Friday Night Corallimorph Humor...Turned Humorous Experiment

[macon77]

Please note that the following paragraph is from an article that is in the public domain. Thus, there are no copyright infringement concerns.

I am posting the name of the article, and the authors' names to give credit where it is due:
-----
Phase Shift from a Coral to a Corallimorph-Dominated Reef Associated with a Shipwreck on Palmyra Atoll

Thierry M. Work,1* Greta S. Aeby,2 and James E. Maragos3

-----

Coral reefs can undergo relatively rapid changes in the dominant biota, a phenomenon referred to as phase shift. Various reasons have been proposed to explain this phenomenon including increased human disturbance, pollution, or changes in coral reef biota that serve a major ecological function such as depletion of grazers. However, pinpointing the actual factors potentially responsible can be problematic. Here we show a phase shift from coral to the corallimorpharian Rhodactis howesii associated with a long line vessel that wrecked in 1991 on an isolated atoll (Palmyra) in the central Pacific Ocean. We documented high densities of R. howesii near the ship that progressively decreased with distance from the ship whereas R. howesii were rare to absent in other parts of the atoll. We also confirmed high densities of R. howesii around several buoys recently installed on the atoll in 2001. This is the first time that a phase shift on a coral reef has been unambiguously associated with man-made structures. This association was made, in part, because of the remoteness of Palmyra and its recent history of minimal human habitation or impact. Phase shifts can have long-term negative ramification for coral reefs, and eradication of organisms responsible for phase shifts in marine ecosystems can be difficult, particularly if such organisms cover a large area. The extensive R. howesii invasion and subsequent loss of coral reef habitat at Palmyra also highlights the importance of rapid removal of shipwrecks on corals reefs to mitigate the potential of reef overgrowth by invasives.
-----

Beyond the scientific merit of the research reported on in the article, I had a few "off-hand" thoughts.

1) If you are a corallimorph fan, as I am, you might consider crashing a ship into your display tank in order to increase rates of polyp growth.

2) If you are an SPS fan, which I am not, you should quickly remove any ships that have crashed into your display tank, or you may wake up one day to find that your SPS tank has suddenly become corallimorph-dominated. In which case, you would need to increase feeding and remove one of your MP-40s. Reducing your lighting might help, too.
-----If you fail to remove the ship soon enough, and this happens to you, you are free to send the invasive critters to my home address. I will take good care of them. Aren't I just the good Samaritan?

3) There are bunch of R. howesii out there somewhere that are still waiting on their boat ride.

4) This is actually what I do for fun. I really should get a life.

 

[drainbamage]

LOL....for fun I get a glass of whiskey and read math proofs on wikipedia- I think you're better off :tongue:

great find though, and not surprising ideas- maybe try putting some GFO directly into your display and see if your 'shrooms have a propensity to grow or spread faster on it than they would elsewhere?

 

[macon77]

Math proofs? Yes, I am better off.

Statistics, yes. Math proofs, not so much.

On the GFO idea...sure, what could possibly go wrong?:bigsmile:

 

[Tabasco1]

Great find! I think you both should try getting outside a bit more often though.

Macon-where is the high desert? Western Colorado by chance?

 

[macon77]

Well, we thought we didn't have to go outside anymore, because our reef lighting should provide us all the sunlight we need.

Although we both have really good tans (even if they are a bit orange), something odd appears to have happened to our brains. I have been running BB systems recently, but am now casually considering implementing GFO sandbeds.

But, if you really think about it, perhaps our insanity may turn out to be immensely useful. I mean, someone sat around one day and concocted the ever-popular protein skimmer. Someone else suddenly decided to pour their vodka into their tank, and yet another thought it would be a good idea to plug a 500w heater into an electrical outlet and throw it into water. So, you never know. The next big thing could be Drs. Drainbamage and Macon77 GFO Substrate. Who would be laughing, then?

I can see it now. There would soon be innumeralbe threads concerning our product. The titles would all read..."What has happened to my tank?"

I think I should go outside today. Nah, I'll try injecting all of my St. Thomas specimens with NP Biopellets instead.

P.S., I am a bit South of the CO/NM border.

 

[drainbamage]

lol- yea, I need to get out more, I don't deny that one bit whatsoever. But that has nothing to do with the math proofs :bigsmile:

The gfo is something to actually consider- the article seems to state that the closer to the wreck and buoys the more prolific the population- seems to suggest a correlation of the metallic structures to the growth of the shrooms. The correlation could be a wide variety though:

Heavy metals prevent less-hardy corals from growing
Shrooms are taking benefit of some of the metal

Can't think of any other obvious suggestions- and those two are so contrary that it seems an easy test. The GFO has some metallic properties, so could be interesting to see results of placing 2 or 3 shrooms in a tupperware full of GFO and comparing their growth against same #/type of shrooms in a tupperware with an aragonite substrate.

 

[macon77]

lol- yea, I need to get out more, I don't deny that one bit whatsoever. But that has nothing to do with the math proofs :bigsmile:

The gfo is something to actually consider- the article seems to state that the closer to the wreck and buoys the more prolific the population- seems to suggest a correlation of the metallic structures to the growth of the shrooms. The correlation could be a wide variety though:

Heavy metals prevent less-hardy corals from growing
Shrooms are taking benefit of some of the metal

Can't think of any other obvious suggestions- and those two are so contrary that it seems an easy test. The GFO has some metallic properties, so could be interesting to see results of placing 2 or 3 shrooms in a tupperware full of GFO and comparing their growth against same #/type of shrooms in a tupperware with an aragonite substrate.

Okay, now you have opened a can of worms. I wasn't going to go into the scientific merit of the research, but, as you suggesst, there are dozens of other things to consider. The following are just a couple more examples:

1) The most un-obvious argument comes from another article I read (no, my reading of scientific articles truly wasn't a one time event). The authors of that article found that more invasive critters can become still more invasive in shallower waters. Thus, the ship may be drastically altering the reef by making the environment more shallow.

2) Fish may be playing around the sunken vessel, and crapping on the shrooms. Yummy!!!

3) There is a one-in-a-hundred-billion chance that the ship was actually transporting the shrooms when it sank, thus introducing the critters. HaHa!

-More plausible...the Rhodactae may have been introduced to the immediate area just prior to the shipwreck by natural means. Of course, this could be ruled out by two more simple investigations.

4) Ever dropped a rock on a shroom? Not usually terminal for the critter. Ever dropped a rock on a SPS coral? Often catastrophic. Ever dropped a ship on an SPS coral? Umm...?

5) Reduced current from large obstacles, perhaps?

6) The metals may be absorbing yummy stuff for the mushrooms (which may be too much "yucky" stuff for SPS corals), just as they would in the case of GFO in the tank. Although GFO shouldn't theoretically re-release the stuff...it could after a period of 20 years.

7...) There are more, but become too obscured in scientific terminology and MATH/STATISTICS to be much fun for the reader.


However, your interest in the matter has got me at least considering this a bit more seriously (although I'm not convinced that this will work in the confines of one of my tanks). I have dozens of Rhodactis mushrooms. and can easily conduct a simple experiment with little harm to any of them (might even help rid me of some phosphates). Of course, the scientists among us know that one experiment turns into dozens, in efforts to control for extraneous/confounding variables. But, starting with a simple experiment can't hurt too much. So, instead of going outside today, or feeding my shrooms crushed up Biopellets, I'll go to home-away-from-home and get some GFO. It'll be fun, if nothing else. I've been threatening to get my camera out anyway. This will give me a good excuse. I'll post my progress.

The other unintended benefit I might receive is that I could, in the long-term anyway, rid myself of the remainder of these SPS corals. WooHoo!


NOW DO YOU SEE WHY I DON'T GET OUT MUCH???

 

[drainbamage]

Mine in Bold :bigsmile:

Okay, now you have opened a can of worms. I wasn't going to go into the scientific merit of the research, but, as you suggesst, there are dozens of other things to consider. The following are just a couple more examples:
I enjoy armchair science as long as I keep in mind it's as valuable as my bare wall hanging with no degree's :tongue:

1) The most un-obvious argument comes from another article I read (no, my reading of scientific articles truly wasn't a one time event). The authors of that article found that more invasive critters can become still more invasive in shallower waters. Thus, the ship may be drastically altering the reef by making the environment more shallow.

This was something that came to my mind as well- however the article you linked seem to say that the shroom population lessened further from the wreck, meaning that the population was still in some number away from the wreck, and thus in the non-altered water depth. Counter-point to this idea though would be to say that the altered-shallower depth created a point where the population could explode, creating an excess population that allowed the drift towards the non-shallow depth areas.

2) Fish may be playing around the sunken vessel, and crapping on the shrooms. Yummy!!!

Very valid- but wouldn't explain pre-dominance of shrooms over other filter feeders like tunicates, sponges, feather dusters, etc- especially considering the lower life orders should be able to spread/grow faster than the shrooms

3) There is a one-in-a-hundred-billion chance that the ship was actually transporting the shrooms when it sank, thus introducing the critters. HaHa!

-More plausible...the Rhodactae may have been introduced to the immediate area just prior to the shipwreck by natural means. Of course, this could be ruled out by two more simple investigations.

Both valid points, and relatively simple to investigate by a national organization

4) Ever dropped a rock on a shroom? Not usually terminal for the critter. Ever dropped a rock on a SPS coral? Often catastrophic. Ever dropped a ship on an SPS coral? Umm...?

When I recently tore my tank apart to remove a coris wrasse, very first thing I did was pulled out a large rock that had a zoa colony and a green digitata colony, turned around, and promptly dropped it 'face' down on the floor (no, not on purpose :cry: )- All the Green digi frags are doing great- I see your point though, but it doesn't work with other softies or lower-orders, or 'duster worms, hence why I discarded it from my list

5) Reduced current from large obstacles, perhaps?

Hmm....very good point. I guess I assumed that they were growing equally in all directions- any more detailed articles that perhaps have a visual? Easily verified with a couple photos one way or the other. I know when I encourage my yuma's to split, we had success by giving them a direct lateral flow and they produced pups in the direction of 'downstream'

6) The metals may be absorbing yummy stuff for the mushrooms (which may be too much "yucky" stuff for SPS corals), just as they would in the case of GFO in the tank. Although GFO shouldn't theoretically re-release the stuff...it could after a period of 20 years.

absorbing in what sense? That the shrooms are actually able to leech something from the metal? I don't see this as very likely- more than the shrooms are able to pull something from the water that's being slowly released by the metals. GFO isn't supposed to re-release phosphate, but if it's reacting with the water, very likely there's at least SOME form of release into the water. That said- the ships aren't made of GFO ( rust =/= GFO via scientists, so trial with GFO may not produce the results that has occured in the ocean, even if it is a linked cause to metallic ions or some such.)

7...) There are more, but become too obscured in scientific terminology and MATH/STATISTICS to be much fun for the reader.

Go for it! this is a discussion forum- better to throw things out there and only have a couple people interested than keep quiet and think noone cares- you'd be surprised what can catch peoples interest

However, your interest in the matter has got me at least considering this a bit more seriously (although I'm not convinced that this will work in the confines of one of my tanks). I have dozens of Rhodactis mushrooms. and can easily conduct a simple experiment with little harm to any of them (might even help rid me of some phosphates). Of course, the scientists among us know that one experiment turns into dozens, in efforts to control for extraneous/confounding variables. But, starting with a simple experiment can't hurt too much. So, instead of going outside today, or feeding my shrooms crushed up Biopellets, I'll go to home-away-from-home and get some GFO. It'll be fun, if nothing else. I've been threatening to get my camera out anyway. This will give me a good excuse. I'll post my progress.

The other unintended benefit I might receive is that I could, in the long-term anyway, rid myself of the remainder of these SPS corals. WooHoo!


NOW DO YOU SEE WHY I DON'T GET OUT MUCH???

LOL- run with it man- it'd make a great read at the very least if you do a comparison over a period of a couple months or so. I know I'd be really interested in the results, regardless of what direction they went.

 

[Tabasco1]

I am not super scientificky, I like to make up words. But, the club that I am on the fringes of, CMAS, is have a science project contest. Which I think is a pretty cool idea. I thought it would be even more interesting to take it to a larger scale and have a project for each society that way instead of individuals doing one project with limited data each club would pick a project and interested members would all conduct the same experiement and document findings and have a much larger base for data.

 

[drainbamage]

I am not super scientificky, I like to make up words. But, the club that I am on the fringes of, CMAS, is have a science project contest. Which I think is a pretty cool idea. I thought it would be even more interesting to take it to a larger scale and have a project for each society that way instead of individuals doing one project with limited data each club would pick a project and interested members would all conduct the same experiement and document findings and have a much larger base for data.

Make it happen! seriously- get in touch with your local club, come up with a few ideas, then contact another club somewhere- I'm part of SDMAS, and there's quite a few clubs who use R2R as their home forum, so we could easily make it happen. Just come up with experiments that are easy enough for people to do who only have a single display. Not everyone is happy with tupperware floating around in their tank. Also, if I may suggest, avoid destructive experiments like "how much bleach can be added to a 500 gallon reef before things die?" sounds silly, but much of 'science' IS destructive, and obviously we're not going to want to participate in that :tongue:

 

[Tabasco1]

Do you think that is something that many clubs would be interested in? Might be a bit before >>I<< could make it happen. I am really only a fringe member as I am about 2hrs away from most of them. And then there is the minor detail that it will probably be about 2 weeks before I even have water in my own tank haha. Plus they are doing the science project with just individual members right now so probably let that wrap up before I suggest a club wide project. That said, I think it is a great idea though and could really promote some healthy information exchange and I really like the idea of have more testers so that more consistent date could be gathered.

I am pretty sure alot of them are members here as well so I am sure they could chime in to how the projects are going.

uhh, destructive experiements had not even crossed my mind. I think everyone has too much $$ invested to even consider anything like that.

 

[drainbamage]

Lol- I figured you wouldn't do deconstructive, just figured it was worth saying :xd:

And I'm sure there'd be interest, and just cause you can't do it tomorrow doesn't make it a bad idea, ya know? So while you're browsing the forums waiting for your tank to come up, if you come up with questions or ideas that a 'group' experiment could provide answers to, jot them done somewhere and go from there. Heck, we can even do it hosted on R2R if we have enough of R2R's members interested instead of going down to the club level, or do a mix of it all. Get a few ideas together and start a thread somewhere and run with it from there :bigsmile:

 

[Tabasco1]

I think I just might. Thanks!

 

[macon77]

Okay, it's official. I just got back from the LFS, with GFO in hand. So, here goes a hilarious experiment. If it works, Drainbamage gets all the credit, and I send him a free shroom (or twelve, given that we'll have so many). If it fails, Drainbamage has to compensate me for the GFO.:bigsmile:
-----
As a side note, I did spot a couple of shrooms that I picked up while I was there (they are acclimating to the QT, at the moment). First is a small colony of orange Rhodactae (no, these won't be used in the experiment). The other is a single bright purple Disco. with varying colors around the rim. This one had to be cut from a rock, so, it will take him a while to heal up. I have spent 15 bucks or so in the store over the last few years, so the owner will usually extricate single mushrooms for me that I find hiding in his tanks. Anyway, NEW SHROOMS, WOOHOO!!! I'll try to get a shot of these guys as I get the camera out again (a Nikon D5000 that I have no clue how to use...photography is not my forte...I just set it to "auto," push the button, and hope for the best...so, no high expectations, please)
-----

A bit of background about the critters and their home:

The SUBJECTS will be two Rhodactis Indosinensis (common trade name: hairy mushroom). I always say that there is no such thing as an ugly mushroom. However, these guys are as close as you can get without officially being called ugly:bigsmile:. So, you might take a stab at guessing why they have been relegated to their current status. And for those who don't know already...these critters are very hardy, can tolerate a bit more current and light than most mushrooms, they eat like pigs and grow rapidly, they can get pretty big for mushrooms, they smell horrible, and some clownfish will host to them. I have five or six different variants of these Rhodactae, some of which are quite beautiful. I have paid between $5 and $100 for the critters I have. Our SUBJECTS, although not ugly (wink), are not even close to being amongst the prettiest. Personally, I would not give 25 cents for them. I acquired them in a tank purchase, which is the only reason I have them. With that said, I would never do anything to hurt them. If anything starts to go amiss here, I will do anything necessary to ensure their well-being.

The ENVIRONMENT is a 100g (total volume) system which was constructed by none other than myself. It is is comprised of an acrylic upper display tank (4'x2'x10"), an epoxy-paint-covered plywood tank below the DT which is 4'x2'x8", and a similarly constructed sump at the bottom of the system which is 4'x2'x16." I had designed this to be a trickle-down system, but failed miserably. As it is a low-current, mushroom-only system, I defied experience and attempted to use a return pump (Marineland 5500, 1385gph at around 75w) as the only source of circulation. DUMBA***!!! The problems here should be dealt with via another thread (perhaps we'll get them worked out one day). For lighting, there is a single 175w halide over the top tank (HEY, I HAVE TO HAVE SOME SHIMMER!!!), supplemented by two T5HO bulbs. My one, and only, fish lives in this upper tank. She is a Blue Devil Damsel that was the first saltwater critter I ever bought, and is simply a member of the family. She has been living in a particular Murex Ramose shell for as long as I have had her, and she has always been a kind and well-mannered fish (contrary to every other hobbyist's experience...ever). Her name is Macon, hence my screen name. (((Hey, shut up, I named her before I knew she was a female. My wife wouldn't let me change her name after I found out. So, Macon it is.))) There are no other motile critters in the system (I don't believe in clean-up crews. I am the best clean-up crew there has ever been. I do a better job than any snail, and I don't run around knocking $300 mushrooms over. Well, I do knock a lot of stuff over, BUT NOT FOR A LIVING!!!). The middle plywood tank has two T5HOs over it. The sump has about 115w of Home Depot 6500k lighting over it (for the Chaetomorpha). Circulation in the upper tank is provided by a Koralia 3, and the middle tank and sump have no circulation aside from that provided by the return pump. There is an ATO (Level-Loc), an SWC Mini-S skimmer, and some piece of crap heater (they always break, or go "Marineland-Stealth" on me, so I just buy the cheapies). There are timers, but I am too lazy to have hooked them all up (I'll get around to it someday.). That's about it in terms of equipment. I keep the temp about 78 degrees, the salinity at 35ppm, Mg = 1400, kh = 8, and Ca about 450. I don't test for anything else, except by looking at the sides of the tank (which I do 2x per day). I change about 10 percent of the water twice a week (YES, I DO KNOW THEY ARE MUSHROOMS. BUT THEY ARE EXPENSIVE MUSHROOMS!!!). I feed Macon every night (no fish should have to go to bed hungry, except for liionfish), and I target feed the mushrooms about 3 times per week (yes, it takes a VERY long time...so what, I enjoy it). I don't run any carbon, phosban, or other "stuff." I don't put anything in the tank except Epsom salt, baking soda, BRS Ca Chloride, and food that I make out of a bunch of horrible-smelling seafood stuffs I get at the local market (I'm sure glad I don't have to eat it.).

So...that's about enough boring background. I may have unintentionally left some information out. If you have any questions, feel free to ask away.

So, let's do this. I'll get the camera out, and get started.

 

[macon77]

Oh, I may overlook some things along the way. So, I will need all the help I can get. So, please throw your ideas in if you see a "better way," etcetera.

Calling macon77 a moron is perfectly acceptable here. I have been called worse...trust me.

It's all in fun, my friends.

 

[drainbamage]

Lol- I like it! At the least it's an interesting experiment and your phosphates will get reduced- best case? There'll be a new technique out there for propogating Chaca Chaca Mushrooms

 

[macon77]

DB,

I have only one request at this point. Can we change the title of this thread to "Friday Night Corallimorph Humor...Turned Humorous Experiment" ???

 

[drainbamage]

done my friend- I can't wait to get my Free Chaca Chaca Shroom!

 

[macon77]

HaHa. You actually did it. How cool is that?

1 Chaca Chaca Shroom, coming up!!!

 

[macon77]

Okay. As promised, here come some photos. (As long as I can figure out how to do this.)

Before beginning, here are the new guys.

Extricated Discosoma. He/She is doing remakably well for having just lost his entire rear-end. Not a very photogenic critter. Looks better in person. I'm not sure if I paid for this guy. The owner of our LFS may not have charged me for it. I'll try to find out.

These Rhodactis (Inchoata) are too photogenic. They don't look this good in person. (Hey, at least you know I'm honest.) I paid $45 for these guys. Not world-class shrooms, but I will probably keep at least one, nonetheless.