 200 gallon overgrown SPS tank not looked down upon for keeping large tang species like Achilles, sailfin, or powder tangs crammed with no swimming space yet someone with a 50 gallon wide open tank with hiding spots will just about have their head ripped off for having a smaller species tang like the Tomini? I agree wholeheartedly in keeping health of the fish in mind, but when you label something as simple as tank size as what should suit a broad category of fish, then you should flat out say that this fish should only be kept in the ocean because you aren’t considering their overall health in captivity. Regardless of where they end up, their little boxes and quarantines for months in the process of getting to an aquarium are far smaller than the reef tanks you consider unsuitable for them.

 

[MnFish1]

VERY TRUE, as clownfish host corals sometimes.

Actually no - clownfish do not host corals . Sorry that was kind of a joke - because its a hotly discussed item. IN reality - if anything was hosting anything - the 'stationary thing' (coral, anemone, etc) - is the one doing the hosting. The fish just comes by.

 

[Unitylover]

Actually no - clownfish do not host corals . Sorry that was kind of a joke - because its a hotly discussed item. IN reality - if anything was hosting anything - the 'stationary thing' (coral, anemone, etc) - is the one doing the hosting. The fish just comes by.

oh ok

 

[glennf]

Ok, so at first brush this question may seem like it has an obvious answer. Still I wonder how many of us have given thought to this. We know that fish need a certain amount of swimming space (how much per species is certainly up for debate), so when we start packing corals into a tank, should we be factoring this in? At what point does it become something we need to worry about? As corals grow, they take up more and more space. We've all seen those reef tanks that are packed to the brim with coral colonies, was there a sacrifice made there to balance livestock (i.e. less fish, smaller fish, less active fish, etc.)? I'm hoping this might be a fun topic for our discussion today. So...

1) Do coral take up fish space in our reef tanks?
2) At what point(s) should this factor into our reef planning?

Photo of @glennf's beautiful packed reef! (You can check out his build thread HERE)

For the fish population this tank was no problem. The tank was a peninsula and large enough, it had space in front and back to swim around and Plenty of hidingspace.

The corals caused problems for themselves. When growth andvances towards the surface it became an umbrella limiting light and flow, causing the corals below to turn into "liverock".

Timely pruning pevent these problems. When Growth is extreme, Pruning need to be part of the maintenance shedule.