I have dosed Fluconazole to cure bryopsis while I am dosing NO3 and PO4 again, which I believe will feed the bryopsis. Any idea which one I should tackle first? Or can I fight both at the same time?
I'd try both to see how it goes.
Giving the tank back to the dino's isn't healthy for anything in the tank, and may not be too healthy for you either. If you decided to, activated carbon will control toxins in the water pretty well, but I'm not sure that's helpful on the bryopsis side since it might be taking out your drug....so keeping N and P up will get my vote. (Your bryopsis population is small right? So die-off shouldn't affect nutrient levels too much.)
Even with elevated nutrients, fluconazole should keep any bryopsis protoplasts from forming new cell walls while it's active in the water.
Since the fluconazole will prevent cell wall repair too, the current crop of bryopsis should eventually succumb to the riggors of the tank, damage from photosynthsis, etc, . This is probably why shaded areas don't die off as quickly – low levels of photosynthsis would cause low levels of damage...maybe no net damage in some areas. If there's less damage, then the fluconazole has less role to play.
Think ecology, not chemistry!
(Check out those links back on the first post. One or two other related posts on my blog under the algae, dino or nutrient sections too.)
While we are boosting N and P (and often doing some other support activities), it's the downstream effects on the microbial food web that we are after.
In most of these cases there's been a very peculiar deficiency of N and P in the system.
This deficiency has almost always been caused artificially by excessive usage of carbon dosing+phosphate removers.
When the dino's take over they themselves actually promote this N- and P-starved environment in at least a couple of ways, so when we add N and P we're working against the dino's in at least two ways.
First, adding N and P allows their high-carbon detritus to be broken down more quickly. Eventually after the blooming has stopped and everything has "composted", the N and P that would normally be available in the tank will be freed up and you can probably stop or greatly reduce dosing. I'd still be mindful of not letting N or P reach zero again just in case.
Second, we're giving other organisms a chance to have nutrients so they can grow and re-populate the tank.
There are several other factors that also tie in, including just how severely depopulated the tank had become before remediation started – toxic dino's are bad enough on the rest of your microbial food web, but some of the chemical treatments folks have been known to try against dino's are even worse.
Dino's + cyano in co-bloom seems to be the final state on tanks like this....none of the usual measures seem to help at this point.
GFO adds soluble iron, for example, so it could be iron "dosing" and not low phosphate.
Have you noticed an actual correlation with Fe levels in some actual cases of dino blooms?
I'll have to try and look back through some test results on the thread and see if anyone else has also posted Triton tests.
It already seems to me like a lot of people get dino blooms. But it seems like even more folks would have dino outbreaks if GFO was strongly linked as an Fe source too and not merely as a route to artificially/extremely low P levels.
From experience so far I'm not sure there's a strong link with Fe and dino blooms, at least in our tanks. But evidence/new research sure could prove me wrong. We've already learned a lot of new things along the way here, sometimes from very old research.