NO3 Vs Acropora

[gbroadbridge]

Why is everyone hung up on NO3?
My system is cronicly low. Meaning 1ppm or lower.

You know that Red Sea recommend in their recipes < 0.25ppm NO3 for SPS tanks , hence their ULR test kits
They've caused a lot of folks grief with those recipes

 

[Garf]

Yes, and your tank is close to a good ratio. Your back glass is clean and also the rocks.

@Garf what is your PO4?

Currently 0.55 ppm, recently down from a dizzying 1.4 ppm phos.

 

[Reef Psychology]

You can look at 50 ICP’s with tank pictures. Most systems keeping 50-100:1 ratio look much better and experience less problems. Sand-bed, back glass, side glass, rocks, etc. The tanks with inverted ratios have all kinds of issues. Cyano, Algae, Dino’s, etc. I’ve seen it over and over again. Not saying you’re having that problem, and I think your corals look healthy, but many other reefers have that problem. We also need to remember that several reefers are only running 150-200 PAR and their tank is basically starving of nutrients. That is a cake walk compared to a tank with 400-500 PAR with hood chemistry and nutrient levels. Once you get to that level a good CUC and a decent ratio becomes more important, but that is just my personal opinion from observations.

If I keep my current tank (14 months) under 0.1 ppm PO4 I get a dark black algae buildup all over the rocks. When I scrape the glass the magnet feels like it’s rub/sticking to the glass instead of sliding. When I raise the PO4 level it glides smoothly, and the black/brown algae’s go away and the rocks look much cleaner. When the level gets really low like .04ppm and down to .01…I get a green dusting first which then turns to a funky brown crap on the lower end. So for me, ratios and nutrient levels are extremely important.

Would be interesting to do a randomized meta analysis of the data to see if your observations are supported or just confirmation bias. I randomly chose 5 tank of the month aquariums and none had those ratios. Also looked at couple of online retailers with the same results. I don’t see how anyone could rely on hobby grade test kits not to mention what’s binding to what in our aquariums to even attempt to lock down those ratios over a long period of time. I’m sorta new to acropora, but I’ve been keeping most other types off and on for 18 years and I’ve seen so many trends come and go. It’s hard not to be a sceptic in this hobby I guess.

 

[Hans-Werner]

I think we agree that taking a coral from a reef and putting it in a reef tank will not alter its physiology.

Figure 2.1 – Cumulative effect sizes for coral calcification rates in response to enrichment with
nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) or joint nitrogen and phosphorus (N + P). Responses are shown for:
(a) all corals, (b) branching corals, (c) mounding corals, (d) Acropora spp., and (e) Porites spp.
Data are means ± 95% confidence intervals. Numbers in parenthesis indicate the number of
experiments used to calculate effect sizes.

Figure 2.2 – Cumulative effect sizes of nutrient enrichment on different metrics of photobiology of
corals: (a) the density of chlorophyll a within individual Symbiodinium, (b) the density of
Symbiodinium within corals, (c) the density of chlorophyll a per area of coral, and (d) gross
photosynthesis. Statistics as in Fig. 2.1

Figure 2.4 – Cumulative effect sizes for the impact of ammonium or nitrate on: (a) the calcification
rates of corals, (b) the concentration of chlorophyll a within Symbiodinium, and (c) the density
of Symbiodinium in coral tissue. Statistics as in Fig. 1

From Andrew A. Shantz, Dissertation, 2016

 

[Jbell370]

I worried all the time about phosphate and tried all options available to me, I have my nitrates at 8-10 depending on the day and my phosphate last I checked was .23 lowest I have been able to get it is .13. I just stopped chasing and attempt to keep things as stable as possible, works for me.

 

[Reefahholic]

Currently 0.55 ppm, recently down from a dizzying 1.4 ppm phos.

Yeah, I had a feeling from the back glass. What did you observe up there.? Any browning out or did you get there slowly?

 

[Reefahholic]

A nitrate phosphate ratio of 50:1 or 100:1 again has nothing to do with nutrients. There are no explanations related to the physiology or biochemistry of corals or zooxanthellae.

N&P are both classified as nutrients are they not.?

I would like to see an explanation on what this ratio is based except empiricism, just out of curiosity. But as stated, as long as it works for you ...

It’s based off hundreds of ICP’s (both OES and MS), and observations from the pictures and videos included with the ICP data. Indicators such as the surfaces of sand, rock, glass, snail shells, water clairity, etc…but also individually taking with many reefers about the issues their having in their reefs.

I can explain the physiological and biochemical background behind my way of running a reef tank and it works well and quite stable over a wide range of very different corals too. Also colors and growth are very good.

What size is the system that you currently have and what are your current N&P levels?

So I give the corals enough phosphate and trace elements for good growth to outcompete the algae in nitrogen (which simply is not possible with high nitrate ratios or concentrations).

Can you elaborate on this a little more. Are you saying outcompete the algae “from” nitrogen? Was that a typo?

What do you condsider high nitrate? After what ppm?

In my experience it is not possible to kill or even damage a coral with nitrogen limitation as long as you have a few fish that get fed in the tank. With phosphate the situation is completely different.

I agree that Phosphate is much more important than nitrate, but I’ve still had some significant problems with depleted nitrate levels.

Would be interesting to do a randomized meta analysis of the data to see if your observations are supported or just confirmation bias. I randomly chose 5 tank of the month aquariums and none had those ratios.

I’ve already been seeing it with significant amounts of data. A tank at 50-100:1 does much better than a tank with an inverted ratio- where one nutrient is low or depleted and the other is very high.

I don’t see how anyone could rely on hobby grade test kits not to mention what’s binding to what in our aquariums to even attempt to lock down those ratios over a long period of time.

That is why I send ICP-MS monthly.

 

[Reef Psychology]

It’s based off hundreds of ICP’s (both OES and MS), and observations from the pictures and videos included with the ICP data. Indicators such as the surfaces of sand, rock, glass, snail shells, water clairity, etc…but also individually taking with many reefers about the issues their having in their reefs.

So, there's a paper?

BRS made a short video on nitrate/phosphate ratios and I echo their rational.

 

[Reefahholic]

So, there's a paper?

How many peer reviewed papers do we have in our hobby to support anything?

 

[Garf]

Yeah, I had a feeling from the back glass. What did you observe up there.? Any browning out or did you get there slowly?

The back glass (on the right?),thats the overflow box, well the wife may have cleaned it a couple of times over the last few years but I certainly haven't, lol.
Yeah these corals grew up with increasing phosphate, no skimmer or socks for probably 12 months, just 1.5 percent daily water change, kalk, recently A + K trace, DIY CO2 reduction.

 

[Reefahholic]

The back glass (on the right?),thats the overflow box, well the wife may have cleaned it a couple of times over the last few years but I certainly haven't, lol.
Yeah these corals grew up with increasing phosphate, no skimmer or socks for probably 12 months, just 1.5 percent daily water change, kalk, recently A + K trace, DIY CO2 reduction.

Yeah on the RT. When I see an overflow box or back glass with thick algae growth there was either a lot of nutrients at one time or depleted nutrients. Both conditions will grow some funky algae, but usually the darker green is a result of higher PO4.

This is always a very interesting topic and I’m not picking on you in any way. I’ve had my share of problems in my current dry rock system early on, but things are getting better with time as the biodiversity continues to change and become stronger. I contribute that to good chemistry and nutrient ratio.

 

[Garf]

Yeah on the RT. When I see an overflow box or back glass with thick algae growth there was either a lot of nutrients at one time or depleted nutrients. Both conditions will grow some funky algae, but usually the darker green is a result of higher PO4.

This is always a very interesting topic and I’m not picking on you in any way. I’ve had my share of problems in my current dry rock system early on, but things are getting better with time as the biodiversity continues to change and become stronger. I contribute that to good chemistry and nutrient ratio.

Can hardly tell it’s their from the front, lol. I must admit, it’s nothing I ever consider. Besides, I don’t wanna starve my herbivores, there’s next to no algae growing anywhere else, I’ll think of some more excuses for my L.A.R.S. in a bit

 

[Reef Psychology]

How many peer reviewed papers do we have in our hobby to support anything?

For the hobby specifically, not many. Thus my skepticism.

I’ve already been seeing it with significant amounts of data. A tank at 50-100:1 does much better than a tank with an inverted ratio- where one nutrient is low or depleted and the other is very high.

At best that is an anecdotal observation, at worse an absolutist assertion. But, let's say you are correct, which I haven't see any evidence for yet. Does this ratio scale infinity? If not, what is the point of diminishing results (what measure constitutes 'results' anyway)? What are the mechanisms involved? Does adaptability play a role? What of the examples I mentioned?

 

[Reefahholic]

Can hardly tell it’s their from the front, lol. I must admit, it’s nothing I ever consider. Besides, I don’t wanna starve my herbivores, there’s next to no algae growing anywhere else, I’ll think of some more excuses for my L.A.R.S. in a bit

Mine are probably starving right now. I’m hoping they’re eating leftover food that makes it to the bottom of the tank or fish poop.

 

[Reefahholic]

I am seeing active growth tips on most Acro’s despite higher NO3 levels so they must not be bothered. I just want to know the level at which it is no longer needed or becoming excessive. I’m hoping Dr. Balling is going to answer this question for me.

 

[Reefahholic]

For the hobby specifically, not many. Thus my skepticism.


At best that is an anecdotal observation, at worse an absolutist assertion. But, let's say you are correct, which I haven't see any evidence for yet. Does this ratio scale infinity? If not, what is the point of diminishing results (what measure constitutes 'results' anyway)? What are the mechanisms involved? Does adaptability play a role? What of the examples I mentioned?

Of course it’s an anecdotal observation, that’s basically how we determine most things in this hobby.

No, it wouldn’t scale to infinity. Too much of anything in this hobby is toxic. Pick any element (Major, Minor, or Trace) and dose 100,000 ppm.

If you want to contribute to the conversation plz be serious. I’m trying to gather information from other reefers, and what they have observed (good or bad). I’m not here to explain every biochemical process taking place in a reef tank.

This thread was started because I’ve seen many different nutrient levels across the lifespan of a reef tank. Some seem to work well while others do not. I’ve observed a lot of tanks with data, and have noticed that there are visual indicators giving us hints about the health of a system.

The problem that we all face in the hobby is that everybody is doing something differently. All of our systems are varying. We have different equipment, species, biomass, light, nutrient levels, bioload, flow, bacteria populations, sand, biodiversity, chemistry, etc. If you find two identical systems, wait 2 days and it’s probably completely different. This is why it’s important to share information, and that is the goal here.

 

[Reefahholic]

@Hans-Werner Claude with Fauna Marin has noticed the same thing as I have.

Also, he does agree with low NO3 as you do.

Go to………34:52 to 35:20

Rappin' With ReefBum: Guest Claude Schuhmacher, Fauna Marin

Rappin' With ReefBum is a LIVE talk show with host Keith Berkelhamer and guests from the reef keeping community. In this episode I chat with Claude Schuhmach...

www.youtube.com

 

[Reef Psychology]

A tank at 50-100:1 does much better than a tank with an inverted ratio- where one nutrient is low or depleted and the other is very high.

I'm taking this very seriously, else I wouldn't be replying.

How do you define "...does much better..."? Then, how would you measure it? Come up with your null/alt hypothesis. Once you decide what those are, create a spreadsheet with randomized ICP data - but no other data like photos or descriptions. Find those which fall within your metrics and those that fall outside your metrics. Compare the results with your "...does much better..." measure, then use the raw data to form a statistical model. You could use the TotM aquariums as a control. Easy peasy lemon squeezy. No need to get other people's anecdotal observations.

 

[Hans-Werner]

N&P are both classified as nutrients are they not.?

N is a nutrient, nitrate is just one of a whole lot of available nitrogen compounds, amino acids, urea and ammonium amongst others. It makes absolutely no sense to say N = nitrate. It's wrong.

If nitrate uptake is saturated at 1 or 2 ppm it is saturated. You can increase the nitrate concentration as much as you want, corals will not take up more than at 1 or 2 ppm. Every surplus nitrate beyond saturation does not have any function as a nutrient but is an oxidant that maybe keeps iron(III) from being reduced. This is a completely different function that has nothing to do with the nutrient function.

It’s based off hundreds of ICP’s (both OES and MS), and observations from the pictures and videos included with the ICP data. Indicators such as the surfaces of sand, rock, glass, snail shells, water clairity, etc…but also individually taking with many reefers about the issues their having in their reefs.

Done by whom? It sounds as if it was done by you?

What size is the system that you currently have and what are your current N&P levels?

2 x 1500 l, 1 x 1050 l, 1 x 300 l and a few nano tanks at the moment.

Can you elaborate on this a little more. Are you saying outcompete the algae “from” nitrogen? Was that a typo?

My English is not good enough to find the possible typo. My thought was "competition in nitrogen" and "outcompete in nitrogen". What I meant, corals deplete N to low enough concentrations to stop algae growing.

I agree that Phosphate is much more important than nitrate, but I’ve still had some significant problems with depleted nitrate levels.

How? Nothing is easier than dosing nitrate.

I’ve already been seeing it with significant amounts of data. A tank at 50-100:1 does much better than a tank with an inverted ratio- where one nutrient is low or depleted and the other is very high.

I think nearly all tanks are limited by some nutrient or nutrients. If they wheren't, the corals would be very dark since the light would be the limiting factor and algae would grow all over. Or which factor is limiting coral and algal growth in a reef tank in your opinion?

 

[Reefahholic]

If nitrate uptake is saturated at 1 or 2 ppm it is saturated. You can increase the nitrate concentration as much as you want, corals will not take up more than at 1 or 2 ppm.

This is exactly what I’m trying to pin down. I can’t seem to find a big difference in 2-3 ppm Nitrate vs about 20 ppm. After 20 ppm I noticed the corallite’s becoming a little more pronounced, tissue appeared thicker, and the color was deeper.

N is a nutrient, nitrate is just one of a whole lot of available nitrogen compounds, amino acids, urea and ammonium amongst others. It makes absolutely no sense to say N = nitrate. It's wrong.

Well, I do understand there’s many nitrogen compounds. I call it nitrate or nitrogen. I don’t dose Amino’s, but I know they come in from different feeds. I can’t measure Urea, and I don’t dose Ammonium, because it’s dangerous and potent from what I’ve heard. Is it better to refer to it as nitrogen.

Done by whom? It sounds as if it was done by you?

Yes, these are my observations.

2 x 1500 l, 1 x 1050 l, 1 x 300 l and a few nano tanks at the moment.

Well excellent, then we can compare observations and data.

What I meant, corals deplete N to low enough concentrations to stop algae growing.

Ok, I see now.

How? Nothing is easier than dosing nitrate.

When I had problems with depleted NO3, this was before I started dosing it. I agree it’s very simple to dose, but as you know people get into trouble trying to dose it fairly often. I only add 0.5-1 ppm per day. If more is needed I spread out the dose.

Or which factor is limiting coral and algal growth in a reef tank in your opinion?

If we’re talking about algae growth I think it’s the nutrient ratio and the actual values (high/low) depending on each individual system. Many other things need to be looked at like age, rock, biology, filtration, etc. Also things like aminos and vitamins that contribute to the total nutrient levels you would find on ICP which can also measure organic nutrients.

If we’re taking about limiting coral growth I still believe nutrients and the ratio plays a big role also, but chemistry is extremely important for the fastest growth. Light is another critical component IMO, and I used to feel that we didn’t need as much light, but I’m finding when certain elements are at target levels the corals can be pushed much harder, and not suffer as much as in my previous systems where these elements were either low or depleted.