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

[BeanAnimal]

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”

Exactly how?
Insurance for what?
What are you looking for, what does finding it tell you, and what would you do differently based on what you see?

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.

I think you are avoiding responding to both Dan and myself and taking another opportunity to reintroduce terms like biological pathways, food webs, and biological resilience without defining them.

On the analogy:
You speculated that prey outpaces predators when introduced after the fact. If that is the claim, then population thresholds matter, otherwise they will be outpaced anyway. "Exact populations are not necessary" kills that argument. What population constitutes sufficient to prevent being outpaced? How do you measure it?

Abstraction is fine in some contexts, our "black box", if we label it as that. But again, the scientific terminology here is not doing work, it is decorative baggage.

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.

This response undermines your own article.

You just described why the microscope and the Aquabiomics testing don't support the claims. If identical tanks fed identically produce different results, there is no reproducible outcome to target.

Every term layered on top of that... biodiversity, resilience, stability, food webs, etc. They all inherit the same problem. You cannot measure toward something that cannot be reproduced, and you have not described how to measure them to begin with.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Exactly how?
Insurance for what?
What are you looking for, what does finding it tell you, and what would you do differently based on what you see?



I think you are avoiding responding to both Dan and myself and taking another opportunity to reintroduce terms like biological pathways, food webs, and biological resilience without defining them.

On the analogy:
You speculated that prey outpaces predators when introduced after the fact. If that is the claim, then population thresholds matter, otherwise they will be outpaced anyway. "Exact populations are not necessary" kills that argument. What population constitutes sufficient to prevent being outpaced? How do you measure it?

Abstraction is fine in some contexts, our "black box", if we label it as that. But again, the scientific terminology here is not doing work, it is decorative baggage.


You just undermined your own article.

You just described why the microscope and the Aquabiomics testing don't support the claims. If identical tanks fed identically produce different results, there is no reproducible outcome to target.

Did you also received a message from the moderators? I’m doing my best to keep things constructive.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I would prefer to stay on topic here for the benefit of everyone.

You framed this as a culmination of your other threads and ideas. Those threads have the same basic unanswered questions.

So here, I have asked simple questions based on your statements. They are not loaded or begging and I have not reframed your words or taken you out of context. The questions are kind, fair and directly on topic and address the core of your position, which by your own admission has not changed, but rather has expanded.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I would prefer to stay on topic here for the benefit of everyone.

You framed this as a culmination of your other threads and ideas. Those threads have the same basic unanswered questions.

So here, I have asked simple questions based on your statements. They are not loaded or begging and I have not reframed your words or taken you out of context. The questions are kind, fair and directly on topic and address the core of your position, which by your own admission has not changed, but rather has expanded.

I would respectfully disagree. A review can be made in a single comment and doesn’t require ongoing exchange between us.

In the interest of maintaining the peace and respecting the moderators wishes, I think it’s best that we avoid further direct communication with one another.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Declining here and over the course of numerous threads to answer fair and direct questions about your own claims is not maintaining peace. It is avoiding accountability. Attempting to portray that as an attack does not change what it is.

Asking not to be responded to in a public forum is asking for your words to go unscrutinized and is antithetical to the interest of the forum and the collective information of the hobby. You are welcome to that choice, but I am not going to ignore unsupported claims simply because answering them is uncomfortable. This is not your soapbox, it is a community driven conversation platform where people are, and should be held accountable to their claims.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Declining here and over the course of numerous threads to answer fair and direct questions about your own claims is not maintaining peace. It is avoiding accountability. Attempting to portray that as an attack does not change what it is.

Asking not to be responded to in a public forum is asking for your words to go unscrutinized and is antithetical to the interest of the forum and the collective information of the hobby. You are welcome to that choice, but I am not going to ignore unsupported claims simply because answering them is uncomfortable. This is not your soapbox, it is a community driven conversation platform where people are, and should be held accountable to their claims.

I’m happy to answer genuine questions but I have little interest in prolonged arguments.

 

[ReefGeezer]

I wrote an article a while back that said some of the things stated by the OP. I used the term nutrient pathways and food web multiple times. I think I understand what the OP may have been trying to say.

To the OP, I would say that writing out your thoughts and asking others for feedback is a great way to learn. Keep in mind that the feedback in an academic environment can be often seem impolite or aggressive. It is not intended as such. It is the just the way those discussions go. They are direct, designed to probe or inform, and not intended as a personal attack... unless it is a conversation between @BeanAnimal and @sixty_reefer!

 

[Dan_P]

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.

It is fun to speculate about how complex things work, but I find it mostly a generator of misinformation. Conjecture built on conjecture has no more value than a conspiracy theory.

How to detect misinformation? One symptom is the use of junk terms, mashups of legitimate terms. Another is the use of vague and abstract terms, avoiding terms that can be measured or observed, that is, testable. There are more ways to detect misinformation, but you get the point. If you have to believe in something before you believe in something, you are probably listening to or generating misinformation.

 

[Dan_P]

I’m happy to answer genuine questions but I have little interest in prolonged arguments.

I think this is a good example of misinformation bordering on disinformation. You have repeatedly avoided ansering direct questions pitched at the level of someone competent enough to have made the claim or observation.

It seems that your notion of “genuine question” is one that is complimentary and not challenging. This is odd for someone exploring technical topics and exploring new ideas about reef keeping and seeking feedback. You need to be able to take the occasional “you made a mistake”.

Just answer the auestion and let’s get on with the discussion.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I wrote an article a while back that said some of the things stated by the OP. I used the term nutrient pathways and food web multiple times. I think I understand what the OP may have been trying to say.

Terms such as nutrient pathway, food webs, microbial succession and biodiversity have been part of reef keeping discussions for a long time so I assumed most aquarists would have a general understanding of what was being discussed.

Perhaps I have underestimated how different people interpret those terms.

 

[Reefering1]

Perhaps I have underestimated how different people interpret those terms.

I think the problem is when a pondering idea is presented as fact. There is nothing wrong with thoughts and ideas, this is how things move forward...
BUT,
When a thought is challenged- go ponder some more and come up with a answer, that's a challenge to dig deeper, not divert. And don't forget...
"I don't know", is a valid answer.

 

[sixty_reefer]

.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I’m happy to answer genuine questions but I have little interest in prolonged arguments.

Terms such as nutrient pathway, food webs, microbial succession and biodiversity have been part of reef keeping discussions for a long time so I assumed most aquarists would have a general understanding of what was being discussed.

Perhaps I have underestimated how different people interpret those terms.

You have stated this several times.

The issue was never whether the terms are familiar. This was covered in my first response and numerous others. The issue is that you used them to support claims without defining them in any measurable way. That has not changed.

The questions are absolutely genuine. They are your words, asked back to you in context without reframing for clarification you have yet to provide. These responses are simply more avoidance.

You are filibustering now.
Can we please get back the actual topic?
just answer the questions asked of you.

 

[ReefGeezer]

Terms such as nutrient pathway, food webs, microbial succession and biodiversity have been part of reef keeping discussions for a long time so I assumed most aquarists would have a general understanding of what was being discussed.

Perhaps I have underestimated how different people interpret those terms.

It seems that many, if not most, aquarists don't understand. The evidence of this are the products and services that aquarists buy that would not be purchased if they understood. I think they don't understand because there is not a simply stated set of definitions that can then be applied to future discussions and other opportunities for learning. Personally, I have never heard of "microbial succession" and don't know its definition. Who knows, I may have a different definition of everything mentioned in this thread. I'd love it if someone would write a set of definitions that could then be peer reviewed and discussed within R2R. I'd suggest the follow definitions be established:
1. Microbial Succession;
2. Nutrient Pathway;
3. Food Web; and
4. Biodiversity (Microbial and otherwise).

So, who is the subject matter expert in this area here at R2R?

 

[fish_collector]

As a regular member of this forum community and an avid marine aquarium hobbyist I find all of these recent threads that stir up controversy to be boring, hard to follow, lacking in any useful information and largely a waste of time. There’s a reason that more of the regular members of this forum don’t contribute.

Another thread regarding cycling an aquarium…just paragraph after paragraph of rambling. I’d rather read the legal disclosures on the back of a long form sales invoice.

 

[sixty_reefer]

It seems that many, if not most, aquarists don't understand. The evidence of this are the products and services that aquarists buy that would not be purchased if they understood. I think they don't understand because there is not a simply stated set of definitions that can then be applied to future discussions and other opportunities for learning. Personally, I have never heard of "microbial succession" and don't know its definition. Who knows, I may have a different definition of everything mentioned in this thread. I'd love it if someone would write a set of definitions that could then be peer reviewed and discussed within R2R. I'd suggest the follow definitions be established:
1. Microbial Succession;
2. Nutrient Pathway;
3. Food Web; and
4. Biodiversity (Microbial and otherwise).

So, who is the subject matter expert in this area here at R2R?

Are you all having a lough? This is a hobby forum. I don’t think we’re going to establish the definitive definitions of ecology here.

@ReefGeezer, you wrote an entire article discussing nutrient pathways, food webs, biodiversity, maturity and stability. I don’t recall you formally defining those terms either, nor do I recall pages of discussions demanding that you do so.

If you none of you mind, I’m going to read an article on how to wash my filter socks in the washing machine.

 

[sixty_reefer]

As a regular member of this forum community and an avid marine aquarium hobbyist I find all of these recent threads that stir up controversy to be boring, hard to follow, lacking in any useful information and largely a waste of time. There’s a reason that more of the regular members of this forum don’t contribute.

Another thread regarding cycling an aquarium…just paragraph after paragraph of rambling. I’d rather read the legal disclosures on the back of a long form sales invoice.

I’m genuinely curious which part you found controversial?

You may disagree which the idea or the way it is presented but I’m struggling to see what was actually controversial in the article?

 

[Dan_P]

Terms such as nutrient pathway, food webs, microbial succession and biodiversity have been part of reef keeping discussions for a long time so I assumed most aquarists would have a general understanding of what was being discussed.

Perhaps I have underestimated how different people interpret those terms.

Adding complex technical terms to your discussion topics that are just about completely unknown as to how they relate to aquarium maintenance suggests a misunderstanding on how to frame the discussion.

 

[Dan_P]

I’m genuinely curious which part you found controversial?

You may disagree which the idea or the way it is presented but I’m struggling to see what was actually controversial in the article?

Here is part of the problem: misinterpretation of responses the post. What the op was referring to by “controversy” is not referring any facet of the lead off post but the ensuing complex discussions about potential flaws in the ideas in the lead off post. The controversy is self inflicted by using rhetorical tactics to avoid answering direct questions about the idea.

 

[Dan_P]

Are you all having a lough? This is a hobby forum. I don’t think we’re going to establish the definitive definitions of ecology here.

@ReefGeezer, you wrote an entire article discussing nutrient pathways, food webs, biodiversity, maturity and stability. I don’t recall you formally defining those terms either, nor do I recall pages of discussions demanding that you do so.

If you none of you mind, I’m going to read an article on how to wash my filter socks in the washing machine.

I just read the @ReefGeezer article. Yes, he does use similar terminology. What he provides is enough information for the reader to understand what he was referring to, regardless of whether the terms were defined or were junk. He certainly did not present sufficient evidence to support the notion that he created food webs by adding random organisms to export organic and inorganic material, but the term was of little importance to communicating his ideas. I have to say your ideas in the opening post look very similar to those in his article.

Looking forwards to your thoughts on cleaning filter socks.