Nitrogen Cycle - Fish - Light - Coral - Game Over?

Status
Not open for further replies.

sixty_reefer

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
7,255
Reaction score
8,789
Location
The Reef
What state or country do you live in
United Kingdom
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
2024-11-06-22-34-19-672.jpeg


Why I Think Reef Aquarium Need More Than a Nitrogen Cycle.

Most reef aquarists are familiar with the process of cycling an aquarium. An ammonia source is added, bottled bacteria is introduced and water parameters are monitored until ammonia and nitrate reach zero. Fish are added, the lights are switched on and the aquarium is considered cycled. In many ways this has become the accepted end point of the startup process. The nitrogen cycle is complete, livestock can be added safely and the aquarium is officially underway.
the problem is that a complete nitrogen cycle and a mature ecosystem are not the same thing, the traditional cycling process was designed to solve a specific problem, ammonia toxicity. Nitrifying bacteria convert ammonia into nitrite and then nitrate, preventing the accumulation of compounds that would otherwise be harmful to fish and other organisms, this process is essential and without it no reef aquarium can function successfully. However, the nitrogen cycle represents only a small proportion of the biological complexity found within a healthy reef ecosystem, by focusing almost exclusively on nitrification, many aquarists unknowingly overlook the development of the broader biological community that ultimately determines long term stability and resilience.

for the purpose of this article, I use the term biome cycling, the term was introduced to many reef aquarists through Ryan’s BRS “investigates the ugly stage”. Those videos helped me shift attention beyond simple nitrification and towards the wider biological community that develops within the reef aquarium.

what follows is my own interpretation of that concept, along with observations from my recent threads on R2R. I don’t think biome cycling replaces the nitrogen cycle, i think it deserves to be viewed as a stage of aquarium development in its own right, the nitrogen cycle teaches an aquarium to process ammonia.

Biome cycling teaches it to process organic matter through life.

Natural reefs do not operate as simple ammonia processing systems, they function as vast networks of interconnected organisms continuously recycling nutrients, energy and organic matter. Bacteria, protozoa, copepods, amphipods, worms, sponges, algae, filter feeders and countless other organisms interact in ways that allow resources to move through the ecosystem rather than accumulate as waste. Every dead organism, every shed algal cell, every fragment of detritus becomes a resource for something else, waste is not simply removed, it is transformed.

This distinction becomes particularly apparent when comparing different cycling methods. Modern bottled bacteria and ammonia cycles are highly effective at establishing nitrification, they create populations of bacteria capable of processing ammonia rapidly and predictably. From a water chemistry standpoint, they work extremely well, what they do not provide is the complex range of organic compounds that drive ecological succession, pure ammonia supplies energy for nitrifying bacteria, but little else, there are no proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, dissolved organic compounds or particulate organic matter entering the system as a result the aquarium develops the ability to process ammonia without necessarily developing the biological pathways responsible for processing organic material.

The shrimp method produces a very different environment, while most hobbyists view the shrimp simply as an ammonia source, its ecological contribution extends far beyond nitrogen as the shrimp decomposes it releases proteins, amino acids, carbohydrates, fats, dissolved organic carbon, phosphorus and countless other organic compounds, these substances support heterotrophic bacteria in addition to nitrifying bacteria, biofilms begin to form on surfaces, microbial communities diversify, Protozoa find food sources, detrital pathways emerge, instead of establishing a single biological function, the aquarium begins developing multiple interconnected pathways for nutrient recycling.

This process can be viewed as the beginning of biome cycling. While the nitrogen cycle establishes the foundation for life, biome cycling establishes the relationships between living organisms that allow ecosystems to become increasingly self sustaining. In nature, nutrients rarely move directly from source to sink, instead they pass through numerous organisms before being recycled, algae grows and eventually dies, bacteria colonise and decompose the tissue, protozoa consume the bacteria, zooplankton consume the protozoans, filter feeders capture suspended particles detritivores process what settles, at each step nutrients are converted into living biomass before eventually re-entering the environment.

If nutrients move through organisms rather than directly through chemistry, then decomposition becomes one of the most important processes in the aquarium, decomposition is the mechanism that transfers organic matter into the food web.

One of the most overlooked aspects of biome development is the role of decomposition. In reef aquariums, decomposition is often viewed exclusively as a problem to be eliminated. certainly, large scale die offs can destabilise a system and should be avoided, however, small scale decomposition is a fundamental component of healthy ecosystems, in nature, macro algae does not simply grow until it is harvested, it sheds tissue continuously, older parts die while new growth replaces them, storms fragment algae and herbivores damage leafs, much of this material enters the detrital food web where it supports a wide range of organisms.

A similar process can occur in reef aquariums, small fragments of macro algae may become trapped within rock work, rubble zones, cryptic spaces or low flow areas of a refugium. Rather than immediately becoming pollution these fragments often become biological hotspots, heterotrophic bacteria rapidly colonise the decaying material and begin breaking down complex organic compounds within hours the algae becomes coated with microbial life and within days biofilms begin to develop across its surface.

A fragment of decomposing macroalgae is not waste.

It is a habitat.

This distinction is important because biofilms are among the most productive food sources in marine ecosystems, they attract protozoa, ciliates, flagellates, nematodes, copepods, amphipods, worms and countless other organisms that graze directly on bacteria or on the biofilm itself. Predatory microfauna follow the grazers, what began as a fragment of ageing algae gradually becomes a miniature ecosystem supporting multiple trophic levels.

A fragment of macro algae trapped within rock work may support several generations of microbial succession before it completely disappears, bacteria colonise it first, biofilms develop, protozo arrive. Grazers follow, predators follow the grazers, long before the original algae has disappeared, its nutrients and energy have already been transferred into multiple levels of the food web.

The pathway is remarkably efficient, macro algae becomes bacterial biomass, bacterial biomass becomes protozoan biomass, Protozoa becomes zooplankton and meiofauna, those organisms in turn become food for filter feeders, corals and larger consumers, rather than nutrients moving directly from algae into a harvesting bucket, they move through a living food web before eventually being recycled.

The algae is not simply decomposing.

It is being transformed into life.


IMG_1277.jpeg


In this way, a portion of the energy captured by macro algae may eventually become available to filter feeders, sponges, worms, and other suspension feeding organisms the algae is not simply disappearing from the system its biomass is being repackaged into progressively smaller and more biologically available forms as it moves through the food web.

This concept may also help explain why established live rock remains valuable even in an era of sterile dry rock systems, aquarists often think of live rock primarily as biological filtration but its greatest contribution may be the habitat it creates. The pores, crevices, tunnels and protected surfaces within live rock form countless microhabitats where fine particles, dissolved organics and algal fragments accumulate, these areas become centres of microbial activity and biodiversity.

However, the value of live rock may go beyond habitat alone.

Even a single piece of established live rock may introduce hundreds of organisms that would otherwise take months or years to appear naturally, bacteria, Protozoa, worms, pods, micro algae’s , sponges and biofilm forming organisms arrive already established and ready to colonise the system the value of live rock may be less about its surface area and more about the life it carries.

Even a relatively small amount of established live rock can provide the structure needed for decomposition pathways, biofilm communities and detrital food webs to develop, a single piece of mature live rock may contribute far more ecological complexity than its size would suggest.

This may help explain why mature aquariums containing refugiums, rubble areas, cryptic areas and small accumulations of detritus often support far greater biodiversity than highly sterile systems these environments provide habitat for the microbial loop, they create opportunities for nutrients and organic matter to move through living organisms rather than remaining dissolved in the water column, the result is often increased pod populations, sponge growth, filter feeder activity and greater ecological stability.

Perhaps one of the most overlooked examples of this principle is the refugium. Refugiums are commonly viewed as nutrient export devices, places where macro algae absorbs nitrate and phosphate before being harvested and removed, while this function is important, it may not be their only role, as macro algae grows, sheds tissue, ages and decomposes a portion of that organic material enters the food web, bacteria, protozoans, copepods, worms and sponges utilise these resources, converting plant biomass into living animal biomass, in this sense, the refugium becomes more than a nutrient scrubber.

It becomes a biological reactor.


2024-11-15-23-12-05-948.jpeg


A Proposed Approach to Biome Cycling

If the concepts discussed throughout this article have merit then perhaps reef aquarium startups could be approached differently.

Rather than viewing the completion of the nitrogen cycle as the starting signal for full lighting and rapid stocking, it may be beneficial to allow additional time for the wider biome to develop.

Perhaps the question is not how quickly we can add corals, but how much life we can establish before we do.

After nitrification is established and initial livestock is introduced, the aquarium could remain in a prolonged low light or dark phase, during this period the focus shifts away from coral growth and towards ecosystem development.

Organic matter could be intentionally introduced into the system through normal feeding, fish waste, detritus and the natural turnover of organic material, including small amounts of ageing macro algae, live rock, rubble zones, cryptic spaces and sand beds provide habitat where biofilms, bacteria, protozoa, copepods, worms, sponges and other organisms can establish themselves, the goal is not to create nutrient accumulation but to encourage nutrient recycling through living organisms.

Instead of measuring progress solely through ammonia, nitrate and phosphate, attention is also given to biodiversity, pods begin appearing on the glass, worms emerge from the rock work, sponge growth develops in shaded areas and biofilms become established.

A test kit tells us when the nitrogen cycle is functioning.

A microscope may tell us when the biome is developing.

Under a simple microscope, sand and rock samples could reveal an increasingly diverse community of ciliates, nematodes, flagellates, diatoms, copepod and other microscopic life, organisms that most aquarists never see, yet which may play a major role in nutrient recycling and food web development.

At some point the aquarium transitions from being merely cycled to becoming inhabited.

Only then are the lights gradually increased and corals introduced into an ecosystem that already contains functioning microbial loops, established food webs, natural prey populations and a degree of ecological resilience.

Whether this approach ultimately produces more resilient reef aquariums remains to be tested. However, if mature aquariums derive much of their stability from biodiversity and ecological complexity, it seems reasonable to ask whether those communities should be deliberately cultivated from the beginning rather than simply waiting for them to appear on their own.

The reefkeeping community spends considerable time discussing how to establish the nitrogen cycle and rightly so. Without it, fish cannot survive, yet completing the nitrogen cycle should be viewed as the beginning of the process rather than the end.

The real challenge is not teaching an aquarium how to process ammonia.

The real challenge is teaching it how to process life.

A reef aquarium becomes truly resilient when nutrients move through a diverse web of organisms rather than through a single bacterial pathway. The nitrogen cycle can be measured with a test kit, biome cycling cannot. It reveals itself through biodiversity, food-web development, resilience and stability over time.

Perhaps future reefkeeping should spend less time asking how quickly we can complete the nitrogen cycle and more time asking how effectively can we develop the biome.

The nitrogen cycle keeps fish alive. The biome cycle is what allows a reef ecosystem to thrive and unlike the nitrogen cycle, it cannot be completed in a few weeks, it develops organism by organism, interaction by interaction, until the aquarium becomes more than the sum of its individual parts.

That is when a reef truly begins to mature.
 
Last edited:
A reef aquarium becomes truly resilient when nutrients move through a diverse web of organisms rather than through a single bacterial pathway. The nitrogen cycle can be measured with a test kit, biome cycling cannot. It reveals itself through biodiversity, food-web development, resilience and stability over time.
The concepts in the above paragraph seem a bit vague. Maybe you could clarify what you meant.

What is a “truly resilient aquarium”? What are the measurable attributes of such a system?

It is highly unlikely any aquarium has a single bacterial pathway. Equally unlikely is that the average aquarium does not have a web of organisms to process nutrients. Exactly what is meant by diverse? What does it look like? How do I measure it so I know it is more diverse than the average aquarium?

What is the downside of a system that has nutrient cycling through less than diverse animal kingdom? Let’s stick to two cases, A) diverse and B) 0.5 diverse.

What does stability refer to? Is it something I can measure or see? Over what time period must the parameters or observables be constant/similar/close to the same for an aquarium to be considered stable?

By the way, I wish you had not peroetuated the use of the junk term biome cycling. It is a meaningless mashup of technical terms that has nothing to do with starting an aquarium with live rock in the dark.
 
Perhaps the question is not how quickly we can add corals

the aquarium could remain in a prolonged low light or dark phase
If you want…

I enjoy watching my aquarium change from day 1, so a long dark phase doesn’t sound kool. I started with dry rock, a finger size piece of life rock with a few corals on it, and several easy corals from day 1; tank was basically completed 2 weeks later with a pair of clowns. Your article gives some insight in what happens, however we can play “god” in our tiny glass box with a little patience and elbow grease; enjoying with lights on from day 1.
 
@Dan_P

I probably should have defined those terms more clearly in the article. Since I can’t edit, perhaps we can consider this comment as a footnote.

The article was written as a proposed view of aquarium startup and maturation, so the definition below are the sense in which I used the terms.

Biome Cycling


The development of wider biological communities that follow nitrification including biofilms, microbial successions, protozoa, meiofauna, pods, worms, sponges, detrital food webs and other nutrient recycling pathways.

Diversity

not simply the number of species present but the number of biological pathways through which nutrients and organic matter can move.

Resilience

The ability of an aquarium to absorb disturbances such as over feeding, nutrient fluctuations or organic inputs without large undesirable change.

Stability

The ability of an aquarium to maintain its overall biological and chemical balance over time despite routine disturbances.​
 
Last edited:
Excellent read. Thank you!

I agree there is something to this. Establishing the nitrogen cycle is easy. Maturing a tank is totally different, especially with dry rock.

I agree lighting plays a more important role in cycling the tank than is given credit too. More dry rock - give longer darkness. Ghost feed longer with the lights off. Maybe 30 day dark ghost feeding after completing the full nitrogen cycle would be ideal.

How would we quantify this. I doubt it can be fully measured. Only anecdotally if it will present a tank at maybe the 6 month mark that appears mature and problem free even to the point of successfully growing acropora and limited nuisance organisms that are unable to compete. How much time in the dark is really needed to give a boost to the (non-photosynthetic) microbiome to put a big dent in the ugly phase, if not avoid it completely?

I like where this is going but it brings up a lot more questions as usual.
 
If you want…

I enjoy watching my aquarium change from day 1, so a long dark phase doesn’t sound kool. I started with dry rock, a finger size piece of life rock with a few corals on it, and several easy corals from day 1; tank was basically completed 2 weeks later with a pair of clowns. Your article gives some insight in what happens, however we can play “god” in our tiny glass box with a little patience and elbow grease; enjoying with lights on from day 1.
100%
 
This has been presented as a scientific article, or at least that is what the format and you labeling it an article implies. As such I would like to offer a peer review to some of the major points.

1 - There is considerable length and repetition that obscures any point that you were trying to make. Two major contradictions are also exposed. See below and point 5.

You spend numerous (thirteen by my count) paragraphs describing the obvious aspects of life in an aquarium. You do so using terms that are never defined or connected to a measurable outcome:
food webs
decay
biological pathways
ecological succession
microbial succession
nutrient partitioning
biological hotspots
detrital pathways
trophic levels
biological reactor
biome development
ecological complexity
ecological resilience
microbial loop

None of that is novel or contested, but none of it is used in an empirical way toward a measurable conclusion. It is a statement of life using abstract terms that never make a point, other than the tank is a complex system.

The contraction here is that laying out the complexity actually undermines the point that it can be measured, defined or controlled much differently than it already is.

2 - The nitrogen cycle and the progression of other life are not things an aquarium is taught. They are inevitable progressions. Describing them does not tell an aquarist what to do differently or how to know if what they did worked. This goes to overall framing.

3 - The progression of life continues after the nitrogen cycle and cannot be directly controlled or predicted. The recommendation to start with "more" is open ended. More what, exactly? More live rock? More organic matter? More time? More bacteria, food?, etc. There are infinite variables and outcomes with no defined target or metric.

4 - This article, like the your other posts (that you referenced herein) frame chemistry and biology as competing approaches. They are not. This was addressed extensively in the other threads, why even mention chemistry here?

Nitrification is a biological process. Every cycling method kicks off the same basic biological progression of nitrification, regardless of ammonia source. From there the path is not fixed. The claim that bottled bacteria cycling produces a biologically inferior outcome is not supported. No evidence is offered that any difference between cycling methods persists as a system travels through time from day zero.

5 - You say: "Rather than viewing the completion of the nitrogen cycle as the starting signal for full lighting and rapid stocking, it may be beneficial to allow additional time for the wider biome to develop".

This has been core advice for decades and predates current vendors and influencers who propose shortcuts, for whatever reason they do. Lights out for two to three months to allow surface colonization before introducing highly photosynthetic driven life is not new. Adding livestock in intervals spanning months is not new, it is documented across countless books and practiced by countless aquarists. Slow and steady, nothing good happens quickly in a reef, etc.

You appear to be reframing long standing advice as new and novel discovery, and that is really the only actionable take from this lengthy article, but it is not new or novel.

But worse, this advice to take it slow and steady appears to directly contradict your overall theme here, which is starting out with "more" and seeding the tank with as much life as possible from zero day.

6 - You say: "A test kit tells us when the nitrogen cycle is functioning. A microscope may tell us when the biome is developing".

Maybe, but to what end? We see something other than nitrosomonas, that is inevitable. Here again there isn't a metric or target, just the confirmation that other organisms are present that aren't nitrosomonas.

The progression is inevitable regardless. The closing introduces the same argument and ties that problem to abstract terms like:
resilience
diverse web of organisms
biodiversity
stability

None of these are defined, none are measurable, and none tell us what to do or how to know if we did it right, or did enough, or andded enough.

The progression happens, it is inevitable. Spending dozens of paragraphs naming it with abstract biological concepts does not constitute a framework, it is dressing up the obvious with needless complexity.

The article could have been two sentences: "I think adding live rock and fauna at startup produces measurably better long term outcomes than standard dry cycling methods. Here is how we can measure that". We would at least have something defined to debate. We may even agree, however what is presented instead is biology word soup with contradictions in logic.

Before you characterize this as an attack please consider that you have posted this as an article in a public forum and it is therefore a candidate for peer review. I have proffered mine and am open to discuss, as long as the discussion is directly related to the comments and questions asked.
 
@Dan_P

I probably should have defined those terms more clearly in the article. Since I can’t edit, perhaps we can consider this comment as a footnote.

The article was written as a proposed view of aquarium startup and maturation, so the definition below are the sense in which I used the terms.

Biome Cycling


The development of wider biological communities that follow nitrification including biofilms, microbial successions, protozoa, meiofauna, pods, worms, sponges, detrital food webs and other nutrient recycling pathways.

Diversity

not simply the number of species present but the number of biological pathways through which nutrients and organic matter can move.

Resilience

The ability of an aquarium to absorb disturbances such as over feeding, nutrient fluctuations or organic inputs without large undesirable change.

Stability

The ability of an aquarium to maintain its overall biological and chemical balance over time despite routine disturbances.​

The point of being asked to define terms is to do so in a measurable way. The definitions that you have provided replace abstractions with more abstractions. Nobody is confused about what they broadly mean, the issue is their use in a context where the metrics matter for the argument, not the concept.

"Large undesirable change" is not a metric.

"Maintain overall biological and chemical balance" can't be measured any more than “stability” which it is defining.

How do we know when resilience is sufficient or diversity is adequate?

These definitions don’t clarify anything, they simply add more layers of abstraction.
 
Last edited:
@Dan_P

I probably should have defined those terms more clearly in the article. Since I can’t edit, perhaps we can consider this comment as a footnote.

The article was written as a proposed view of aquarium startup and maturation, so the definition below are the sense in which I used the terms.

Biome Cycling


The development of wider biological communities that follow nitrification including biofilms, microbial successions, protozoa, meiofauna, pods, worms, sponges, detrital food webs and other nutrient recycling pathways.

Diversity

not simply the number of species present but the number of biological pathways through which nutrients and organic matter can move.

Resilience

The ability of an aquarium to absorb disturbances such as over feeding, nutrient fluctuations or organic inputs without large undesirable change.

Stability

The ability of an aquarium to maintain its overall biological and chemical balance over time despite routine disturbances.​
Resilience and stability as defined are redundant terms and the definitions contain more vague or abstract terms. As defined neither resilience nor stability can be measured or observed. This makes them as untestable as a religious doctrine. As I have suggested before, aquarium stability and aquarium resilience are junk terms.

Diversity continues to be another popular term that is rarely defined and rarely measured. No wonder that diversity has never been demonstrated to matter to managing an aquarium.

Thanks for the definitions. They provide the new aquarists with some defense against potential misinformation in this opinion piece.
 
I appreciate the feedback from everyone, including the criticism.

Reading through the comments, it’s clear that some readers interpret the article as a scientific model or a set of conclusions. That wasn’t my intention. It was written as a collection of observations and a proposed view of aquarium startup and maturation.

I fully accept that terms such as resilience, stability, diversity and even biome cycling can mean different things to different people and can be difficult to define in a measurable way.

For me, the central idea was much simpler than the article may have made appear.

I’m interested in whether decomposition, microbial succession, biofilms and food webs development during the early life of a aquarium influence how a aquarium matures later on.

More specifically, I’m interested in the possibility that algae decomposition may be doing more than simply releasing nutrients. It may also be creating habitat and feeding pathways that support a wider range of organisms.

Whether that ultimately proves important or not is something I don’t claim to know.

The article was intended to start a discussion around those ideas, not to present a finished theory.

I’ll be honest, I genuinely thought this was the best thing I’ve written onR2R. It took me more than 3 days to organise my thoughts and pull together ideas from previous threads into something I felt brought every thing together.

At this point I’ve probably explained the idea as clearly as I can and I suspect this will be my last attempt at starting a discussion on R2R. Not because I think the topic isn’t worth exploring but because I don’t think I’m particularly good at translating observations and ideas into the level of rigour some folks understandably expect.

Happy reefing
 
Last edited:
To be clear, the title alone frames conventional practice as insufficient. That premise runs through everything that follows and is never supported.

For the sake of moving forward,. let's step away from that for a moment.

Although your response is a significant narrowing of what was presented, it is a welcome start. Let's build on it.

What you have just described in two paragraphs can be stripped down to the article that should have been written. But importantly, that means actually fully abandoning the abstract language altogether, recognizing the contradictions, and not hedging it as a collection of observations or framing around it as a mechanism. The science speak is doing no work here.

So, yes, observations are great. Tying them to layers of abstract biological models is where many of us have an issue. Your simplified set of questions is not what the article asked. If that is the actual question, then let's start there. To do so we still need to first strip away the abstraction.

Whether choices in early tank life influence later system state is specific enough to discuss and potentially measure. But notice the lack of abstract wording or speculated cause-effect in my proposed premise. There is no need to mention biofilms, food webs, or any of the other ecology or biology that we cannot measure or meaningfully define as an actionable or directly observable metric. They only serve to muddy the conversation.

We need to look at it as a black box and leave it that way. Focus on what we can observe and what we can measure, toward a definable and measurable outcome. That may mean the goal is to observe more coralline, or to rely less on skimming with the hope that corals have more food, and then show that the start and the end match the goal. We do this never trying to describe the black box in between, because once we do we are no longer presenting a hypothesis, we are asserting an explanation we cannot measure or prove.
 
Hello!

Im new to Marine Aquarium hobby and I think the article was interesting and also i got a good feeling reading it. Please dont stop contribute because some of us are a bit cranky!

b.regards
Christofer 😃🇸🇪😃
 
Hello!

Im new to Marine Aquarium hobby and I think the article was interesting and also i got a good feeling reading it. Please dont stop contribute because some of us are a bit cranky!

b.regards
Christofer 😃🇸🇪😃

Thank you Christofer, that genuinely means a lot.
 
If you want…

I enjoy watching my aquarium change from day 1, so a long dark phase doesn’t sound kool. I started with dry rock, a finger size piece of life rock with a few corals on it, and several easy corals from day 1; tank was basically completed 2 weeks later with a pair of clowns. Your article gives some insight in what happens, however we can play “god” in our tiny glass box with a little patience and elbow grease; enjoying with lights on from day 1.

That’s a fair

The article is only my view of a aquarium startup, not a recommendation that everyone should fallow the same path.

Ultimately there are many successful paths in this hobby.
 
Hello!

Im new to Marine Aquarium hobby and I think the article was interesting and also i got a good feeling reading it. Please dont stop contribute because some of us are a bit cranky!

b.regards
Christofer 😃🇸🇪😃
Welcome Christofer.

You offered feedback, regarding you good feeling.

Some of us are offering a review of what actually was said or implied. That is peer review and how science works. Nobody is being cranky.
 
I liked the article. I understood what you were trying to say. Everyone has a different writing style.

Maybe we can start the discussion of how do we know when your microbiome is built up beyond just the nitrogen cycle? I think you were suggesting microscope samples of the substrate?
 
I liked the article. I understood what you were trying to say. Everyone has a different writing style.

Maybe we can start the discussion of how do we know when your microbiome is built up beyond just the nitrogen cycle? I think you were suggesting microscope samples of the substrate?

Yes, a microscope can potentially tell us a lot about the aquarium’s “resilience” or perhaps, using a word we all can agree on, it’s “insurance”

Logically speaking, before the lights are turned on, I’d like to see at least some diatoms predators, such as pods or rotifers, present in the aquarium. I don’t think exact population are necessary, as these organisms tend to balance themselves according to the available food.

A simple analogy would be the introduction of rabbits (diatoms) into an area without natural predators. The rabbits (Diatoms) would continue to multiply until they reached the limit of the available resources. You can introduce predators later, but they spend their time playing catch up because the prey population has already become established. In general, prey species can increase their numbers much faster than their predators.

Part of my thinking is that the same principle may apply in aquarium’s. If some of the consumers are already present before the lights are turned on, they may have a better chance of interacting with and responding to new food sources as they appear, rather than being introduced after the fact and having to catch up.
 
Excellent read. Thank you!

I agree there is something to this. Establishing the nitrogen cycle is easy. Maturing a tank is totally different, especially with dry rock.

I agree lighting plays a more important role in cycling the tank than is given credit too. More dry rock - give longer darkness. Ghost feed longer with the lights off. Maybe 30 day dark ghost feeding after completing the full nitrogen cycle would be ideal.

How would we quantify this. I doubt it can be fully measured. Only anecdotally if it will present a tank at maybe the 6 month mark that appears mature and problem free even to the point of successfully growing acropora and limited nuisance organisms that are unable to compete. How much time in the dark is really needed to give a boost to the (non-photosynthetic) microbiome to put a big dent in the ugly phase, if not avoid it completely?

I like where this is going but it brings up a lot more questions as usual.

Thank you.

I deliberately avoided suggesting a timescale because I suspect it would vary from aquarium to aquarium.

For me, the more interesting question is not whether is 30 days, 60 days or longer but what is actually happening during that period. In my view, the goal is not simply keeping the lights off but allowing different biological pathways and food webs to establish before photosynthetic organisms are given a significant advantage.

Whether that ultimately reduces the severity of the ugly phase is one of the questions I was trying to explore.
 
It would be interesting to see documented microscope samples of the sand at week 1 - 8 (after completing nitrogen cycle). Small piece of live rock with some dry rock (simulate common start ups). Lights off. Ghost feeding and nutrients monitored so they do not run away.

Not sure if someone has done this yet. Simple
 
It would be interesting to see documented microscope samples of the sand at week 1 - 8 (after completing nitrogen cycle). Small piece of live rock with some dry rock (simulate common start ups). Lights off. Ghost feeding and nutrients monitored so they do not run away.

Not sure if someone has done this yet. Simple

It would certainly be interesting.

With aquabiomics testing we often see graphs showing bacteria and biome diversity but I have a feeling that what we feed the aquarium has a significant influence on those results. I would be surprised if two aquarium started with the same material and fed identically ended up producing very similar, if not nearly identical, aquabiomics reports.

That said, I’d still find it fascinating to see how the community develops over time under controlled conditions.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

TOP 10 Trending Threads

ARE YOU READY TO CONFESS TO CRAZIEST, DUMBEST, FUNNIEST THING YOU’VE EVER DONE IN REEFING?

  • Yeah, I'll confess! (Share your story in the comments!)

    Votes: 74 54.4%
  • Nah, I'll keep mine a secret...(Don't be like that, share with the class!)

    Votes: 62 45.6%
Back
Top
Home
Post thread…
Market
What's new