Micro algae’s blooms in aquaria are directly connected to a CNP limitation.

[sixty_reefer]

Nor have you provided any credible evidence that it is not untrue. If you were a CharBot, the supporting evidence provided so far for the hypothesis would be considered “hallucinating”.

What about the critique of the hypothesis being ridiculous and sweeping? You have ‘t addressed that.

You are correct therefore how can you say it’s not true?
This is not something that can be tested in little cubes of water.

 

[Dan_P]

That statement could theoretically be correct for macro algae not for phytoplankton.

Wrong again.

This hypothesis we are discussing is starting feel like a conspiracy theory, where many, many assumptions and and improbable oddities of nature all have to be correct for it to be valid.

 

[Garf]

I can culture phytoplankton and pods in the same vessel without crashing the same phytoplankton culture and to a extent the same can be done with rotifers.

Is this not just an observation that "micro" algae have a faster rate of replication. Do you think "micro" and "macro" have vastly different processes underway? I've always just considered it a limitation of human eyesight.

Edit, for what it's worth I have a few clips below showing the difference of a healthy algae scrubber screen that has small herbivores removed regularly by cleaning the screen, and one where the small herbivores are allowed to reproduce. Same tank conditions, same everything.

 

[Hans-Werner]

In Nannochloropsis cultures for example many do crash often due to bacterial activity caused by the release organic carbon from that same phytoplankton.
Organic carbon tends to be the main limiting nutrient for bacteria to develop in this vessels.
I can culture phytoplankton and pods in the same vessel without crashing the same phytoplankton culture and to a extent the same can be done with rotifers.

Interesting statements.

I did apply Nanochloropsis to some tanks and if I recall it right some must have come into a freshly set up system where it caused an intense dark green bloom. It was incredibly hard to remove. Pods also didn't help but seemed to die in the green water. It also didn't get better with time. I think it was around a year or so until I finally cleared it up with a UV-sterilizer.

I have the "luck" to frequently get phytoplankton blooms in freshly set up tanks, mainly if I don't use live rock.

With the most recent planktonic blooms, the introduction of bacteria, nutrients and food seem to help. I think this doesn't prove your theory right or wrong in itself, but it is interesting.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Interesting statements.

I did apply Nanochloropsis to some tanks and if I recall it right some must have come into a freshly set up system where it caused an intense dark green bloom. It was incredibly hard to remove. Pods also didn't help but seemed to die in the green water. It also didn't get better with time. I think it was around a year or so until I finally cleared it up with a UV-sterilizer.

I have the "luck" to frequently get phytoplankton blooms in freshly set up tanks, mainly if I don't use live rock.

With the most recent planktonic blooms, the introduction of bacteria, nutrients and food seem to help. I think this doesn't prove your theory right or wrong in itself, but it is interesting.

To prove my thought all it’s needed it’s a few aerated vessels with dinoflagellates and f2, once the culture is ready add a little tank water from a mature system and a little of reef actif. I would be fairly surprised if all cultures didn’t crash.

In a reef tank, same could be done by adding NP Plus and reef actif.
But more complicated to proof the theory for the more skeptical aquarists.

Maybe a project for someone with more means than me.
At the end of the day I wouldn’t gain much from proving or disproving it, it’s not something that is problematic for myself.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Is this not just an observation that "micro" algae have a faster rate of replication. Do you think "micro" and "macro" have vastly different processes underway? I've always just considered it a limitation of human eyesight.

Edit, for what it's worth I have a few clips below showing the difference of a healthy algae scrubber screen that has small herbivores removed regularly by cleaning the screen, and one where the small herbivores are allowed to reproduce. Same tank conditions, same everything.

Is it your belief that the pods are feeding on the algae in your case?

 

[Garf]

Is it your belief that the pods are feeding on the algae in your case?

It's probably a very poor example actually, maybe even totally irrelevant. Algal attachment sites are by necessity the oldest cells that obtain the lowest amount of light and therefore destined to die first. Thus detachment known as "sloughing". The forest of algae acts like a breeding centre and a detritus catchment area which I believe fuels the pod growth. I do believe they scoured the clearings in the forest of algae as detritus levels dropped, relative to the population, which was my attempted point. Something that would not be possible if something like a non herbivorous fish was down there.

 

[sixty_reefer]

It's probably a very poor example actually, maybe even totally irrelevant. Algal attachment sites are by necessity the oldest cells that obtain the lowest amount of light and therefore destined to die first. Thus detachment known as "sloughing". The forest of algae acts like a breeding centre and a detritus catchment area which I believe fuels the pod growth. I do believe they scoured the clearings in the forest of algae as detritus levels dropped, relative to the population, which was my attempted point. Something that would not be possible if something like a non herbivorous fish was down there.

It’s a little off topic but we do have similar views in this particular case. Pods don’t seem to prefer live algae vs dead algae that ends up in detritus with other organic.