Effectiveness of liverock when full encrusted?

CaptainScuba

Community Member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 11, 2025
Messages
85
Reaction score
74
Location
North Palm Beach
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I've been looking around at some mature/established tanks on the internet. Some people have unique tanks, for example, a GSP tank. I saw today a tank where the rocks were COVERED and I mean from top to bottom, every square inch covered. It got me thinking - if the GSP (or in other cases - montipora, favia, zoanthids, etc.) covers every surface of a rock. What happens with the "liverock" inside. All of the bacteria, algae, etc that was growing on that rock must be smothered? Is there still bacteria living inside converting ammonia? Maybe we dont even really know the answer to this. But I'm picturing that most mature, years old tanks, must have a majority of the live rock surfaces completely coated by a variety of encrusting corals.
 
Very interesting question that I never really thought about. I guess if we're talking about a good 85-95% encrusted, I'd have to guess logically what @BryanM says. But I'm no Underwater Rocket Surgeon. 😜
 
It is true that the nonlit areas provide lots of surface area, as does any sand, but I'll throw out an entirely different challenge, and one that goes against a strongly held reef mantra:

Is it even desirable to have this surface area? In many cases, I contend not.

Reefers are obsessed with nitrification, but I'm not sure it is needed or desirable in many reef tanks. I don't think my tank needs it.

Corals prefer ammonia over nitrate. So do macroalgae. Why worry about bacteria that are converting a useful N source to a less useful N source? Let the creatures you want most benefit from it.

On a related note, ammonia is not ever elevated to problematic levels in any reef tank that I have ever seen reported, barring some sort of problem scenario such as a power failure.
 
It is true that the nonlit areas provide lots of surface area, as does any sand, but I'll throw out an entirely different challenge, and one that goes against a strongly held reef mantra:

Is it even desirable to have this surface area? In many cases, I contend not.

Reefers are obsessed with nitrification, but I'm not sure it is needed or desirable in many reef tanks. I don't think my tank needs it.

Corals prefer ammonia over nitrate. So do macroalgae. Why worry about bacteria that are converting a useful N source to a less useful N source? Let the creatures you want most benefit from it.

On a related note, ammonia is not ever elevated to problematic levels in any reef tank that I have ever seen reported, barring some sort of problem scenario such as a power failure.
so ive heard about ammonia dosing (ato or just straight shots) is there any actual benefit from that.
 
The bacteria will be both inside the rock and growing on the base of the GSP, as well as all over pretty much any other surface including sand and any biomedia you may have. And the GSP itself will uptake ammonia on its own. There is no way that a rock covered in coral is somehow less effective at biofilteration.
 
Last edited:
I would think if truly fully encrusted it wouldn't really be that effective anymore as live rock.
Why not? I cannot tell you that rock holds the same exact bacteria and fauna as glass, or sand, or plastic, or coral. But the stuff growing on the rock is more surface area. The rock under the coral or algea it is still wet and porous and still harboring life. Very dense rock may have no life "inside" of it but how dense does it have to be? Porous rock will have life in the pores and cavities, but one way or the other the tank is full of life and virtually everything in the tank is covered in life, and that life is what is doing the work.
 
Last edited:
Why not? I can not tell you that rock holds the same exact bacteria and fauna as glass, or sand, or plastic, or coral. But the stuff growing on the rock is more surface area. The rock under the coral or algea it is still wet and porous and still harboring life. Very dense rock may have no life "inside" of it but how dense does it have to be? Porous rock will have life in the pores and cavities, but one way or the other the tank is full of life and virtually everything in the tank is covered in life, and that life is what is doing the work.
So I don't believe this would be easy to accomplish in real life, but my thought was if the rock is really fully encrusted then then it really is not porous anymore.
 
So I don't believe this would be easy to accomplish in real life, but my thought was if the rock is really fully encrusted then then it really is not porous anymore.
Right, but it is encrusted with surface area. Rock is not magic, it is surface area, like substrate, coral skeleton, glass, and everything else. We can argue that deep pores may support benthic or anaerobic processes, but as Randy noted above, we do not have a shortage of surface area, particularly for nitrification.
 
Why not? I can not tell you that rock holds the same exact bacteria and fauna as glass, or sand, or plastic, or coral. But the stuff growing on the rock is more surface area. The rock under the coral or algea it is still wet and porous and still harboring life. Very dense rock may have no life "inside" of it but how dense does it have to be? Porous rock will have life in the pores and cavities, but one way or the other the tank is full of life and virtually everything in the tank is covered in life, and that life is what is doing the work.

Agreed. The surface community may change but the rock doesn’t become biologically inert and neither does the rest of the aquarium.
 
Why not? I cannot tell you that rock holds the same exact bacteria and fauna as glass, or sand, or plastic, or coral. But the stuff growing on the rock is more surface area. The rock under the coral or algea it is still wet and porous and still harboring life. Very dense rock may have no life "inside" of it but how dense does it have to be? Porous rock will have life in the pores and cavities, but one way or the other the tank is full of life and virtually everything in the tank is covered in life, and that life is what is doing the work.
The devil is in the details. What determines effectiveness? For me, live rock effectiveness is determined by its biodiversity. I buy diver collected live rock for biodiversity.

I am with Randy on this one; I don’t require nitrification chemistry as I dose ammonia to keep up with nitrogen demand.

I doubt that any encrusting coral completely blocks diffusion of water thru its membrane into the interior of the live rock. Of course the bacteria cultures in the interior will be different than the bacteria on the coral surface. However, the effects of each culture would be different yet difficult to quantify.
 
I doubt that any encrusting coral completely blocks diffusion of water thru its membrane into the interior of the live rock. Of course the bacteria cultures in the interior will be different than the bacteria on the coral surface....
...I don’t require nitrification chemistry as
I am going to avoid the biodiversity part for now, but want to touch on two points.

First, we can ignore nitrification, but we can't avoid it. It a foundation of the life in our systems. We can try to feed heterotrophs or coral in a manner that allows them to consume theoretically first, but the nitrifiers are in the background expanding and contracting to pickup the slack. I think Randy's idea has merit, but I also think that he realizes in reality we can't really change much other than maybe provide less surface area for them to colonize, but that is a guess, because we don't really have grasp on what that threshold is, at least at the hobby level in any given tank.

Second, the idea that live rock is full of bacteria is a bit of a myth. The porosity and permeability of each rock and rock type is different. We often confuse porosity with permeability, they are not the same. In general there are no bacteria inside of rocks. Some rocks may diffuse minerals, but they are not wet inside either. Let's ignore water microscopic water molecules fully trapped in the structure, sealed from the world since the time the rock was created.

Aragonite is a crystal, the open spaces between molecules are smaller than bacteria by maybe 100 times. Ignoring anaerobes, bacteria need flow and oxygen. “Live rock” is alive on the surface and in the pores that are large enough to allow oxygenated water to flow.

A rock may be riddled with holes like a sponge and those tunnels may harbor bacteria, but looks are deceiving. Take Fiji rock for example: some is porous and some is extremely heavy and dense and solid.

Certain Fiji rock has a rough pebbly surface, but ocean conglomerate rock that is basically solid. On the opposite end of the spectrum, a piece o pukani from Fiji, is extremely porous like a sponge, and therefore has much more surface area where advective (that oxygenated water) flow can harbor life.

The point being, that for our purposes rock supports life where oxygenated water can flow, that is mostly the surface structure and any continuously connected pores that allow water flow. Deeper than that, the rock is basically dry and void of life. The pores that are dead ends and restrict flow may become anaerobic, but like their aerobic cousins, this is surface life too.
 
Last edited:

TOP 10 Trending Threads

WHAT FIRST SPARKED YOUR INTEREST IN REEFING?

  • I saw a reef tank that hooked me

    Votes: 18 19.8%
  • I was already keeping freshwater aquariums

    Votes: 34 37.4%
  • A particular fish got me interested

    Votes: 12 13.2%
  • Corals and inverts were the draw

    Votes: 17 18.7%
  • A friend or family member introduced me

    Votes: 10 11.0%
  • The science and ecosystem challenge appealed to me

    Votes: 17 18.7%
  • I stumbled into it… and here we are

    Votes: 12 13.2%
  • Other (Post in the comments)

    Votes: 14 15.4%
Back
Top
Home
Post thread…
Market
What's new