Suddenly so much budding/branching in my SPS

[static416]

I had a previous smaller SPS tank that was great from day 1. Everything grew immediately and I don't think I lost a single frag.

When I upgraded to the new much larger system, it's never really been perfect, and for at least a year growth has basically been stagnant. I tried many things, but nothing seemed to help. SPS survived, but did not grow much.

About two months ago I changed a few things, and have seen an explosion in growth since, but I'm not sure why exactly. Almost all my SPS are sending out new buds/branches. Very noticable change. And things that were previously dull or just green, have much more dynamic color.

What do you think is the contributing factor here, or is it more of a cumulative effect?

Some things have have changed:
- Alk is more stable, and decreased from about 9-10dkh to 7.8-8dkh
- Nitrate down from ~20ppm to 2-8ppm (was stable at 2ppm for a couple months, has spiked recently)
- Phosphate down from 200ppm to ~90ppm (I was measuring wrong previously)
- pH up from 8 to about 8.5-8.6
- Added large marco refugium running 24/7
- Salinity down from 36 to 35 ppt

Or could it be something that doesn't register in the chemistry directly?

Is there a time of year or a biological trigger for SPS growth?

 

[CHSUB]

- Nitrate down from ~20ppm to 2-8ppm (was stable at 2ppm for a couple months, has spiked recently)
- Phosphate down from 200ppm to ~90ppm (I was measuring wrong previously)

This…science confirms it!

Po4 here:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022098111004588
No3 here:

https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...vies/51065d2752eda4c079875e6d6da936dcb57048d2

 

[mcarroll]

Some things have have changed:
- Alk is more stable, and decreased from about 9-10dkh to 7.8-8dkh
- Nitrate down from ~20ppm to 2-8ppm (was stable at 2ppm for a couple months, has spiked recently)
- Phosphate down from 200ppm to ~90ppm (I was measuring wrong previously)
- pH up from 8 to about 8.5-8.6
- Added large marco refugium running 24/7
- Salinity down from 36 to 35 ppt

Well...it can be more than one thing.

I think this tank is still just past new...so the corals have been generally adapting.

And looking back at threads, the corals have experienced some setbacks and you've been progressively dialing in the stability....so conditions weren't as favorable until recently.

Out of the list, I think the most significant by far is the alk stability.

IMO the rest of the list is is of much lower significance, or worse.

The algae in the refuge are actually competitors vs the corals, it is not just a simple nutrient sink. Seems like it's harmonious with the display currently, but keep in mind the role that algae have vs coral....chemical warfare is a specialty of algae.

If you decide to change the overall nutrient conditions I wouldn't do it quickly since the corals have obviously adapted.

I would target PO4 ≥0.10 ppm – no less. When you look around at folks like the Steinhart Aquarium (maybe the best documented example, but there are tons of high nutrient stony reefs), 90 ppm is not really a problem per se. If it's still 90 in your tank, that's colossally "high" compared to what people tell you is mandatory. Do your corals agree? No they are reported as being happier than ever – even at 90 ppm. You should trust your corals.

Stability is one of the main keys to the coral growth you're seeing now.....don't let that get lost in the shuffle of these other tools and ideas.

 

[mook1178]

Stability is the key word i picked up on.

The other part I would start testing is Calcium. How did you get your nutrients down? If it was water changes, you probably brought calcium and alkalinity into better balance and keeping them stable is more important that anything for SPS growth, IMO.

 

[exnisstech]

My N and P were already pretty low but pH made a huge difference in my SPS tank. pH was running 7.6 - 7.9 before I added a skimmer. Now it's 8.1 - 8.4 . I was dosing 30ml AFR daily when I added the skimmer on 8/12 and I'm now up to 60ml a day and no longer have to look at previous photos to see if coral are growing.

 

[BriDroid]

I honestly think that it is the lower NO3 and PO4 along with the higher pH.

Just my own little experiment, and I admit I have no control tank, but lower PO4 and NO3 has made my corals take off. I have been running FM Phos 0.04 which ironically keeps my PO4 at 0.055ppm to 0.058ppm and dosing ammonia/urea mix to keep my NO3 at 5-6ppm. This has been for the last few weeks, and it has never looked better. My green slimer is budding all over and has crazy polyp extension. All of my LPS (and especially torches) also look very good too.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Your P values must be a typo. Can you clarify what they are and measured how?

Higher pH and higher alk both boost calcification rates.

 

[static416]

Your P values must be a typo. Can you clarify what they are and measured how?

Higher pH and higher alk both boost calcification rates.

Sorry, yes.

Off by 3 orders of magnitude.

Should be:
- Phosphate down from 200ppb to ~90ppb

In term of measurement, they are measured via Red Sea Phophate Pro, inside Mastertronic Essential.

But also verified with Hanna Checker.

I have a ICP completing early next week that should confirm.

 

[static416]

Previously when I was measuring Phosphate using the Hanna Checker, I somehow forgot (for years) that the ppb Phosphorous checker output needs to be multiplied by 3 (roughly) to get Phosphate.

So my Phosphate has been running 3x higher than I thought for a couple years.

This explains why when it started hitting 100ppb (actually 300ppb Phosphate) in the winter, I was seeing stagnation in my SPS, and why I thought I needed 30ppb (actually 90ppb) to get back to normal growth.

 

[static416]

Stability is the key word i picked up on.

The other part I would start testing is Calcium. How did you get your nutrients down? If it was water changes, you probably brought calcium and alkalinity into better balance and keeping them stable is more important that anything for SPS growth, IMO.

The nutrients dropped over a period of about 3 weeks as a result of the refugium. Kind of impressive really. I had tried previously using gfo with relatively little success compared to 3 weeks of refugium.

 

[static416]

I would target PO4 ≥0.10 ppm – no less.

While most of my SPS have improved significantly, some are still not improving.

My JF Homewrecker is not changing. It's just static. Not sure if it's the lighting or the chemistry. About 550 PAR there.

And my Orange Passion appears to be more pale than I'd expect, when a previous colony of the same thing did awesome in this tank. Although admittedly over a year ago.

But almost everything else is perking up. And sending out new growth.

 

[mcarroll]

While most of my SPS have improved significantly, some are still not improving.

My JF Homewrecker is not changing. It's just static. Not sure if it's the lighting or the chemistry. About 550 PAR there.

And my Orange Passion appears to be more pale than I'd expect, when a previous colony of the same thing did awesome in this tank. Although admittedly over a year ago.

But almost everything else is perking up. And sending out new growth.

It's going to be confusing talking about "ppb" around here cuz everyone (and every book, article, etc) are in "ppm".

IMO to promote the best conversation, convert ppb to ppm with a table before you post:
https://knowledge.hannainst.com/hub...phate-conversion-table--hanna-instruments.pdf
0.90 ppb is about 0.26 ppm. (1/3 isn't a terrible rule of thumb if the table isn't handy.)

Some SPS take a long time to recover from bumps like the tank has had....the larger the colony, the longer the recovery. Sometimes coloration doesn't come back the same.

Other than making sure you are giving them the max/best flow they can tolerate, I don't think there's a lot more you can do....other than maintaining and improving that stability.

 

[Tripod1404]

Any changes in flow? With higher flow, SPs tend to encrust more and and form numerous short branches and buds. Lower flow generates longer more separated branches.

 

[static416]

It's going to be confusing talking about "ppb" around here cuz everyone (and every book, article, etc) are in "ppm".

Just to clarify, cause I think I caused some confusion.

All my Phos numbers in this thread are intended to be Phosphate not Phosphorus. So, standard there.

Me quoting them in ppm instead of ppb is just because I typed the unit wrong, so was technically off by 1000x. Not because I'm quoting Phosphorus numbers.

---

Separately from that, I was just remarking that I did make the Phosphorous mistake for over a yar, of the thinking the Hanna ULR Phorphorous numbers were Phosphate.

That doesn't effect the numbers I'm quoting in this thread, but just explaining that I've been running my Phosphate literally 3x what I thought for over a year until recently.

And really, I think that's the best answer to my initial question now that I talk my way through it.

If I factor in the error I made, I was running 0.09ppm Phosphate in the previous tank. Then this new one rose to 0.3ppm in the winter before I started brining it down.

I got it to 0.2ppm in May, and then 0.09ppm now.

I know the the hobby has moved to recommending higher nutrient loads than years back, but 0.2ppm Phosphate might be beyond that and explain some of the reduced growth until recently.

 

[static416]

Some photos for reference:

In the above, it's the lighter-colored buds on the left.

This one is way more subtle, but this was green until recently, now going pink. And the buds around the base are new.

The millipora above has new lighter buds in multiple places.

This one also sending out a bunch around the base.

 

[static416]

The other part I would start testing is Calcium.

Maybe I'm cutting corners, but I've never found Calcium or Magnesium useful to test. It always tracks so close to Alk for me that I can tell what I need to based on the Alk.

But for the record:
- Calcium 446
- Mg 1385

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Maybe I'm cutting corners, but I've never found Calcium or Magnesium useful to test. It always tracks so close to Alk for me that I can tell what I need to based on the Alk.

But for the record:
- Calcium 446
- Mg 1385

Yes, I do that as well.

 

[rishma]

Maybe I'm cutting corners, but I've never found Calcium or Magnesium useful to test. It always tracks so close to Alk for me that I can tell what I need to based on the Alk.

But for the record:
- Calcium 446
- Mg 1385

You have seen the light. If everyone else did it this way it would cut the questions in this forum by 50%

 

[Miami Reef]

I almost never test either. I think it’s so pointless to test him regularly.