Fingers crossed it stays that way. Pretty steep learning curve after being out of the hobby for 30ish years. Especially because there isn’t a “right” way to do it.
How useful are nitrate and phosphate test readings?
- Thread starter IntrinsicReef
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2018
- Messages
- 7,571
- Reaction score
- 7,962
I was thinking about replying to the notion that nitrate and phosphate levels don’t seem to correlate to algae growth issues, but then I thought about advice we receive on R2R. So, a philosophical digression.
Let me propose that that information obtained on social media should be treated just like that obtained from the current versions of AI chat bots. The information can be badly flawed, though it can also be pretty good. You just can’t tell. Humans like AI are trained on data sets which can be biased, flawed, and incomplete. Humans like chat bots are programmed to put together information to explain things. If the information is flawed, the synthesized explanation can be nonsense. Conclusion: you should not be only using social media to understand very complex systems like an aquarium.
OP
OP
Please do reply to the idea that nitrate and phosphate don't seem to correlate to algae growth issues. Discussing this topic with the community was the whole point of my questions.
I think I see what you are saying with the AI digression. I understand that not everyone will give accurate information( test results) associated with their system. I think though that mass anecdotal evidence has been helpful for the hobby as well as detrimental.
Randy Holmes-Farley
Reef Chemist
Staff member
Super Moderator
Excellence Award
Expert Contributor
Article Contributor
R2R Research
My Tank Thread
Above a certain limiting level of nitrate and phosphate, more does not make algae grow faster. Like gas in a car, gas allows it to go, but it dies not go faster with more gas and dies not stop unless gas is very low.
That limiting level is likely to be low enough to also begin to limit many corals, and is likely below recommended ranges.
0.03 ppm phosphate and a few ppm nitrate is sufficient for algae growth.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2018
- Messages
- 7,571
- Reaction score
- 7,962
Been meaning to discuss this notion with you for some time.
Every algae is covered in a static boundary layer, the thickness varies. Algae may also be part of a biofilm or in some physical arrangement where there is resistance to diffusion in addition to the boundary layer. In such a scenario, a higher concentration of nitrate or phosphate would increase the diffusion rate and allow faster nutrient uptake and possibly faster growth, though only to a limit because CO2, O2 and other waste diffusion would remain the same. This would be particularly important for macro algae like GHA with a more limited surface area then pelagic micro algae.
Thoughts?
OP
OP
Thank you. That is a great explanation and analogy.
Randy Holmes-Farley
Reef Chemist
Staff member
Super Moderator
Excellence Award
Expert Contributor
Article Contributor
R2R Research
My Tank Thread
I don’t know, but these things are presumably already baked into limitation studies of particular organisms, though I can see how it might vary tank to tank.
this paper seems to find either N or P limitation and raising the other usually has no effect.
Here’s something else,
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The effect of nutrient enrichment on the growth, nucleic acid concentrations, and elemental stoichiometry of coral reef macroalgae
The growth rate hypothesis (GRH) links growth rates with organism elemental stoichiometry. Support for the GRH was found for many animal species, but less so for plants. This is the first study to test the GRH in macroalgae. Tropical coral reef macroalgae ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
OP
OP
Fantastic article, thank you. Definitely some findings I did not expect. "Despite the increases in RNA and P tissue concentrations, growth rates were reduced in the P-fertilized treatment in all three species relative to control (Fig. 5). Therefore, our results do not directly support the growth rate hypothesis, for which correlations among P, RNA, and growth are expected"Here’s something else,
The effect of nutrient enrichment on the growth, nucleic acid concentrations, and elemental stoichiometry of coral reef macroalgae
The growth rate hypothesis (GRH) links growth rates with organism elemental stoichiometry. Support for the GRH was found for many animal species, but less so for plants. This is the first study to test the GRH in macroalgae. Tropical coral reef macroalgae ...
Very interesting that the algae stores the phosphorus instead of utilizing it for increased growth. But that make evolutionary sense for an organism in nutrient poor waters with waves of nutrient upwellings or runoff.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2018
- Messages
- 7,571
- Reaction score
- 7,962
Just now read the abstract and therein lies one explanation for macro algae growth, and possibly every other nuisance algae in an aquarium, in low nutrient water: the sediment is the source. I would go further for aquaria and add all surfaces as a possible local nutrient source.
With relatively low flow in aquaria, surface accumulation of organic matter should be large and thick relative to nuisance algae size. For green hair algae, rhizomes would be embedded in this rich source. Bacteria growth and the release of inorganic nutrients such as ammonia, phosphate and vitamins from it completes the explanation for patchy thick growth of pests in nutrient depleted water found in aquaria.
I have no doubt that if algae is attached to aragonite then it could find a pretty large reservoir nearby. The plant could absorb some local po4 and the rocks will locally unbind more to equilibrium.
If you are speaking of the greyish/brown sludge that might be in surface and in the rocks, all evidence that i have seen indicated that it is mostly inert having been scavenged for anything of use already. However, this could be less true in tanks where full ecosystems are not yet established and there is not microfauna to scavenge the stuff.
If you are speaking of the greyish/brown sludge that might be in surface and in the rocks, all evidence that i have seen indicated that it is mostly inert having been scavenged for anything of use already. However, this could be less true in tanks where full ecosystems are not yet established and there is not microfauna to scavenge the stuff.
I tried for a long time to keep nitrate and phosphate low, and my tank suffered for it.
Now I let the tank stay where it is happy-about 0.1 phosphate and 10 nitrate-and mostly don’t fight it. Less algae and happier corals.
However I still test every 1-2 weeks and when I make any significant changes In feeding, stocking, etc to make sure I am not drifting too much. Although I don’t think the exact level is important, some corals including my Gonioporas do not like changes in nitrate and phosphate especially any rapid drop in phosphate.
Now I let the tank stay where it is happy-about 0.1 phosphate and 10 nitrate-and mostly don’t fight it. Less algae and happier corals.
However I still test every 1-2 weeks and when I make any significant changes In feeding, stocking, etc to make sure I am not drifting too much. Although I don’t think the exact level is important, some corals including my Gonioporas do not like changes in nitrate and phosphate especially any rapid drop in phosphate.
OP
OP
I definitely agree that less real estate on the rocks doesn't give the algae the space to take hold. The shading of rocks from corals is also important. However, I think that fast growing coral outcompete algae for desirable nutrients ( they have algae living inside of them after all). In tanks with a large coral population, bare rock under intense light can remain algae free for long periods of time. There might be other reasons for this, but I think that coral can outcompete algae just as a macroalgae scrubber can.
OP
OP
Yes. It is looking to me like testing NO3 and PO4 for algae control doesn't mean much. I have seen algae grow under the range of low range test kits, and over a certain threshold, I'm told it grows at a near constant rate. Testing for coral health seems more important, but coral can also seem to adapt to a wide range.
apb03
Well-Known Member
I think Nitrate and Phosphates alone only tell a part of the story. I tested this morning at 55 nitrate and 0.11 phosphate and I do not have any algae in my display. I do, however, have coralline covering the majority of my rock exposed to light. I believe without the coralline and my herbivores my tank would be an algae-filled mess.
I have a QT tank that I don't perform much upkeep on and recently I had to move several rocks from my DT there due to a zoa issue I had. The existing rocks are covered in GHA while the rocks from my DT remained clean. That tank has nothing but a couple of snails in it and algae is covering the other rocks, so to me, it's less about nutrients and more about tank maturity and herbivores.
I have a QT tank that I don't perform much upkeep on and recently I had to move several rocks from my DT there due to a zoa issue I had. The existing rocks are covered in GHA while the rocks from my DT remained clean. That tank has nothing but a couple of snails in it and algae is covering the other rocks, so to me, it's less about nutrients and more about tank maturity and herbivores.
Algae growth has always been herbivore related to me. My previous softy tank with tangs had no visible algae but in the sump where I had a waterfall scrubber, well, algae went bonkers. I also did a submerged horizontal screen that became populated with amphipods, munching their way through it until it grew coralline.
howdy from the uk - day one
thought i would chip in and let you comment on my effort so far. Backgroung of display- 5 x 2 x 2 with 240 ltr sump containing skimmer (massively inefficient), DSB in display (silica play sand), approx 100 kgs live rock. Most corals are 7 years old and all fish but 2 of the tangs, are of...
algaescrubber.net
I would not compare micro to macro algae in most ways - probably like comparing modern birds to dinosaurs. The two types of algae do not really act much alike even though they share some common ancestors and base characteristics.
Scrubbers work because the algae has no predators in that area - same with a fuge. True bare rock is a magnet for algae - like dry/dead rock. True live rock without corals on it is rarely bare and has coralline, fauna, matting and film bacteria, etc. that can evict dinos and hair algae before they get settled.
Algae = vacant lots and no CUC. I am glad that some of you have fish that are helpful, but I never seem to find them.
Scrubbers work because the algae has no predators in that area - same with a fuge. True bare rock is a magnet for algae - like dry/dead rock. True live rock without corals on it is rarely bare and has coralline, fauna, matting and film bacteria, etc. that can evict dinos and hair algae before they get settled.
Algae = vacant lots and no CUC. I am glad that some of you have fish that are helpful, but I never seem to find them.
I agree with your philosophical digression.
For some of us, fortunately or unfortunately, the Internet is often the most easily-accessible source of information (good or bad).
The internet is perhaps the most easily accessible source for maybe data and opinions. The internet also has some information and knowledge, but this is harder to find. Books are still probably best for information and knowledge, but there are books available online.
In this case, important to see D/I/K for what they are. In a lot of these studies, what comes out of them might be knowledge for the ocean, or some lab environment, but they need to be downgraded for people with reef tanks... maybe even as far as just raw data (or maybe information if you are lucky). The best can do this - some of them post on here, so good to pay attention when they do.
Books are still probably best for information and knowledge, but there are books available online.- Data - almost worthless, but you have to have it - too many wrongly see data as having too much value
- Information - good, takes data, but also humans who know what they are doing
- Knowledge - best, takes knowledge from a modicum of folks both supporting and challenging each other
In this case, important to see D/I/K for what they are. In a lot of these studies, what comes out of them might be knowledge for the ocean, or some lab environment, but they need to be downgraded for people with reef tanks... maybe even as far as just raw data (or maybe information if you are lucky). The best can do this - some of them post on here, so good to pay attention when they do.
Similar threads
