Sterile Seascape Stress: Is there such a thing as a reef tank that is too clean?

[WhatCouldGoWrong71]

Ok. Up to you, but I think sand is better myself. Can always replace it with new, too. BRS removed the sand on the 160, I think? And it pretty much crashed the tank because they did it all at once. Not to say it will happen to you, but here is a thread. They also did a video on youtube.

Thread 'The BRS 160 Sand Removal - What were the negatives from the destabilizing event?' https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/t...egatives-from-the-destabilizing-event.784254/

Thanks. I didn’t realize that they did that. Frankly, if there is a 10% chance of a tank crash, I likely won’t do it. I may wind up doing it to a different tank, my family would shoot me if I mucked up that tank. I really regret not changing the sand when I had it apart.

 

[00W]

My tanks will never ever ever look like that.
And I'm OK with that.

 

[brandon429]

@All_talk

the discussion began that being too clean causes dinos, stated in two tanks on page one and in several posts in the nuisance forum pointed out as a pattern thought from the general reefing public

This thread here is about very clean, sterile reefs but the hidden detail is the live rock in the example tank isn't actually sterile its a food pump. Having ultra clean or no sand doesn't mean sterile

A thread showing formerly dirty reefs turned into the cleanest possible reefs overnite (the sand rinse thread) with no emergence of dinos or cyano is relevant to the discussion. It shows we are able to convert any reef to clean, and not get any of the stated bad side effects.

we show that systems that do not have sandbeds full of waste (because we rip cleaned them) don’t recycle when moved, transferred, upgraded and bed changed. By making any reef tank sterile clean just like this article, we were able to beat invasions vs cause them. I’m amazed anyone reading didn’t catch that progression as clearly as it was debated the last few pages.

 

[Timfish]

Here's what two of the worlds best known reef scientists have to say:

"When I see the colors of some of these low nutrient tanks, I can't help but be reminded of bleached coral reefs. It should therefore not come as a surprise that feeding corals in such systems becomes a very important component in these systems. Though reefs are often catagorized as nutrient "deserts" the influx of nutrients in the form of particulates and plankton is quite high when the total volume of water passing over a reef is taken into consideration.

Our crystal-clear aquaria do not come close to the nutrient loads that swirl around natural reefs. And so when we create low-nutrient water conditions, we still have to deal with the rest of a much more complex puzzle. Much like those who run their aquarium water temperature close to the thermal maximums of corals walk a narrow tight rope, I can't help but think that low-nutrient aquariums may be headed down a similar path." Charles Delbeck, Coral Nov/Dec 2010, pg 127

"Imported nutrients are usually transported to reefs from rivers; but if there are no rivers, as with reefs remote from land masses, nutrients can only come from surface ocean circulation. Often this supply is poor, and thus the vast ocean expanses have been refered to as "nutrient deserts". The Indo-Pacific has many huge atolls in these supposed deserts which testify to the resilience of reefs, but the corals themselves may lack the lush appearance of those of more fertile waters. Many reefs have another major supply of inorganic nutrients as, under certain conditions, surface currents moving against a reef face may cause deep ocean water to be drawn to the surface. This "upwelled" water is often rich in phosphorus and other essential chemicals." J. E. N. Veron "Corals of Austrailia and the Indo-Pacific" pg 30

And a comment from one of the early coral farmers (started in '95) who produced hundreds of thousands of frags:

Richard Perrin of Tropicorum in June/July 2005 "Coral" after describing thier very low tech approach using just air bubbles pionerred by Lee Chin Eng in the 50s (no water pumps, mechanical filters, sumps, refugiums, skimmers or dosing equipment) goes on to say "most hobbyests overskim".

 

[Sharkbait19]

In my experience, any massive coral losses were the result of nitrates bottoming to 0 and thus majority of my lps quickly died. During these times there would also be minimal algae growth and the tank would seem more “clean”. However, this was definitely not ideal conditions for the corals. Now I regularly dose nitrate along with carbonate (for alk) to ensure there is always some nitrate in the system, and have eased up on my routine water changes to allow for more nutrients to build up. So yes, a reef can definitely be too clean, especially if you are trying to keep your corals well fed and happy.

 

[Mr. Roboto]

Clean tanks and clean water are not always synonymous

 

[All_talk]

Clean tanks and clean water are not always synonymous

Agreed, I think this is a important distinction. Physical cleanliness and water parameters are not directly connected.

 

[jpcaram]

Two years into the hobby I thought keeping nutrients super low was the way to go. Then Dinos. In a mature tank. After losing half my corals in the battle I figured out the solution was increasing nutrients and biodiversity in general. I beat them just by doing that. Now my tank looks better than ever. Coral growth and coloration is better than ever.

 

[Gumbies R Us]

I think it is hard to have a "spotless" tank, especially when you have certain parameters reaching zero