Options for Combating a Dino Outbreak

[Dan_P]

Scientific or not, I would like to know how many have really succeeded in defeating dinoflagellates with competitive methods. I am not questioning it.
This is similar to human medicine where it is almost never enough to just introduce a good environment in the first stage, though it works as a prophylactic agent.

Could we have a thread here or elsewhere where we have some sort of results summarised regarding how different methods and their success rates perform? It is very hard to see that in forums where the threads are long and hard to get an overview

Agree^^^. Though I am questioning the success of the methods.

 

[anarvaez]

I would start dosing microbacter clean or microbacter 7 along with vaccuming the Dino’s up. The bacteria will prevent the Dino’s from growing out again

 

[mcarroll]

I am not sure what your point is.

My point is almost always "more reading" or something along those lines.

Diatoms have been found to generate substances that seem to squelch dino (and possibly other phyto) blooms in the wild.

https://reefsuccess.com/2017/06/15/...c-benthic-dinoflagellate-ostreopsis-cf-ovata/

Diatoms have been shown to produce and release a wide range of secondary metabolites that mediate interactions between individuals of different species. Among these compounds, different types of fatty acid derived long-chained polyunsaturated aldehydes (PUAs) have been related to multiple functions such as intra- or interspecific signals and adverse effect on the reproduction of marine organisms.

The quote is just the lead-in to the abstract. The full article is linked in the post as usual.

Of course there's more....some of it may be familiar already, I don't know:
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/d...tling-altogether.293318/page-125#post-4401491
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/d...tling-altogether.293318/page-129#post-4408748
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/amphidinium-dinoflagellate-treatment-methods.365850/

 

[Pseudodiego]

This week, I got a new dino outbreak in my new 250-gallon tank after dosing chemiclean for Cyano in the sand. Honestly, I’m not even scared of them anymore, and I'm happy about them replacing the ******* cyano. I’ve battled pretty much every common type of dino in my tanks: Prorocentrum, Amphidinium (small cell and large cell), and Ostreopsis.

Keep phosphates above 0.1 ppm, nitrates above 10 ppm, and dose silicates. And I mean A LOT of silicates, and they'll go away shortly.

In my previous 70-gallon tank, I think the recommended dose was something like 1 ml per week. I was dosing 10 ml daily for close to a month. Now, with the 250-gallon, I’m dosing around 30 mL daily. The only things I’ve noticed from dosing that much silicate are the dinos receding and a lot more sponges growing. Nothing else in the tank seems to be affected.

 

[Dan_P]

My point is almost always "more reading" or something along those lines.

Diatoms have been found to generate substances that seem to squelch dino (and possibly other phyto) blooms in the wild.

https://reefsuccess.com/2017/06/15/...c-benthic-dinoflagellate-ostreopsis-cf-ovata/

The quote is just the lead-in to the abstract. The full article is linked in the post as usual.

Interesting possibility, even tantalizing, but speculative, and circumstantial. How much of this substance is actually produced by which diatoms and is it produced in aquaria?

Finding information in scientific studies and then using it to support an idea is a popular approach used to sell bogus health care cures.

 

[mcarroll]

Interesting possibility, even tantalizing, but speculative, and circumstantial. How much of this substance is actually produced by which diatoms and is it produced in aquaria?

Finding information in scientific studies and then using it to support an idea is a popular approach used to sell bogus health care cures.

Now I'm not sure I see your point.

Is your point to stop reading and stop problem solving in the hobby? That would be hilarious.

Maybe your point is that the major science journals are merely sources of fraud? That would also be hilarious.

I love humor!

Getting to the discussion...

Folks with dinoflagellate blooms that don't respond to ordinary control measures are experimenting more and more with dosing silicates.

Their hope is to produce a diatom bloom that will (maybe among other things) generate some substance(s) that have a desirable effect on their dinoflagellate bloom.

That very thing has been noted to happen in the wild and in laboratory experiments.

The question is will those findings and experiments translate to the home reef tank?

Not everything does – not by a stretch – so it's a necessary question.

Nobody is expected to have a ready answer to that question, BTW.....I don't think there is an answer yet. Hence all the experimentation going on.

I wonder if anyone will refine the experiment to get better results?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I would start dosing microbacter clean or microbacter 7 along with vaccuming the Dino’s up. The bacteria will prevent the Dino’s from growing out again

I understand that is the rationale. Whether it actually works that way, or works at all, is a different question.

 

[JonasRoman]

Regarding dosing silicate to outcompete dinoflagellates, all that theory relies on the premise that silicate limits diatom growth. I am not so sure that is true. I have had many different silicon levels and have never seen a connection between that and diatom growth. I am not sure you will get a significant increase in diatoms just because you dose silicon, as phosphorus can be limiting if dinoflagellates have consumed it; in such a case, dosing silicon should not have much effect. Maybe I am wrong, it is just a thought. Also, in cases where dinoflagellates disappeared after dosing silicon, was it a clear, fast, and prompt response or just a slow decline? The latter is not evidence enough, as minor dinoflagellate outbreaks can subside on their own.

In the method I believe in, UV plus a dark period provides a fast and prompt response, making it impossible to blame the effect on a natural process. As dinoflagellates are unpredictable, I think we need a clear, undoubted response to conclude that a method works.

I would still like to see a summary of all methods, their responses, and their success rates. It is hard to get an overview of the subject because of the huge threads. I realise such a summary is impossible to get unless someone start a huge investigation and ask users for honest reports.
Absolutely also uvc plus dark may fail. I can only response for my own experience where it has been surprisingly successfully. But yes, it was some trial to get there with proper uv etc.
No one would be more happy than me if there is a more easy and cheaper method with high success rate. For me, I have failed with so many competitive methods so I dont have faith to try again.

Will try roughly search among all these threads if we can get a hint of successrate for different methods.

Jonas

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Regarding dosing silicate to outcompete dinoflagellates, all that theory relies on the premise that silicate limits diatom growth. I am not so sure that is true.

It was definitely true in my old tank. It may or may not be true in others.

https://reefs.com/magazine/silica-in-reef-aquariums/


Figure 3. A view of the inside of the front glass of my reef tank 5 days after scraping the glass.

Figure 6. A view of the inside of the front glass of my reef tank 5 days after scraping the glass and adding the silica supplement.

Figure 7. An organism (at arrow point) isolated from the glass surface after silica addition, tentatively identified as the diatom _Cylindrotheca closterium (Nitzschia closterium). It is the second most abundant in the collected material.

 

[JonasRoman]

It was definitely true in my old tank. It may or may not be true in others.

https://reefs.com/magazine/silica-in-reef-aquariums/


Figure 3. A view of the inside of the front glass of my reef tank 5 days after scraping the glass.

Figure 6. A view of the inside of the front glass of my reef tank 5 days after scraping the glass and adding the silica supplement.

Figure 7. An organism (at arrow point) isolated from the glass surface after silica addition, tentatively identified as the diatom _Cylindrotheca closterium (Nitzschia closterium). It is the second most abundant in the collected material.

Beautiful illustrated:-) I havent done that serious, just observation in my tank.
Its for sure different in different situations, I mean Si exists quite abundant in a normal NSW, so I wonder if this really are limiting just because these algue contains some Si?. I think I never have seen an ICP with really low Si.

 

[Dan_P]

Now I'm not sure I see your point.

Is your point to stop reading and stop problem solving in the hobby? That would be hilarious.

Maybe your point is that the major science journals are merely sources of fraud? That would also be hilarious.

I love humor!

Getting to the discussion...

Folks with dinoflagellate blooms that don't respond to ordinary control measures are experimenting more and more with dosing silicates.

Their hope is to produce a diatom bloom that will (maybe among other things) generate some substance(s) that have a desirable effect on their dinoflagellate bloom.

That very thing has been noted to happen in the wild and in laboratory experiments.

The question is will those findings and experiments translate to the home reef tank?

Not everything does – not by a stretch – so it's a necessary question.

Nobody is expected to have a ready answer to that question, BTW.....I don't think there is an answer yet. Hence all the experimentation going on.

I wonder if anyone will refine the experiment to get better results?

Being obtuse is one way to end the discussion.

 

[mcarroll]

Regarding dosing silicate to outcompete dinoflagellates, all that theory relies on the premise

There are definitely questions like that still unanswered.

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/amphidinium-dinoflagellate-treatment-methods.365850/

I think this is probably the most consolidated thread for these kinds of cases, for what it may be worth.

 

[RobertK]

There are definitely questions like that still unanswered.


I think this is probably the most consolidated thread for these kinds of cases, for what it may be worth.

That thread specifically recommends silicate dosing for Amphidinium, a sand dwelling dinoflagellate. Have people found silicate dosing helpful for free swimming dinoflagellates such as Ostreopsis?

Also, what is the rationale for dosing phytoplankton to help combat dinoflagellates? Is it simply to feed copepods, which in turn eat dinoflagellates? Is there any synergy with silicate dosing? Is there any evidence to support this practice?

 

[mcarroll]

That thread specifically recommends silicate dosing for Amphidinium, a sand dwelling dinoflagellate. Have people found silicate dosing helpful for free swimming dinoflagellates such as Ostreopsis?

I don't know if there's been any repeatable, verifiable connection to success at all to be honest.

Part of the problem is that methodology of folks who implement it seem much more sparse and random than with the "usual method" of the dino mega-thread. This will make it much harder to draw real conclusions. Some people who dose silicates don't even get a bloom to happen, let alone control over the dino's.

It's still a good theory IMO, but much more rigorous work will have to be done to know if it's a real solution for anything.

The upshot is that experimenting doesn't seem to make anything worse. SO MANY other attempts at a "dino cure" have turned out to be problems in their own right.

Also, what is the rationale for dosing phytoplankton to help combat dinoflagellates? Is it simply to feed copepods, which in turn eat dinoflagellates? Is there any synergy with silicate dosing? Is there any evidence to support this practice?

I don't know of any solid connection here either.

For example, I don't know anyone who's gauged how much phyto that's dosed actually gets eaten vs how much just breaks down and decomposes in the tank (releasing nutrients in the process) – or if discerning this is even possible.

Based on the positive response of dino blooms to the "usual method" I presume phyto dosed in any "successful" scenario is mostly the latter where phyto becomes dissolved nutrients. In that case, dosing those nutrients is the same but more immediate and precise (and cheaper!), which have been distinct advantages vs other methods.

 

[Patrick Cox]

Well, I am still dealing with whatever this is. Dinos or Diatoms or something else. Nothing has worked and I am getting a bit frustrated. I was able to get nutrients up in the last two weeks. It has been pretty steady around the following ranges for a couple of weeks...

NO3: 8 - 11
PO4: 0.11 - 0.14

I was running a 25w UV but that didn't seem to be doing anything so I removed it. I was out of town for 3 days and I will say that maybe the sand got a little worse so maybe the UV was doing something. But definitely not effective enough to remove whatever I have. I have totally cleaned the sand bed but that has done nothing. At this point I am ready to try chemicals if there are any that might work. Would replacing my sand bed with new live sand do anything? Or would I have to totally start over?

Thanks for any other suggestions.

ps- I did send a water sample off for testing as well.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Removing the sand might not be a bad idea at this point.

 

[JonasRoman]

Well, I am still dealing with whatever this is. Dinos or Diatoms or something else. Nothing has worked and I am getting a bit frustrated. I was able to get nutrients up in the last two weeks. It has been pretty steady around the following ranges for a couple of weeks...

NO3: 8 - 11
PO4: 0.11 - 0.14

I was running a 25w UV but that didn't seem to be doing anything so I removed it. I was out of town for 3 days and I will say that maybe the sand got a little worse so maybe the UV was doing something. But definitely not effective enough to remove whatever I have. I have totally cleaned the sand bed but that has done nothing. At this point I am ready to try chemicals if there are any that might work. Would replacing my sand bed with new live sand do anything? Or would I have to totally start over?

Thanks for any other suggestions.

ps- I did send a water sample off for testing as well.

Know I am repestinh but Black out and uv at same time is crucial. 3 days. Then continue with uv another 3 days. Youtmr UV is too weak. Double the UV power. And then also the pump to UV. Pump in display tank. So crucial is UV power , many has too weak, and appropriate pump to that, and the combination of that with black out. And UV pump always in display tsnk.


Jonas

 

[Patrick Cox]

Know I am repestinh but Black out and uv at same time is crucial. 3 days. Then continue with uv another 3 days. Youtmr UV is too weak. Double the UV power. And then also the pump to UV. Pump in display tank. So crucial is UV power , many has too weak, and appropriate pump to that, and the combination of that with black out. And UV pump always in display tsnk.


Jonas

You are probably correct that my UV is too small. The problem is the next size up is $700. And I still don't understand why you say the pump needs to be in the display. If a sump with filtration is effective, which I believe they are, otherwise we would not have sumps, then all of the water must flow through the sump and putting a pump in the sump should be the same as in the display. It is the same body of water.

 

[mcarroll]

You are probably correct that my UV is too small. The problem is the next size up is $700. And I still don't understand why you say the pump needs to be in the display. If a sump with filtration is effective, which I believe they are, otherwise we would not have sumps, then all of the water must flow through the sump and putting a pump in the sump should be the same as in the display. It is the same body of water.

So if we break this down in simple terms, basically you are conflating "effective" with "perfectly effective".

If we're only talking about controlling algae with UV, then a generally-"effective" sump installation is fine.

But if we're talking about parasites and pathogens then there is a higher standard for requirements because they are much harder to kill....meaning that a higher dose of UV is required. A sump is only going to filter the "whole tank" between one and four times an hour in most cases.....even in extreme cases it would be no more than ten times an hour. Something closer to "perfectly effective" is necessary or at least helpful.

So, dealing with pathogens or parasites is more intensive and this is what makes the difference in how you deploy UV, especially in the shorter term. (Again, not relevant if we're only targeting algae.)

For an example of the "imperfection" we're thinking about, only in the long run does literally all the water go through the sump. All the water that's close to the rocks, corals and other surfaces in the display takes more time to reach the sump than the bulk water in the tank for example. Water in the pores of the rock will take even longer. Etc.

For another example, a drain system is usually very selective about what water is taken into the sump....often it's only water skimmed from the display tank's surface. For one thing that means none of the other water is being treated except for the mixing that our powerheads provide. So if the powerheads can't stir our targets into that top layer of water for some/any reason then it doesn't get treated at all.

If we install the UV pump in the display then we can elect to have the water taken from the middle of the tank or maybe from closer to the substrate (eg dino's)....so being able to place the UV's pump where we want in the display can be useful.

There's probably even more to it, but that's enough words for one post....maybe even too many. Someone else can chime in if there's more. ;)