Algea from Florida in a reef

GARRIGA · Nov 15, 2022

Subsea said:
“Are you challenging my claim on alkalinity stability based purely on an article or actual experience? My claim as unbelievable as it might seem. Based mostly on actual experience. Backed by science and Randy, too. Don't know what else I can say but it is what is causing my inability to stabilize ph. One negative aspect of zero WC and carbon dosing. Why now back to testing a refugium. Pretty confident that will solve my concerns. Has in the past and science backs it. Just how I will implement still debatable and why I'm seeking solutions other than chaeto plus an itch I should scratch.”

@GARRIGA

After 51 year of Reefing experience and a marine engineering degree that researches the science, I don’t agree with your claims on alkalinity & carbon dosing. So I can better understand, explain to me how you “carbon dose“.

I'm not following your approach. Claim to have a degree on marine engineering which is the design of systems and not the biology of life. That therefore holds no merit with me. 51 years of reefing means nothing. I can keep life and yet no clue how I did it just because I followed the recipe of others, too. Spent enough time at a transhipper dedicating an entire section to corals as well as time spent with wholesalers back in the day to know that.

I can't explain it better than I have already. In simplest terms. Nitrification strips alkalinity by creating acids (are we disputing this) and denitrification creates base adding back that alkalinity lost during nitrification. I'm sure it is more complex than that but I like to simplify processes as I'm more focused on the results than exactly how the wheel was greased thereby this is how I best recall it. Spent my career in finance with a focus on modeling, reverse engineering issues and strategic decision making. By default. My brain questions everything and places experience above all things. Especially my own.

Carbon dosing provides the sugar or fuel (as I interpret it) that allows heterotrophic bacteria to require nitrates and nitrites (as well as others) to complete the nitrogen cycle. That carbon can also be derived from detritus being consumed by heterotrophic bacteria. Although my testing has proven that to not be very efficient. Hence the carbon dosing.

I'll be honest. Based on what I know about denitrification requiring no DO yet bound oxygen such as nitrates plus carbon from sugars, vinegar or alcohol it does seem odd that denitrification can occur in the absence of that environment and perhaps one day I will get answer to that but being even more honest. Don't really care. Just know that dosing carbon keeps my nitrates where needed and phosphates, too.

As for how I dose it. Daily and by hand. Not sure why that matters. Considering sometimes I skip a day. Sometimes I increase the dosage. In the end, if I so desire I can bottom my nitrates out and keep my phosphates under 0.25 ppm. Latter can be adjusted further if needed. I purposely aim for zero. I know. Reef taboo yet as for dinos, not an issue for me. I feed heavily. Probably more than most. Will see how it affects corals. Won't happen however until my ph is fixed. Why we are speaking of sargassum.

Here's how I know all this works. First test is alkalinity. When it's at 7 I know my nitrates are up. Constantly testing new variables and often let my nitrates sky rocket just to confirm I can drop them and the affects. Once they bottom out my alkalinity is 10. When they are under 5 but not zero I'm at 9 dkh. Done this so many times that I'm satisfied in knowing that what I've read is accurate and indisputable. Done it so many times that knowing my alkalinity is enough to know where my nitrates are. This is a key point.

You keep quoting other references and I must ask. Have you actually performed what I've used as my point of reference because to dismiss my findings or question how it is yet purely off your interpretation of read isn't the correct approach. I don't mind being corrected but I prefer it based off own experience vs interpreting another.

For example, Randy educated me on alkalinity being returned when nitrates are reduced either by denitrification or taken by organisms such as plants, algae (technically a type of plant to me) or corals. WC would have removed those nitrates and thereby take that alkalinity lost during nitrification away. Also educated me on CO2 equilibrium with atmosphere. Since the early 70s (you aren't the only old dude ,respectfully, having done this so long) I believe that simple surface agitation was enough for gas exchange and I was wrong on both. Although on alkalinity I was half wrong or half correct (I like thinking in terms of half filled cups) because I had read 50% was returned. Did however think that was odd and just assumed some lost via some other level of biology my head couldn't grasp or skimmed over because technical papers in science can be very very boring to read like all I've written here because we keep questioning what I write as if I just mixed my first bucket of salt. Which I haven't since last year. Beauty of no WC other than adjusting for salt creep. I'm sure we will be discussing how exactly I can balance my salinity without WC but I'm ready. My key board only a few years old. I'm sure it can survive another 1000 plus key strokes.

Honestly, I appreciate the effort and enjoy the conversation and hope it continues and although I might not be the most seasonned I'm also neither the guy who just decides corals are pretty and I want one too. You'd be amazed at the time I spend researching every crazy thought I have and will challenge anything that just seems odd to me yet never assume the other knows less and more often than not must test it myself just to see because often I find it's not as told. Been doing no WC since the 80s. Carbon dose without a skimmer a year now. For example. It's fine to disagree and hoepfully we all learn. I do that every day except when it comes to nitrification. In general as it pertains to keeping water clean. Pretty sure I've got that part down.

GARRIGA · Nov 15, 2022

Subsea said:
Let’s talk seaweed & coral chemistry with respect to waste products. DOC (dissolved organic carbon) exudates of coral is mostly lipids & proteins while exudates of seaweed are mostly carbohydrates or glucose.. Each source of DOC produce differrent bacteria that effect health of a reef. Activated carbon will remove some DOC from the water column.

I use cryptic sponges to absorb DOC. No water changes, no activated carbon.

Effects of reduced dissolved oxygen concentrations on physiology and fluorescence of hermatypic corals and benthic algae

While shifts from coral to seaweed dominance have become increasingly common on coral reefs and factors triggering these shifts successively identified, the primary mechanisms involved in coral-algae interactions remain unclear. Amongst various potential ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

That article references interaction between corals and seaweed and reduction of oxygen. I skimmed. Not sure how that relates to my trying to grasp how CO2 is utilized by floating seaweed and specifically only floating seaweed. Sounds like that article is concerned with algae taking over reefs but like I said, I skimmed.

As for the bacteria being produced. Not following on how that matters in a reef aquarium. Are you saying that will cause coral mortality. From floating seaweed? Trying to follow.

As for sponges, found out earlier this year some use them as filters. Do recall seeing something about this in the 70s but wasn't something ever seen at LFS and only reason I thought about it again because a local source of marine life carried it and got me thinking of them in a refugium but being that harvest is critical as to not expose to air figured I'd go seek my own to ensure it was handled properly. Then totally forgot about it. I can only retain so much before it just goes away. Probably around the time I decided refugiums no longer for me because carbon dosing solved the main reason I previously needed which wasn't CO2 control but just nitrates and phosphates. Also thought of mussels and clams in the respect. Amazing filters those are.

GARRIGA · Nov 15, 2022

Subsea said:
Why do you feel you have too much co2? It true that night time swings reduce pH. However, a healthy reef at night in the wild has pH swings down to 7.7.

In a study on a declining IndoPacific reef, oxygen content proved to be much more important than pH.

Over crowded air tight house. Can't fix that without a great expense implementing then keeping. Air handler my only option and would require one that cools incoming air which tends to be 90 degrees mid day and that's in December. Gotta love global warming in the sub tropics. So much fun. Can literally fry eggs on a hood.

Subsea · Nov 15, 2022

@GARRIGA
Five yrs ago, on this website I dosed vinegar for about 1yr. I only used observation to evaluate. I found more accumulation of MULM/detritus that accumulated with no other changes noted.

Your testing procedure is much more detailed, yet how do you seperate the biochemistry & sequestration of corals & algae from nitrification/denitrification of bacteria in the same system?

GARRIGA · Nov 15, 2022

Subsea said:
@GARRIGA
Five yrs ago, on this website I dosed vinegar for about 1yr. I only used observation to evaluate. I found more accumulation of MULM/detritus that accumulated with no other changes noted.

Your testing procedure is much more detailed, yet how do you seperate the biochemistry & sequestration of corals & algae from nitrification/denitrification of bacteria in the same system?

In the 70s/80s I had the wrong impression that undergravel filters needed to be cleaned. No clue why I had that impression. Just did. Every few months Id tear it down to clean the gravel in a bucket. To my surprise. All I found was mulm. That fine brown dust. No detritus. No algae like what I find now similar to that found in HVAC systems.

When I started this experiment, had the flow slow and was able to maintain nitrates below 5 ppm and phosphates under 0.25 ppm. Didn't touch anything. Hands out until I noticed that nitrates started climbing but not phosphates. I experimented with NoPox but was mostly to bring post cycle nitrates down. However, found my denitrification filter stopped keeping up with nitrates and suspect because too much oxygen passing but not sure. The way it is designed hard to measure oxygen and ph coming from it not that off from display. Slightly lower.

One day decided to stir the tank. Detritus cloud everywhere. Couldn't see fish or rocks it was that bad yet my parameters all in check and nitrates only rising when I stopped dosing at that point. Only conclusion derived being that detritus might need a home to decompose and just sitting rocks or gravel won't break it down. Only explanation based on what I saw with my UG cleaning nonsense.

My filter design in such a way I can see if it is clogging and it is not. Assumption being detritus caught in the media decomposes and mulm to small for my eyes to see. I'll eventually tear this down and move on to a bigger experiment and we shall see.

Randy mentioned seeing a ton of detritus collecting in his sump. Perhaps there is some truth to my thinking it needs to be captured to decompose. Everything decomposes with mulm being the final product where mineralization releases it's nutrients of which calcium and magnesium being one of them based of food given or that creating the detritus. Not sure on that logically think that all detritus should release both. Part of my thinking on capturing it vs export via skimmer or filter sock. Nature finds a way otherwise we'd be drowning in dinosaur poop.

Why you noticed more detritus post dosing I have no clue and if that's why I see more might be a clue. Could carbon dosing interrupt the natural cycle where heterotrophic bacteria must breakdown detritus to obtain that carbon and by dosing we interrupt that natural cycle creating an imbalance? Still not fluent in the Redfield Ratio and some speculate that in the aquaria it doesn't apply but as mentioned previously, not exactly sure what is occurring with carbon dosing as it goes against everything I understand about denitrification and having an environment devoid of DO but containing bound oxygen such as nitrates and nitrites.

As for mulm, I'd expect that being tied to the amount of detritus decomposed. Although having more of both could only occur if feeding was augmented or perhaps currents changed and it was being deposited in different locations.

I know sponges filter detritus and could that have changed because less efficient post dosing? Every action has a reaction and why I'm often scratching my head wondering what I need to do next.

Subsea · Nov 15, 2022

“As for the bacteria being produced. Not following on how that matters in a reef aquarium. Are you saying that will cause coral mortality. From floating seaweed? Trying to follow.”

Yes, that will cause coral mortality. In the Caribbean, a massive die off of urchins turned many coral reefs into algae reefs. Except for herbivores, all coral reefs would be algae dominated.

Coral exudates feed autotrophic microbes and algae exudates feed hetotropic microbes which reduce oxygen in the water. Considering that algae exudates are carbohydrates/glucose, coral die from too much sugar. This process can be predicted well in advance using bacteria population analysis.

Influence of coral and algal exudates on microbially mediated reef metabolism

Benthic primary producers in tropical reef ecosystems can alter biogeochemical cycling and microbial processes in the surrounding seawater. In order to quantify these influences, we measured rates of photosynthesis, respiration, and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) exudate release by the dominant...

peerj.com

“All benthic primary producers exuded significant quantities of DOC (roughly 10% of their daily fixed carbon) into the surrounding water over a diurnal cycle. Coral exudates (and associated inorganic nutrients) caused a shift towards a net autotrophic microbial metabolism by increasing the net production of oxygen by the benthic and decreasing the net consumption of oxygen by the planktonic microbial community. In contrast, the addition of algal exudates decreased the net primary production by the benthic communities and increased the net consumption of oxygen by the planktonic microbial community thereby resulting in a shift towards net heterotrophic community metabolism”.

“Our results highlight the variability of the influence of different benthic primary producers on microbial metabolism in reef ecosystems and the potential implications for energy transfer to higher trophic levels during shifts from coral to algal dominance on reefs.”

GARRIGA · Nov 15, 2022

Subsea said:
“As for the bacteria being produced. Not following on how that matters in a reef aquarium. Are you saying that will cause coral mortality. From floating seaweed? Trying to follow.”

Yes, that will cause coral mortality. In the Caribbean, a massive die off of urchins turned many coral reefs into algae reefs. Except for herbivores, all coral reefs would be algae dominated.

Coral exudates feed autotrophic microbes and algae exudates feed hetotropic microbes which reduce oxygen in the water. Considering that algae exudates are carbohydrates/glucose, coral die from too much sugar. This process can be predicted well in advance using bacteria population analysis.

Influence of coral and algal exudates on microbially mediated reef metabolism

Benthic primary producers in tropical reef ecosystems can alter biogeochemical cycling and microbial processes in the surrounding seawater. In order to quantify these influences, we measured rates of photosynthesis, respiration, and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) exudate release by the dominant...

peerj.com

“All benthic primary producers exuded significant quantities of DOC (roughly 10% of their daily fixed carbon) into the surrounding water over a diurnal cycle. Coral exudates (and associated inorganic nutrients) caused a shift towards a net autotrophic microbial metabolism by increasing the net production of oxygen by the benthic and decreasing the net consumption of oxygen by the planktonic microbial community. In contrast, the addition of algal exudates decreased the net primary production by the benthic communities and increased the net consumption of oxygen by the planktonic microbial community thereby resulting in a shift towards net heterotrophic community metabolism”.

“Our results highlight the variability of the influence of different benthic primary producers on microbial metabolism in reef ecosystems and the potential implications for energy transfer to higher trophic levels during shifts from coral to algal dominance on reefs.”

Honest. Most of that over my head. Why I just go to the conclusions after the abstract or beginning but isn't this a study on benthic populations and I guess I'm trying to correlate it to floating sargassum or are you stating that any use of macro algae would change the bacterial population having a negative affect on coral inhabitants? My simplistic approach is seeing all macros as having the same biology regardless if floating sargassum, stationary sargassum, caulerpa or chaeto or GHA propagated on a screen as to their consumption of nutrients and waste produced. That's as far as I've cared to understand it. Rather top level holistic 30 thousand foot view. Seeing no purpose to go further down that rabbit hole. Just not my area of interest.

Understand that the removal of any predator causes it's prey to over populate. Be it urchins or parrot fish and that allows algae to run uncontrolled but it seems as if this shift in bacteria cause the urchin decline and that's beyond my scope of knowledge or ability to grasp since I'm just not going to dig that deep into the details. My only concern being, how does the farming of any macro algae affect that I plan to keep. Having never heard/read of any issues then I'm at a total loss.

Only item I can relate as to this article is the affects of carbon dosing where I have seen a bacteria bloom but that was early in the life of this tank starting in October 2021 and last happened April 2022. Only was did I see fish distressed but I've had this occur seven times. Could be due to age of filter bed. Since I don't test ammonia then I can't say if that caused a shift in autotrophic to predominantly heterotrophic or if it did then that I'd notice it.

My inverts have not shown any ill affects but did have an urchin that after many months had perished with no change in parameters.

Should I be concerned with using seaweed? I'm strugling to connect the dots and my attention to science is limited to holistically grasping what is happening but mostly how it might affect what I've done or planning ahead.

Subsea · Nov 15, 2022

"Mulm" in a Reef tank

I think one of the most important, and least understood or mentioned things in a reef tank is "mulm". That stuff that grows in the dark portions of a tank if it is set up long enough. "Mulm" is a combination of algae, sponges, bacteria, pods, worms, detritus, poop and any thing else that can...

www.reef2reef.com

On 25 year old system, five years ago, I converted a 30G mud algae refugium into a mud filter with cryptic refugium. During the course of 25 years, detritus increased mud level from .75” to 1.25”. Mud was crawling with worms and felt spongy. I like what PaulB says about MULM.

"Mulm" in a Reef tank

I think one of the most important, and least understood or mentioned things in a reef tank is "mulm". That stuff that grows in the dark portions of a tank if it is set up long enough. "Mulm" is a combination of algae, sponges, bacteria, pods, worms, detritus, poop and any thing else that can...

www.reef2reef.com

I think one of the most important, and least understood or mentioned things in a reef tank is "mulm". That stuff that grows in the dark portions of a tank if it is set up long enough. "Mulm" is a combination of algae, sponges, bacteria, pods, worms, detritus, poop and any thing else that can be propagated or grown in the dark. I realize most people would immediately get out the sponge, razor blade or grenade to remove it but there is a word I like to use to describe those people. That word is "wrong". Mulm is a natural product that you will find in the sea all over the world. Our tanks run on bacteria, algae and a food chain. Bacteria and a food chain are dependent on having a place to reproduce. Mulm is the perfect place. Rocks and glass are flat surfaces that are only two dimensional. Mulm makes these places three dimensional allowing much more space for bacteria and microscopic organisms to grow and do the macarana. (They love to dance) Pods, which are needed for any small fish also need to eat and their numbers are directly related to how much food they can get their hands on (or whatever pods use to eat with) The more food, the more pods, the more pods, the easier to keep smaller fish. Larger fish such as copperbands and angels also eat pods.
Many people try to keep fish such as pipefish, mandarins or other dragonettes in a sterile tank and while feeding them a couple of times a day with tiger pods or some other expensive food. Those types of fish will not live for long in such a tank and they certainly won't spawn which I consider the "only" criteria to determine the state of health for any paired fish.
Mulm (after a while, maybe a few years) should grow on the back and sides of glass as well as under rocks.
Here in this picture of my clingfish, the mulm appears green. It is really brownish and that fish is on the side of my tank. I brightened up the picture and turned it sideways because it was in the dark and the fish was hard to see.
There is a thick layer of it on the back of my tank where my mandarins and pipefish like to hunt. My long spined urchin also grazes there most of the time as there is not much algae in my tank for him to eat. He is many years old as are the mandarins and pipefish and they are dependent on this food source.
A sterile tank IMO is the biggest problem we have keeping certain fish healthy.
Sterile is good in an operating room but very bad in a tank.

Subsea · Nov 15, 2022

GARRIGA said:
Honest. Most of that over my head. Why I just go to the conclusions after the abstract or beginning but isn't this a study on benthic populations and I guess I'm trying to correlate it to floating sargassum or are you stating that any use of macro algae would change the bacterial population having a negative affect on coral inhabitants? My simplistic approach is seeing all macros as having the same biology regardless if floating sargassum, stationary sargassum, caulerpa or chaeto or GHA propagated on a screen as to their consumption of nutrients and waste produced. That's as far as I've cared to understand it. Rather top level holistic 30 thousand foot view. Seeing no purpose to go further down that rabbit hole. Just not my area of interest.

Understand that the removal of any predator causes it's prey to over populate. Be it urchins or parrot fish and that allows algae to run uncontrolled but it seems as if this shift in bacteria cause the urchin decline and that's beyond my scope of knowledge or ability to grasp since I'm just not going to dig that deep into the details. My only concern being, how does the farming of any macro algae affect that I plan to keep. Having never heard/read of any issues then I'm at a total loss.

Only item I can relate as to this article is the affects of carbon dosing where I have seen a bacteria bloom but that was early in the life of this tank starting in October 2021 and last happened April 2022. Only was did I see fish distressed but I've had this occur seven times. Could be due to age of filter bed. Since I don't test ammonia then I can't say if that caused a shift in autotrophic to predominantly heterotrophic or if it did then that I'd notice it.

My inverts have not shown any ill affects but did have an urchin that after many months had perished with no change in parameters.

Should I be concerned with using seaweed? I'm strugling to connect the dots and my attention to science is limited to holistically grasping what is happening but mostly how it might affect what I've done or planning ahead.

I grow seaweed in every system I have. Mostly to grow live zooplankton. As in everything, it’s a “Question of Balance”

GARRIGA · Nov 15, 2022

Subsea said:
"Mulm" in a Reef tank

I think one of the most important, and least understood or mentioned things in a reef tank is "mulm". That stuff that grows in the dark portions of a tank if it is set up long enough. "Mulm" is a combination of algae, sponges, bacteria, pods, worms, detritus, poop and any thing else that can...

www.reef2reef.com

On 25 year old system, five years ago, I converted a 30G mud algae refugium into a mud filter with cryptic refugium. During the course of 25 years, detritus increased mud level from .75” to 1.25”. Mud was crawling with worms and felt spongy. I like what PaulB says about MULM.

"Mulm" in a Reef tank

I think one of the most important, and least understood or mentioned things in a reef tank is "mulm". That stuff that grows in the dark portions of a tank if it is set up long enough. "Mulm" is a combination of algae, sponges, bacteria, pods, worms, detritus, poop and any thing else that can...

www.reef2reef.com

I think one of the most important, and least understood or mentioned things in a reef tank is "mulm". That stuff that grows in the dark portions of a tank if it is set up long enough. "Mulm" is a combination of algae, sponges, bacteria, pods, worms, detritus, poop and any thing else that can be propagated or grown in the dark. I realize most people would immediately get out the sponge, razor blade or grenade to remove it but there is a word I like to use to describe those people. That word is "wrong". Mulm is a natural product that you will find in the sea all over the world. Our tanks run on bacteria, algae and a food chain. Bacteria and a food chain are dependent on having a place to reproduce. Mulm is the perfect place. Rocks and glass are flat surfaces that are only two dimensional. Mulm makes these places three dimensional allowing much more space for bacteria and microscopic organisms to grow and do the macarana. (They love to dance) Pods, which are needed for any small fish also need to eat and their numbers are directly related to how much food they can get their hands on (or whatever pods use to eat with) The more food, the more pods, the more pods, the easier to keep smaller fish. Larger fish such as copperbands and angels also eat pods.
Many people try to keep fish such as pipefish, mandarins or other dragonettes in a sterile tank and while feeding them a couple of times a day with tiger pods or some other expensive food. Those types of fish will not live for long in such a tank and they certainly won't spawn which I consider the "only" criteria to determine the state of health for any paired fish.
Mulm (after a while, maybe a few years) should grow on the back and sides of glass as well as under rocks.
Here in this picture of my clingfish, the mulm appears green. It is really brownish and that fish is on the side of my tank. I brightened up the picture and turned it sideways because it was in the dark and the fish was hard to see.
There is a thick layer of it on the back of my tank where my mandarins and pipefish like to hunt. My long spined urchin also grazes there most of the time as there is not much algae in my tank for him to eat. He is many years old as are the mandarins and pipefish and they are dependent on this food source.
A sterile tank IMO is the biggest problem we have keeping certain fish healthy.
Sterile is good in an operating room but very bad in a tank.

Don't need to convince me. I purposely capture and decompose detritus because I believe it provides benefits of which mineralization being one of them. However, can't find how long that last part takes therefore perhaps could be beyond 25 years. Based on it's composition I suspect although when I mention mulm I'm specifically describing the final stage of decomposition known as humification where elements such as calcium are released through mineralization. Mulm normally describes the last remnants of the decomposition process other than bones. That final piece I've read can take decades as mentioned above. Just how I recall it and could have it confused but ultimately, just let nature be nature. We sometimes try being too clean. Why I stopped using skimmers eventhough I sold them mid 90s.

Subsea · Nov 15, 2022

Mineralization may take centuries. My focus on MULM is its contribution to the microbial loop with micro fauna & fana forming multiple nutrient pathways that turn inorganic & organic nutrients into live food to feed hungry mouths.

GARRIGA · Nov 15, 2022

Subsea said:
Mineralization may take centuries. My focus on MULM is its contribution to the microbial loop with micro fauna & fana forming multiple nutrient pathways that turn inorganic & organic nutrients into live food to feed hungry mouths.

Centuries? That i wasn't expecting. Decades? Yes. Dam...

Subsea · Nov 15, 2022

GARRIGA said:
Centuries? That i wasn't expecting. Decades? Yes. Dam...

When I operated municipal waste water treatment plant, we used anarobic digesters that reduced organics to mineralization in less than 6 months.

Anaerobic Wastewater Digester Systems

Anaerobic wastewater digester systems are a collection of processes by which microorganisms break down biodegradable material in the absence of oxygen. Anaerobic digestion, a simple process, can greatly reduce the amount of organic matter that might otherwise be destined to be dumped at sea, dumped in landfills, or burned in incinerators.

GARRIGA · Nov 15, 2022

Subsea said:
When I operated municipal waste water treatment plant, we used anarobic digesters that reduced organics to mineralization in less than 6 months.

Any application for aquarium use?

Subsea · Nov 15, 2022

GARRIGA said:
Any application for aquarium use?

Denitrification is one form of anaerobic digester.

GARRIGA · Nov 16, 2022

Subsea said:
Denitrification is one form of anaerobic digester.

Doing that now. Specific to accelerating mineralization. Expected it to take decades but not a century . Still, decades longer than wanted, too.

TokenReefer · Nov 16, 2022

Good read. @Subsea would you happen to have any info you can point to regarding cryptic sponges; specifically how to set them up in refugium?

Subsea · Nov 16, 2022

TokenReefer said:
Good read. @Subsea would you happen to have any info you can point to regarding cryptic sponges; specifically how to set them up in refugium?

@Timfish will load you up on the biochemistry.

From my experiences with diver collected uncured live rock, cryptic sponges will be introduced even when you don’t see them. Once after rearranging rock scape in display, after 5 years in tank, I found dark side with cryptic sponges. A standard sump will make a great cryptic refugium, then add pods and you have a zooplankton generator. In this sump, if you allow detritus to accumulate, then MULM feeds the microbial loop using multiple nutrient pathways that convert inorganic nutrients & capture organic carbon and move it up the food chain as live food to feed hungry mouths.

I also use cannister filters as high flow cryptic refugiums & zooplankton generators.

Subsea · Nov 16, 2022

GARRIGA said:
Doing that now. Specific to accelerating mineralization. Expected it to take decades but not a century . Still, decades longer than wanted, too.

Moving 47 year old reef 60 miles. OMG

So about six months ago our closest friends got a new Grand Son and he lives in Long Island right near where I live. Of course they wanted to see him all the time and they moved to Key Largo a couple of years ago so they bought a condo 60 miles east from my home out on Long Island in wine...

www.reef2reef.com

@Paul B has a thread with a reverse flow ug filter he disassembled after 47 years.

@TokenReefer
I also consider void in plenum under the gravel to be high flow cryptic refugium.

Timfish · Nov 17, 2022

TokenReefer said:
Good read. @Subsea would you happen to have any info you can point to regarding cryptic sponges; specifically how to set them up in refugium?

It's impossible to stop cryptic sponges from growing in your system. Sooner or later some will be added with substrates being added from other systems or from stuff collected from the wild being added. Adding them from the getgo with wild or maricultured live rock is the best way to introduce them IMO. Getting them in the system and feeding on the DOC as DOC is being produced seems a better way to establish a system than waiting for something to be introduced down the road.

Here's a data bomb.

BActeria and Sponges

Element cycling on tropical coral reefs.
This is Jasper de Geoij's ground breaking research on reef sponge finding some species process labile DOC 1000X faster than bacterioplankton. (The introduction is in Dutch but the content is in English.)

https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/14555035/13completethesis.pdf

Sponge symbionts and the marine P cycle

Sponge symbionts and the marine P cycle

Marine sponges are ubiquitous colonizers of shallow, clear-water environments in the oceans (1, 2). Sponges have emerged as significant mediators of biogeochemical fluxes in coastal zones by virtue of respiring organic matter and facilitating both the consumption and release of nutrients (3, 4)...

www.pnas.org

Phosphorus sequestration in the form of polyphosphate by microbial symbionts in marine sponges

Coral reefs are highly productive ecosystems that raise a conundrum called “Darwin’s paradox”: How can high production flourish in low-nutrient conditions? We show here that in three abundant Caribbean sponges, the granules that have been commonly observed in sponge tissue for decades are...

www.pnas.org

Differential recycling of coral and algal dissolved organic matter via the sponge loop.
Sponges treat DOC from algae differently than DOC from corals

Error - Cookies Turned Off

besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com

A Vicious Circle? Altered Carbon and Nutrient Cycling May Explain the Low Resilience of Caribbean Coral Reefs

A Vicious Circle? Altered Carbon and Nutrient Cycling May Explain the Low Resilience of Caribbean Coral Reefs

Coral reefs are economically important ecosystems that have suffered unprecedented losses of corals in the recent past. Why have Caribbean reefs in particu

academic.oup.com

Surviving in a Marine Desert The Sponge Loop Retains Resources Within Coral Reefs
Dissolved organic carbon and nitrogen are quickly processed by sponges and released back into the reef food web in hours as carbon and nitrogen rich detritus.

(PDF) 2013 deGoeij Science Sponge loop

PDF | On Jun 23, 2015, Jasper M de Goeij and others published 2013 deGoeij Science Sponge loop | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

Natural Diet of Coral-Excavating Sponges Consists Mainly of Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC)

Natural Diet of Coral-Excavating Sponges Consists Mainly of Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC)

Coral-excavating sponges are the most important bioeroders on Caribbean reefs and increase in abundance throughout the region. This increase is commonly attributed to a concomitant increase in food availability due to eutrophication and pollution. We ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov