Red Linckia Dying?

[cabral.leonardo]

Hello everyone. My red Linckia starfish is deteriorating. It's been with me for 2 weeks; I bought it from the LFS. My reef tank has been cycled for 3 months with no issues with corals or fish. I carefully acclimated it for over 1 hour.
Density: 1024
KH: 7.8
Ca: 420
Mg: 1220
Nitrate: zero
Phosphate: 0.03

Is there anything I should do?

 

[crazyfishmom]

Hello everyone. My red Linckia starfish is deteriorating. It's been with me for 2 weeks; I bought it from the LFS. My reef tank has been cycled for 3 months with no issues with corals or fish. I carefully acclimated it for over 1 hour.
Density: 1024
KH: 7.8
Ca: 420
Mg: 1220
Nitrate: zero
Phosphate: 0.03

Is there anything I should do?

As far as I understand starfish need mature tanks. They’re detritivores for the most part. A 3 month old tank is unlikely to support one. Would you be able to trade it back in?

 

[ISpeakForTheSeas]

They’re detritivores for the most part.

Mostly semantics here, but not quite on this part - accurate with the rest though.

Most stars are either predators or biofilm-feeders; there are a few that are thought to be detritivores, but I have yet to see any evidence of that assumption.

Linckia starfish are biofilm-feeding starfish; we can't replicate their natural biofilms in our aquariums, and most biofilm-feeding stars die with ~8-13 months in our tanks. Sometimes stars just "dissolve" within the first couple of weeks in our tanks for no known reason (Linckia laevigata - blue Linckias - are well known for this despite being one of the popular stars in the hobby).

Anyway, older, larger, more established tanks are generally thought to be more likely to have healthy biofilm populations in them and to be able to reproduce those populations in time for the stars to continue feeding - in practice, it's still hit and miss.

That said, the longest I have heard of these sorts of stars living even in tanks specifically designed to account for the lack of appropriate biofilm feed is just a few years (and this in tanks that are growing alternative foods for the stars, not just relying on biofilm formation in the tank itself).

At this point, the only true stars I can really recommend be kept are Aquilonastra starfish (known in the hobby as "Asterina" starfish), as they're the only ones that seem to thrive in our tanks. Other than that, I recommend brittle/serpent stars (which aren't true starfish), as they do fine.

 

[crazyfishmom]

Mostly semantics here, but not quite on this part - accurate with the rest though.

Most stars are either predators or biofilm-feeders; there are a few that are thought to be detritivores, but I have yet to see any evidence of that assumption.

Linckia starfish are biofilm-feeding starfish; we can't replicate their natural biofilms in our aquariums, and most biofilm-feeding stars die with ~8-13 months in our tanks. Sometimes stars just "dissolve" within the first couple of weeks in our tanks for no known reason (Linckia laevigata - blue Linckias - are well known for this despite being one of the popular stars in the hobby).

Anyway, older, larger, more established tanks are generally thought to be more likely to have healthy biofilm populations in them and to be able to reproduce those populations in time for the stars to continue feeding - in practice, it's still hit and miss.

That said, the longest I have heard of these sorts of stars living even in tanks specifically designed to account for the lack of appropriate biofilm feed is just a few years (and this in tanks that are growing alternative foods for the stars, not just relying on biofilm formation in the tank itself).

At this point, the only true stars I can really recommend be kept are Aquilonastra starfish (known in the hobby as "Asterina" starfish), as they're the only ones that seem to thrive in our tanks. Other than that, I recommend brittle/serpent stars (which aren't true starfish), as they do fine.

Thanks for the explanation. Always great to learn something!

 

[cabral.leonardo]

As far as I understand starfish need mature tanks. They’re detritivores for the most part. A 3 month old tank is unlikely to support one. Would you be able to trade it back in?

Thank you for the answer! I agree with you, it would be an option

 

[cabral.leonardo]

Mostly semantics here, but not quite on this part - accurate with the rest though.

Most stars are either predators or biofilm-feeders; there are a few that are thought to be detritivores, but I have yet to see any evidence of that assumption.

Linckia starfish are biofilm-feeding starfish; we can't replicate their natural biofilms in our aquariums, and most biofilm-feeding stars die with ~8-13 months in our tanks. Sometimes stars just "dissolve" within the first couple of weeks in our tanks for no known reason (Linckia laevigata - blue Linckias - are well known for this despite being one of the popular stars in the hobby).

Anyway, older, larger, more established tanks are generally thought to be more likely to have healthy biofilm populations in them and to be able to reproduce those populations in time for the stars to continue feeding - in practice, it's still hit and miss.

That said, the longest I have heard of these sorts of stars living even in tanks specifically designed to account for the lack of appropriate biofilm feed is just a few years (and this in tanks that are growing alternative foods for the stars, not just relying on biofilm formation in the tank itself).

At this point, the only true stars I can really recommend be kept are Aquilonastra starfish (known in the hobby as "Asterina" starfish), as they're the only ones that seem to thrive in our tanks. Other than that, I recommend brittle/serpent stars (which aren't true starfish), as they do fine.

This is a real lesson about linckias! I have a sand sifting starfish that is doing very well, which is easier as I expected. But the Linckia is truly unpredictable, and probably it's perishing because of what you stated. I think the only thing to do is to watch… it’s sad, but thank you very much!!