Chatoe vs Algae scrubber

[Crush Coral]

Going to be installing a refugium soon. Does an algae scrubber do anything a ball of chatoe does not?:worried:

[thegrun]

It makes for a lot more work!

[shaginwagon13]

Tagging along.

[Drae]

JMO here. A refugium would be my choice for these reasons. 1) Less work by far. 2) Works great if setup properly. 3) Could house live rock or rubble plus livestock for added biological and food for the tank. 4) Has the ability to lower nitrates just as effectively... IF SETUP RIGHT. Low turnover but high circulation, plenty of light! No clamp on home cheepo fixture and bulb. And make it as big as possible ( half the display size would be awesome, 25-30% would work too. These are just my experiences and opinions.

[Crush Coral]

Still looking for info as to if chatoe or an algae scrubber out performs the other.

[degibson84]

When i setup my 220 I went with a gravity feed scrubber draining into a refugium that has no chaeto or sand in it. Just one large piece of live rock. I used the rock for the pods and they have been reproducing like crazy. The scrubber screen gets cleaned once every other week. Since initial setup the only issues I had were the first diatom bloom. never had any hair algae at all. the only algae i get is brown film on the glass that gets cleaned every other week as well.

I had systems with just chaeto in a fuge and had no control of nuisance algae. I will never run a system without a scrubber

[Duvallj]

From what I've seen ats can perform better at lower nutrients than chaeto. Down side is more work and the ats can be finicky.

I prefer chaeto as it easy and you just have to prune it once in awhile/ it can be "neglected" for awhile. Also pods like to populate it, so that's a plus for a refuge imo.

[Crush Coral]

hmmm. Interesting. My tank has been set up for 10 years and has such an abundant amount of water filtering life in it that my skimmers was doing almost nothing for the last year. I removed it and the tank does great. Considering not installing a skimmer when I set up my Model 3 Aqueon sump and just running it as a fuge. This would allow me to doe either or both a scubber and chatoe. HOW MANY RUN FUGES AND NOT A SKIMMER?

[degibson84]

I am running a skimmer on my setup with a scrubber and it never pulls anything out. Both ways are great forms of "natural" filtration. Some say chaeto is easier but I have run both and the only thing I do with my scrubber is take a credit card and scrape the growth off every 2 weeks. when i was running chaeto you had to keep the right water flow through the sump to keep the chaeto tumbling so it wouldn't sink and it was more of a pain to me. Also if it wasn't tumbling the bottom would die off and release the nutrients back into the water

[syrinx]

I have tested extensively ever since Dr Addey invented algae scrubbers, the real ones not like the rip off term people use today, and they are very effective. However the cheato refugium is equal, easier, and less likely to fail or need recovery time. If you like to tinker do an ATS, if you want simpler- go cheato- but perfect water is perfect water and 0 is 0 no matter how you get there.

[Crush Coral]

Great info. The only reason I am considering the scrubber is because I recall that in the mid 80's I ran a pet store in Dallas where I had 8 100 and 4 130 gallon tanks lit by lots of conventional 1" florescent lights. The tanks had a thick bright green algae mat and I could keep anything alive. Even Clown Buterflies which were readily available then. Granted I had big filters on each tank but when they fourished was when they were covered in the algae. Guess I will for sure do the chatoe and maybe tinger with a scrubber. Installing both and seeing which survives may indicate which is more effective.

[breadfan]

I am getting ready to start a build with an ATS system. I also researched extensively and had conversations with some very knowledgeable people. I already have my sump that was built by Inland Aquatics which will has a large dual dump true turf algae scrubber as well as a protein skimmer. I can post some photos if anyone is interested.

Edit: I guess I should have mentioned that my current tank has been successful for 8 years with only chatoe and lots of live rock with a deep sand bed. No protein skimmer or other filters just large regular water changes. There are many ways to skin this cat.

[Crush Coral]

Yes Breadfan I would love to see pic of it.

[MARINECRITTERS]

Chaeto will have minimal maintenance and supply pods.
ATS will absorb more nutrients, but does need weekly maintenance.
If you go with the ATS, make sure you have adequate lighting. There is a great thread on them in advance topics.

[jwoyshnar]

Without a doubt ats is much better. It is a bit more maintenance as you have to clean it every week. Think about it though, that's more nutrients you are pulling out of your system as you have to do it every week. My only advice is when you start researching size requirements do what works for you. I don't believe in the new standard sizing that "someone" came up with. I've been running scrubbers for years and everything they say about the larger sizes I have seen first hand is not true. But like I said do what works for you. It's fun experimenting.

[madweazl]

Used chaeto on my last setup and had great results but am trying an ATS on my new setup (moved out of the country so I had to tear down the other tank). So far so good but it's only been a few weeks.

[SantaMonica]

What is this extra work that scrubber need?

[Crusinjimbo]

In terms of "work", almost everything in the system requires more work than my ATS. Getting it dialed in for productivity (size, flow volume and lighting) take some time and effort and then it is pretty much set and forget. Once a week is screen removal, cleaning and return and the drive pump is pulled every six-eight weeks for cleaning. I screw with my skimmer and reactors way more than the ATS. My 8x10 screen cranks out a half cup of algae weekly and that has got to require a bunch of nutrient to create. My ATS setup cost my less than $60 including flo lights, Rio pump and and plumbing. Excellent ROI IMO.

[syrinx]

And if the power goes out and the ats algae dies- start over. That never can happen to submerged algae. Real ATS systems are plumbed above the tank, and have all of the benefits that Dr Addey and other early proponents described in their research. Many of these claims have been adopted by the users of bastardized designs, which leads to dis information. Show me a study where turf algaes consume more nutrient per gram than filament algaes do and then we may get some where. All tanks are different- one may work better in a particular case- but if they are set up with an equal standard- both will result in nutrient free water.

[syrinx]

I will go on and say in one of my systems we have 3 refuges- the tanks used to be for differing uses, but now just run algae. We came across this new macro that grows like you would not believe- like from a few leaves to a basketball in three weeks. There has been no change in the tanks parameters though- because they were perfect to start with. Even if cheato is a .22 and something else is a AR16, it makes no matter when hunting mice.

[Drae]

What is this extra work that scrubber need?

Are you serious? Some simple tank chores for some people are unwanted tasks to others. I already test more than I really want to so I don't need another task of cleaning all that gunky algae off the ats. That's just my opinion though.

[billyboy69]

how long have ATS been around 20 years or more??

[SantaMonica]

Original patent of the dumping bucket was in 1980.

[syrinx]

Yeah I remember most of the research buzz about it was in the late eighties and early 90s, but some of that may have been a bit older, but just being publicised. The big battle was protein skimmers vs scrubbers-you can see who won that fight! The dump bucket was integrial to the design. The surge for the tank and the washing in of pods was as important as the nutrient removal.

[Crusinjimbo]

My efforts with the algae scrubber have nothing to do with eliminating the skimmer. My stand has 4 sqft of sump area and I don't have sufficient space for a refug or cheato. The ATS is about the sump using easy access space that wasn't already in use by the reactors, skimmer, ATO, skimmate container, RODI container, heater and 8 miles of wiring and tube. If we never did anything in this hobby that wasn't documented by a "study" how much "fun" would it be? My opinion anyway.

[billsreef]

Yeah I remember most of the research buzz about it was in the late eighties and early 90s, but some of that may have been a bit older, but just being publicised. The big battle was protein skimmers vs scrubbers-you can see who won that fight! The dump bucket was integrial to the design. The surge for the tank and the washing in of pods was as important as the nutrient removal.

It was in the early 80's when I first saw Addey's tank in the Smithsonian. Couple years later (mid 80's) as a Marine Biology student at Southampton College I was back for the behind the scenes tour. A couple of my college classmates interned for Addey and later set up a sea grass tank with a scrubber on campus. One thing about Addey's set up, yellow water, algae growth in reef (that most of us would consider excessive) and a constant replacement of corals due to a lack of survival. IMO the downfall in that set up was the lack of additional filtration such as carbon and skimming to deal with the algal byproducts...when doing any type of algae based filtration (macro or turf) one needs to remember that algae are leaky, and some of the substances they leak really need to be removed for the health of the corals.

[SantaMonica]

Adding calcium / alk would have helped the corals survive...

In the early days of that aquarium, the scrubber was doing it's job great:

1988:

Nutrient Cycling In The Great Barrier Reef Aquarium
http://www.reefbase.org/download/download.aspx?type=10&docid=10506

"The Reef Tank represents the first application of algal scrubber technology to large volume aquarium systems. Aquaria using conventional water purification methods (e.g. bacterial filters) generally have nutrient levels in parts per million, while algal scrubbers have maintained parts per billion concentrations [much lower], despite heavy biological loading in the Reef Tank. The success of the algal scrubbers in maintaining suitable water quality for a coral reef was demonstrated in the observed spawning of scleractinian corals and many other tank inhabitants."

But did you know that they did not add calcium? That's right, in 1988 they did not know that calcium needed to be added to a reef tank. Even five years after that, the Pittsburgh Zoo was just starting to test a "mesocosm" scrubber reef tank to see if calcium levels would drop:

1993:

An Introduction to the Biogeochemical Cycling of Calcium and Substitutive Strontium in Living Coral Reef Mesocosms
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/zoo.1430120505/abstract

"It was hypothesized that Ca2+ and the substitutive elements Sr2+ and Mg2+ might [!] have reduced concentrations in a coral reef microcosm due to continuous reuse of the same seawater as a consequence of the recycling process inherent in the coral reef mesocosm."

"The scleractinians (Montastrea, Madracis, Porites, Diploria, and Acropora) and calcareous alga (Halimeda and others) present in the coral reef mesocosm are the most likely organisms responsible for the significant reduction in concentration of the Ca2+ and Sr2+ cations."

"Ca is not normally a biolimiting element, and strontium is never a biolimiting element;
HCO3 [alk] can be. It appears that, because of a minor [!] limitation in the design parameters of the mesocosm, these elements and compounds may have become limiting factors. [...] It is surprising that the organisms could deplete the thousands of gallons of seawater (three to six thousand) of these elements even within two or more years [!!].

"The calcification processes are little understood."

So then in the late 90's, the Barrier Reef aquarium start using up it's supply of calcium, and the folks there said "the corals grew poorly". Really. No calcium, and the corals grew poorly. So they "removed the scrubbers" and "experimented with the addition of calcium" sometime after 1998. Then in 2004 it "definitely improved a lot". Really.

Talks about calcium was not added to barrier aq:
http://en.microcosmaquariumexplorer.com/wiki/Reef_HQ_-_Great_Barrier_Reef_Aquarium

[Crush Coral]

Can we get opinions from people who have tried both techniques on the same tank?

[syrinx]

Can we get opinions from people who have tried both techniques on the same tank?

The problem with this, is that there are so many variables. It would be very easy for someone with an inadequate ATS to think the switch to cheato made an improvement- or the reverse. The principle is the same, and both systems set up correctly are equal- other than maint.

[syrinx]

I didnt want to bring up the yellow water and algae issues of the smithsonian tank. Those issues, to me, do not have much bearing with the advances in the understanding of chemistry. Also Addeys goal was more to create a "Eng" type system where nothing was added or removed. The battle was between the berlin system that Sprung and others were promoting, and the natural system which Addey was developing. As we know kalwasser and skimming allow for a much larger margin of error, and thus ATS is simply an aid. Many great tanks have used ATS only- look at some of inland aquatics tanks for example-but they are doing water changes and using modern chemistry.

[degibson84]

an ATS if sized and lit properly is all that is needed. I have run tanks with both setups and i find an ATS is less work than chaeto. When running a fuge with chaeto i had to make sure the chaeto was tumbling properly to get good growth. If not tumbling the bottom of the chaeto ball would die. Also had to trim the chaeto every few weeks.

With my ATS yes it took a while to get the design and lighting correct for my setup but other than that i take the screen off every 2 weeks and take a credit card to scrape the algae off. that is it.

[breadfan]

Yes Breadfan I would love to see pic of it.
I uploaded a few photos. The system is not running yet.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/album.php?albumid=8534

[degibson84]

I didn't measure anything while running the two as i never thought i would have to compare them. I dont have any yellowing as I have always run carbon. They both work but for me I have had less nuisance algae with my scrubber versus with a refuge.

I'm not sayiing one way is better than the other just that running a scrubber is less work than running chaeto in my situation.

[degibson84]

thx :)

btw/fyi-just because you run carbon doesn't mean you don't have yellowing. carbon doesn't remove ALL the yellowing compounds fully- the ONLY way to know is to actually test it-either visually, using long/tall columns of samples to look through on a white background,(tank water vs. known clear water) or w/a colorimeter. water can be fairly tinted when viewed down through a 12" tall 1" diameter tube, while your tank still looks crystal clear when viewed. especially with the bluer lighting most hobbyists use on their systems today ;)

hth :)

for what it is worth when doing water changes I use white buckets and when looking into the bucket i dont see any yellowing mostly a greyish blueish color

[BrianD]

Posts deleted. Warnings issued.

[TheHoove]

Ive run bothnon the same tank. Went from dying cheato to ats. Then built a new stand and changed sump, and threw a ball of cheato back in because i didnt have time or parts to replumb a new scrubber. This time around i started dosing iron to help cheato growth off and on. The ats grew decent algae, and kept 90% of the nusance algae out of the display. The cheato grew great at first ajd slowed down, but no change in display tank algae. At least with my tank, both systems set up right, did their job. Imo, i did not like cleaning the scrubber, and my design had more splash and salt creep in my sump. Had to keep the sump tank covered. I enjoy watching life in my sump more with the cheato than the scrubber. But both did a fine job. Your tank may vary.

[Buzz1329]

I uploaded a few photos. The system is not running yet.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/album.php?albumid=8534

Cool, so the black device that looks like an inbox is dump bucket?

Where does the algae grow?

Do you have room in the sump for a protein skimmer?

Good luck,

[FlyPenFly]

The Smithsonian example is often cited but I don't think it's a good example. The system saw a once in a year 10% water change.

I think ATS can be great but it has to be a component of a filtration strategy. I run an ATS with a powerful skimmer, carbon dosing, UV, Phosguard, BRS ROX Carbon, and Purigen. I will also be adding Ozone soon. I also do water changes.

I do not buy either side's ideology that you don't need to do water changes anymore with an ATS or need any other form of filtration. I also do not buy the other side's belief that ATS are detrimental when it's part of a filtration system.

Beware the man of one book.

[breadfan]

Cool, so the black device that looks like an inbox is dump bucket?

Where does the algae grow?

Do you have room in the sump for a protein skimmer?

Good luck,
The dump bucket is the black part. It is two sided on top with a divider in the middle. Algae screens go in both sides, but it only dumps to the right. There is a false bottom and when the water weigh causes the left side to drop the water flows into the bottom chamber. When it tips back to the right water is dumped from both the right screen and the bottom chamber. This is most beneficial when dumping directly into the display tank, in a sump like mine a simple back and forth teeter totter design would have been fine. I have a 135 watt led horticulture light that will hang above it. And yes, my protein skimmer fits perfectly in the middle chamber.

[vitz]

The Smithsonian example is often cited but I don't think it's a good example. The system saw a once in a year 10% water change.

I think ATS can be great but it has to be a component of a filtration strategy. I run an ATS with a powerful skimmer, carbon dosing, UV, Phosguard, BRS ROX Carbon, and Purigen. I will also be adding Ozone soon. I also do water changes.

I do not buy either side's ideology that you don't need to do water changes anymore with an ATS or need any other form of filtration. I also do not buy the other side's belief that ATS are detrimental when it's part of a filtration system.

Beware the man of one book.

beware those who equate facts w/ opinions/beliefs, and vice versa :)

turf algaes releasing compounds harmful to corals doesn't come from just one book, either, and yet again, it's not a matter of opinion ;)

if you want to state your beliefs, i have no problem w/ that. but when you state facts and known science to be matters of opinion, you do everyone, including yourself, a disservice.

maybe you should have said 'not detrimental as far as i can tell'.

[vitz]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22006333
http://www.coralmagazine-us.com/content/coral-killing-terpenes-identified-marine-macroalgae

terpenes aren't a matter of anyone's beliefs, or opinions. just sayin :)

[Crush Coral]

Thanks Breadfan. I enjoyed the photos. Looks like something to tinker with when ever any of us get bored with our system and want to have something to play around with. Not changing anything with a tank over an extended period of time induces boredom.

[FlyPenFly]

If you rub GFO directly onto a coral, it will probably hurt it too. If you put a skimmer on top of a coral, I'm sure it'll also die. I don't think you understand the point of an ATS. It also seems like you enjoy misrepresenting some light reading you do as if it backs up your argument by appealing to their authority. Can you tell me exactly which terpenes micro algae that typically grow in most ATS contains?

[dppitone]

Going to be installing a refugium soon. Does an algae scrubber do anything a ball of chatoe does not?:worried:

Your question is "does the scrubber do anything more than the macro?" No it doesn't. The scrubber is more efficient, akin to a reactor for macro. It get's max water and light exposure for the growth.

The scrubber is "system" and the fuge is "habitat." If you're all about efficiency, go system. If you dig fuges and the life refuge thing, go habitat. It's about what you like and what interests you. Some folks are more into the fuges than the display tanks. And other folks don't want to be bothered setting up a fuge.

I don't know of any controlled study comparing the two. Maybe another member does and will chime in. But the bottom line is they both uptake nutrients, etc, so they are in principle the same.

[syrinx]

Even if one is more efficient than the other, it doesnt matter if they are both more effective than needed. The only basis for decision is which you prefer to run- or is easiest to adapt to your system.

[Dexters Reef]

I went from cheato to ATS. I'm using the Santa Monica surf2, an "all in one" scrubber. There is no tinkering with flow. There is no noise when my stand doors are shut. The unit is high quailty with LEDs that never need to be replaced. It floats in my sump, and is the easiest ATS to integrate into your system, as long as you have sump area for the unit to float and space under the tank for an air pump.

The only thing you need to do is connect it to an dual outlet air pump, set a timer for 16-20 hours a day (admittedly, during the first few weeks you will need to monitor the growth, and add/remove hours until it is growing properly). SM answered every email I sent with questions during this time, and told me how many hours to run the lights, when to increase duration, etc and now this phase is over and I have not had to adjust anything for months.

Then you just harvest every 14-21 days, a 5 minute procedure. I started off "over harvesting" and picking everything off each string, but found its better to just grab what easily comes out in a few handfuls.

As for "is it better than cheato?" Ill let some pics speak for themselves. The middle section of my sump has happily been growing cheato for 2 years with no issues. I added the surf2 in the cheato area of my sump, and after about 3 months, there is almost NO cheato left. This tiny floating box is literally sucking up nutrients at a rate fast enough to starve out a colony of cheato that was about 16"x10"x8"

The surf2 is also pulling the phosphates out of my DSB and live rock, which was one of my goals and reasons I purchased it.

Here is a thread with some pictures I uploaded today
http://test.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2329804

[vitz]

If you rub GFO directly onto a coral, it will probably hurt it too. If you put a skimmer on top of a coral, I'm sure it'll also die. I don't think you understand the point of an ATS. It also seems like you enjoy misrepresenting some light reading you do as if it backs up your argument by appealing to their authority. Can you tell me exactly which terpenes micro algae that typically grow in most ATS contains?

If you rub GFO directly onto a coral, it will probably hurt it too. If you put a skimmer on top of a coral, I'm sure it'll also die.


apples and potatoes

I don't think you understand the point of an ATS

i most certainly do, and more than likely long before you got into this hobby ;)

It also seems like you enjoy misrepresenting some light reading you do as if it backs up your argument by appealing to their authority

you couldn't be more wrong. i've been reading/following algae scrubbers as a concept and practice since the late '70's, along w/all of the claims made as to what they can/cannot do. my opinions are based on my experiences/reading from then until now.

Can you tell me exactly which terpenes micro algae that typically grow in most ATS contains?

can you tell me which species of algae 'typically' grow in most ats's ? or if most people even have the same species growing on them? once you know that, you yourself can easily do some internet searching on your own :)

[ca1ore]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22006333
http://www.coralmagazine-us.com/content/coral-killing-terpenes-identified-marine-macroalgae

terpenes aren't a matter of anyone's beliefs, or opinions. just sayin :)

Soft corals release terpenes also! So in addition to algae being bad for corals, apparently corals are bad for corals ...... Trouble is, we are trying to do unnatural things, and keep natural 'enemies' in small enclosed spaces, so who knows what the underlying drivers of success really are ... or aren't.

I have kept successful reef tanks since about 1985 with both skimming, GAC and ATS .... and more recently GFO. I absolutely would not run a tank solely with a scrubber (I too saw the Smithsonian tank in person in the late-80's, and was not impressed), but used judiciously, they do a really good job of removing nitrates in my tanks.

[reefndude]

I run both on my tank. I think it does a good job. At first it was just a fuge with chaeto, rock, and deep sand. Still was getting algae un display. Not bad but still had some.
Decided to run an upflow algae scrubber. Took about a month or two to start growing gha. Now it grows and I clean it every two weeks. Display is definitely cleaner. Chateto still grows to but not as quickly

[vitz]

Soft corals release terpenes also! So in addition to algae being bad for corals, apparently corals are bad for corals ...... Trouble is, we are trying to do unnatural things, and keep natural 'enemies' in small enclosed spaces, so who knows what the underlying drivers of success really are ... or aren't.

I have kept successful reef tanks since about 1985 with both skimming, GAC and ATS .... and more recently GFO. I absolutely would not run a tank solely with a scrubber (I too saw the Smithsonian tank in person in the late-80's, and was not impressed), but used judiciously, they do a really good job of removing nitrates in my tanks.


yup, most corals are indeed bad for, or compete against, other corals. reefs are one of, if not the most, competetive environments on the planet. all 'closed' reef systems 'want' to/will gravitate to a single species of coral only (the one w/the most powerful chemical arsenal at its disposal). leave any system alone long enough, and you will end up with ONE type of coral, if no pruning, or chemical/manual removal of allelopathics is done, (carbon, wc's, etc) eventually. might take awhile, but it's inevitable.

when i was working as a husbandry tech at eri, the packing/pulling crew placed an entire leather coral shipment upstream from a large group of maricultured acros in one of the coral troughs (fiberglass 'runs' measuring about 4' x 5' x 25-30', if my memory's dim.'s are still correct, heh.) the leathers did a wonderful job of stressing, and starting to kill, the acros. jason s. (r.i.p.) and myself spent a good few hours trying to move the leathers to the leather coral trough as quickly as we could, when we found out. we lost at least a few dozen acros and other asstd sps's (monti digis, etc) just from the 'nuking' by the leathers-which are well known for their terpene production.

[SantaMonica]

which species of algae 'typically' grow in most ats's

Cladophora, ulva, chaeto

[reefndude]

I have green hair algae growing.

[vitz]

Cladophora, ulva, chaeto


um, cladophora is a genus, not a species :lol:

[Jfannin]

I my self find Cheato supper easy. I have never tried a scrubber and havent read up on them much. I will say though that this is a hobby and trying new stuff is always fun when it work out :) and when it doesn't well that just sucks.

now I do know that with a refugi size maters. My self I have a 120g DT with a 40 sump and about 1/2 of that is for my Cheato. Should it be bigger, not sure. I'm sure it wouldn't heart though :) I think with cheato the bigger you can go the better.

I would love to see some good info on a good scrubber for my size of DT to read. Then I may comment on a scrubber. Well after I try it out for a while of course.

[ca1ore]

Chaeto is a just a big pain IMO, plus I can apparently grow it in only one tank at a time. Was growing gangbusters in my small reef tank, but not at all in the main display fuge. Recently started to make a comeback in the latter, but now won't grow in the former. What gives! Must be some kind of conspiracy!

[ca1ore]

yup, most corals are indeed bad for, or compete against, other corals. reefs are one of, if not the most, competetive environments on the planet. all 'closed' reef systems 'want' to/will gravitate to a single species of coral only (the one w/the most powerful chemical arsenal at its disposal). leave any system alone long enough, and you will end up with ONE type of coral, if no pruning, or chemical/manual removal of allelopathics is done, (carbon, wc's, etc) eventually. might take awhile, but it's inevitable.

when i was working as a husbandry tech at eri, the packing/pulling crew placed an entire leather coral shipment upstream from a large group of maricultured acros in one of the coral troughs (fiberglass 'runs' measuring about 4' x 5' x 25-30', if my memory's dim.'s are still correct, heh.) the leathers did a wonderful job of stressing, and starting to kill, the acros. jason s. (r.i.p.) and myself spent a good few hours trying to move the leathers to the leather coral trough as quickly as we could, when we found out. we lost at least a few dozen acros and other asstd sps's (monti digis, etc) just from the 'nuking' by the leathers-which are well known for their terpene production.

That's very interesting. I know whenever I see shots of folks tanks with lots of both soft and hard corals I think how the heck they did it. I could never keep both in a single tank and have them all do really well.

[BCool]

I have tried using refugiums and skimmers and scrubbers. My best success has been with a scrubber.

[billsreef]

That's very interesting. I know whenever I see shots of folks tanks with lots of both soft and hard corals I think how the heck they did it. I could never keep both in a single tank and have them all do really well.

Those mixed systems typically have heavy skimming, ozone use and GAC.

[vitz]

That's very interesting. I know whenever I see shots of folks tanks with lots of both soft and hard corals I think how the heck they did it. I could never keep both in a single tank and have them all do really well.

i've told many a customer who decides to go 'heavily mixed' to expect at least one coral, or species/group, to not be fully extended at least some of, if not most of, the time. ime, even w/ heavy skimming/carbon, it's a challenge to keep everyone at maximum happiness at all times.

there's also the issue of folks having a coral begin to start ailing for 'no apparent reason', only to have it improve upon moving it to another location, further illustrating the issue of 'remote killing' (where the current alone from one coral to another will act as the vehicle for allelopathic attack/competition), and that corals don't need to touch for their chemical arsenal to work. the same holds true for the various allelopathic compounds produced by algaes. corals can be killed by them as well, w/out contact-just by constant bombardment by the terpenes and other phycotoxins most algaes produce-though maybe not as easily as coral warfare.

also to consider: just because stress from allelopathic compounds isn't easily apparent to 'naked eye' observation,or causing mortality, doesn't mean it isn't occuring, or affecting corals. if the compounds are in the water column, the stressor is there, to a degree. ;)

[vitz]

this article has some direct bearing on my above post, as regards some of the not immediately visually apparent effects of FTA's (filamentous turf algaes) on one species of sps coral-it's a very interesting and informative research article on FTA's and some of the species on it's own, as well:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0054810