What are the root causes of Cyano?

[saltyfilmfolks]

I have to say that the more I look into this the more confused I am becoming. The article (and a few others I could link if you want) was definitely referring to CO2 since it was talking about carbon uptake. I think I need to do more studying on how other marine bacteria, like cyano, uptake carbon. Maybe it will make more sense.

Cyanos evolved first. As 02 was produced and is more easily used , they then evolved to use it

 

[Brew12]

Cyanos evolved first. As 02 was produced and is more easily used , they then evolved to use it

I agree with that part. My CO2 comment was based entirely on the absorption of the carbon though, not oxygen uptake. I didn't look into oxygen uptake at all, but maybe I need to.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

No No – Love, peace and misunderstanding they use a lot of oxygen and put out some as CO2 but mostly they use the O2 for the NO2 and NO3 molecule when they transform NH4 to NO3 in the last step. Thee O for every N atom! But in the building of bacteria cells - they need a lot of carbon. But they are autotrophs like plants and algae, they need inorganic carbon in order to build organic matter. This they take from the water and the main source (IMO) is HCO3 and CO3 – not CO2 in the water as many algae is capable to use

Sincerely Lasse

Hahaha. I tease my friend.

But it proves my point there I belive , o2 for nitrifing bacteria and high co2 for cyanos.

A cyano bacterial mat smoother organisms and consume the resultant co2 and create a slightly anerobic area in witch t thrives.
In new tanks it's pulling the co2 an inorganic carbons from the aragonite I Belive. The n/p it's as well as additional co2 getting directly from the freshly acquired fish poop as the nitrifying bacteria can't get enough o2.
That's the non matting type we see that's sprinkled through the sand , but the smothering effect is similar , but on a much smaller scale.

 

[Brew12]

I might be missing something on the importance of nitrifying bacteria and its relationship with Cyanobacteria.

Nitrifying bacteria are very slow reproducers compared to the matting cyanobacteria. Won't they always lose the battle for nutrients? And, since if I understand that correctly, doesn't that mean there is little to no connection between nitrifying bacteria and the growth rate of cyanobacteria?

I find what I can understand about this discussion fascinating, but it also seems to be a left turn from the original topic. If I am wrong, can I get "Bacteria for Dummies" version on the tie between the two?

 

[Lasse]

doesn't that mean there is little to no connection

but it also seems to be a left turn from the original topic.

You are right in both sentences

I plaster my fingers, remove the battery from the keyboard and go to bed

Sincerely Lasse

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

Bacteria for Dummies

PBS.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

I might be missing something on the importance of nitrifying bacteria and its relationship with Cyanobacteria.

IMO, competion for resources and not providing a suitable habitat for the cyano.

 

[Brew12]

IMO, competion for resources and not providing a suitable habitat for the cyano.

From that perspective, I could see it if we are looking at ammonia as being the driving force for a suitable habitat for cyano. Possibly even phophorus although I doubt nitrifying bacteria are a large consumer (they obviously need some). It just seem to me that nitrifying bacteria are not in direct competition with cyano for any particular resource and that if they were the cyano would win since it is a much faster reproducer.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

From that perspective, I could see it if we are looking at ammonia as being the driving force for a suitable habitat for cyano. Possibly even phophorus although I doubt nitrifying bacteria are a large consumer (they obviously need some). It just seem to me that nitrifying bacteria are not in direct competition with cyano for any particular resource and that if they were the cyano would win since it is a much faster reproducer.

N/p. Simply put. And ammoina yes.

The trick is not giving the cyano a good home and knowing how to ask it to leave. (Breaking its cycle).

And yes nitrifying bacteria are a consumer of phosphate, or we wouldn't use nopox. It's just the evil advertising , as we know carbon dosing is No3 biased. It just got popular because Po4 tests became available.

"Why is p04 such a huge concern in reef aquaria? Because we can test for it now "
Sanjay.

I have an actual high nutrient system , but somehow I've balanced the system to pull a lot of c02 out and cycle nutrients into more benifical organisms to out compete cyano. In my case , that would be coral.

An interesting thing for me would be to add some live sand and see if the addition of fresh aragonite would spur cyano growth. As we do know that cyano can use that as a carbon source.

 

[Hans-Werner]

I have to say that the more I look into this the more confused I am becoming. The article (and a few others I could link if you want) was definitely referring to CO2 since it was talking about carbon uptake. I think I need to do more studying on how other marine bacteria, like cyano, uptake carbon. Maybe it will make more sense.

You are correct, the article is correct. Nitrifyers are amongh the chemoautotrophic bacteria that can make organic carbon from CO2, just as plants and algae do it with light. The nitrifyers use chemical energy of reduced substances (NH4 and NO2). Nitrifyers are not the only chemoautotrophic bacteria, there are also the sulfur bacteria and methan oxidizers (methanotrophic bacteria) that do similar things with other substances. Nowadays also the cyanobacteria are regular bacteria (Eubacteria) and they are autotrophic too (photoautotrophic) which means they don´t need organic carbon for growth. CO2 (mainly in the form of HCO3- in seawater if they have the enzyme carbonic anhydrase) and light is sufficient.
(I have just seen Lasse has already answered this question in the same way)

 

[Lasse]

Yes - but I´m rather sure that the nitrifying bacteria can´t use CO2 as a dissolved gas in the water – they need to take the CO2 source from HCO3 or CO3 – hence they need to have carbonic anhydrase or similar mechanisms. Nitrifying process is inhibited at low pH (high CO2 concentrations) with one possible exclusion - if you adjust alkalinity with help of HCO3 prior to adding CO2 to the water (planted aquariums). This I haven´t tested by myself hence the word "possible"

Nitrification works very well in high alkalinity waters - I have had alkalinity of over 30 in KH (over 10.7 in mekv) (freshwater recirculating fish farm) and a very well working nitrification - pH 8.1 - 8.3.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Hans-Werner]

Lasse, an older publication says there is nitrification in reefs in corals in Indopacific reefs, (?) but please see the numbers, the overwhelming proportion of N remains NH4 and DON in reef. As far as I know most of the the DON in coral reefs is labile DON that can readily be used in corals.

 

[Hans-Werner]

This is why I typically have 0 to5ppm NO3 and 0.00-0.05 phosphates yet I feel I run a high nutrient system. Lots of food in, lots of algae out.

This means you have a NO3 : PO4 ratio by weight of 100. The typical NO3 : PO4 ratio in reef by weight is 1 or 2. There typically is between 0.01 ppm and 0.09 ppm PO4 and between 0.01 and 0.18 ppm NO3 in reefs.

 

[Sallstrom]

This means you have a NO3 : PO4 ratio by weight of 100. The typical NO3 : PO4 ratio in reef by weight is 1 or 2. There typically is between 0.01 ppm and 0.09 ppm PO4 and between 0.01 and 0.18 ppm NO3 in reefs.

Sure. But in the ocean the corals also have a constant food source in plankton that is hard to replicate in an aquarium(among a lot of other things that differ between the ocean and our tanks). If you try those numbers in a reeftank I think you might get some cyano problems sooner or later since its hard to get the same stability in those parameters as in the ocean. I'm sure it can be done without getting cyano, but I think it's hard.

If this discussion gets to how to get rid of the cyano I have some more thoughts, but until then I will just sit back and enjoy this thread

/ David

 

[Brew12]

This means you have a NO3 : PO4 ratio by weight of 100. The typical NO3 : PO4 ratio in reef by weight is 1 or 2. There typically is between 0.01 ppm and 0.09 ppm PO4 and between 0.01 and 0.18 ppm NO3 in reefs.

I don't feel I can even guess what my true ratio is. I am a hobbyist using hobby level test kits. At these low levels the accuracy of my test kits along with human error means that my actual ratio could be just about anything.

As I stated in a different thread, I believe the knowledge we are discussing isn't as useful when applied to water testing. I do believe that if you understand the nutrient uptake requirements of different problem algae/bacteria that you can identify nutrient issues and make more informed decisions in treatment options.

That is why I am trying to understand this issue better. It is also why I appreciate the expertise that you and Lasse bring to this topic. I am limited to what I can learn from the studies I read. Here, I feel like I have college professors to bounce things off of!

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

I don't feel I can even guess what my true ratio is. I am a hobbyist using hobby level test kits. At these low levels the accuracy of my test kits along with human error means that my actual ratio could be just about anything.

As I stated in a different thread, I believe the knowledge we are discussing isn't as useful when applied to water testing. I do believe that if you understand the nutrient uptake requirements of different problem algae/bacteria that you can identify nutrient issues and make more informed decisions in treatment options.

That is why I am trying to understand this issue better. It is also why I appreciate the expertise that you and Lasse bring to this topic. I am limited to what I can learn from the studies I read. Here, I feel like I have college professors to bounce things off of!

Don't forget the long haired undergrads.

 

[Hans-Werner]

Sure. But in the ocean the corals also have a constant food source in plankton that is hard to replicate in an aquarium(among a lot of other things that differ between the ocean and our tanks). If you try those numbers in a reeftank I think you might get some cyano problems sooner or later since its hard to get the same stability in those parameters as in the ocean. I'm sure it can be done without getting cyano, but I think it's hard.

In my experience corals grow much better with narrow NO3 : PO4 ratios than with high/far ratios. I usually see cyanos grow more when phosphate is low in the water and high in the gravel and rocks which usually means phosphate was high in the tank and has been lowered. Cyanos also frequently appear on fresh substrates that are high in phosphate when the water is low in phosphates. For me it looks much like cyanos have an advantage over competitiors like corals in using phosphate stores when phosphate concentration in water is low.

Hard corals on the other side concentrate very much iron in their skeletons. I think iron is the element most enriched in coral skeletons. Cyanos are said to have a high demand in iron. In this way good growing SPS could outcompete cyanos by depleting iron quickly.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

In my experience corals grow much better with narrow NO3 : PO4 ratios than with high/far ratios. I usually see cyanos grow more when phosphate is low in the water and high in the gravel and rocks which usually means phosphate was high in the tank and has been lowered. Cyanos also frequently appear on fresh substrates that are high in phosphate when the water is low in phosphates. For me it looks much like cyanos have an advantage over competitiors like corals in using phosphate stores when phosphate concentration in water is low.

Hard corals on the other side concentrate very much iron in their skeletons. I think iron is the element most enriched in coral skeletons. Cyanos are said to have a high demand in iron. In this way good growing SPS could outcompete cyanos by depleting iron quickly.

I dunno man. It's still promoting the n/p balance thing that seemed to be debunked in the recent n/p balance thread though.
Not trying to be a jerk, it's just an honest observation.
There was no substantive proof that systemic n/p imbalance causes real problems.

I finally have some cyanos and belive me , I have phosphates to spare.

Please do look at reeferfoxxs build thread. She systematically and very methodically tracked tested and dosed towards correcting "imbalance" to no avail.

 

[Hans-Werner]

Like already mentioned above, I am doing experimentation on nutrients for more than 20 years now. It´s my experience and I have been doing the experimentation methodically too. Of course it does not mean cyanos can only grow under these certain circumstances. If you think this I think you are on the wrong way. I am sure cyanos will grow under various different conditions. In my experience they quite frequently bloom when phosphate was lowered or when fresh substates are high in phosphate while the water is not. You can do an experiment easily: Just put a rock or substrate from a tank with very high phosphate concentrations into one with very very low phosphate concentration.

Consequently the cyanos grow better if you are dosing iron because the corals can´t deplete iron enough to stop cyano growth.

And for corals the ratios only matter when concentrations are extremely low and limiting coral growth.

 

[Lasse]

For me – if I can read a certain concentration of a nutrient in a water – aquarium or in the wild – it is only telling me that this is the standing stock of this nutrient – it is resources not in use. Its indicate that the production (or import) of this nutrient is higher than the consumption. This figure do not tell anything of the real turn over of nutrients in a system. Many people have state that a coral reef is a desert according to the low concentrations of nutrient. But the truth is the opposite – a coral reef is among the most productive ecosystems that exist. The turn over of nutrients is enormous. That’s exactly that @Brew12 has discover in his system – low residues of nutrient in his aquaria but a huge turnover and hence a large production. His aquarium is not a high nutrients system – it’s a high turnover/production system – exactly the way a reef is in nature.

According to the discussion of nitrification in a natural reef system – the article strengthens my believe in this. Its also show a net uptake of NO3 in the algae beds. Can´t resist a quote from the article

Thus, it was surprising to find high rates of nitrification on a coral reef (a result since confirmed by in vitro and in situ studies: Webb and Wiebe in prep.). For the first time, a marine community has been located that is producing NO3- at a measurable rate.

The article also shows a net export from this coral reef of total N. Surprising for me – I have always believed that coral reefs consume total nitrogen – not produce it. The only reason for this – at least what the authors thought - was fixation of N – done by cyanobacteria on the reef – mostly a species associated with macro algae

Cincerely Lasse