Tested detritus-filled water

[Bilk]

Did some cleaning of the sump earlier and decided to test the water that was drawn out using my little shop-vac. I passed it thru a coffee filter to remove suspended solids and performed a ULR Hanna test on it.

I first tested the tank water drawn directly from the tank and then tested the nasty, yellow-tinted water drawn from the bottom of the sump after I filtered it as mentioned.

Results? Both read the same 13ppb. Maybe another test would show different results of I let the detritus sit in the water for an hour or more? I think I'll test NO3 and see what results I get as well.

Question - if indeed detritus is filled with measurable organics such as PO4 and NO3, when or should I ask, how soon after, does it reach the water column? It's near impossible to extract detritus as it forms, so I'm questioning the common belief that detritus, if left unchecked and if my testing methodology was an accurate way to determine what is being released, should be such a concern.

I really expected to get different results considering the sludge I removed ( I generally do this once every two weeks or so ) was yellowed somewhat and had a large concentration of detritus. :confused:

[Captainsreef]

A good clean up crew will do a lot of work for you and running micro socks when you clean and stir it up helps a lot as well.

[Captainsreef]

People often neglect their clean up crews and should be adding things like micro stars and tapes clams etc. The higher the index of species diversity the lower the liklihood that catastrophic failure will result. It helps the tank to work more like an ecosystem leaving you with smaller amounts of maintaining to do. You of course will still have to clean a d you might cut down on feeding as well as it sounds like you might be overfeeding your tank.

[bertoni]

The phosphate that you measured most likely is immediately available to the water column, but the lack of flow keeps it in the detritus zone. Personally, if the tank is doing well enough, I wouldn't worry. The sand bed in my tanks seemed to have some interstitial phosphate in it, but the water column always was clean while I was making those measurements. It's also possible that the siphoning and filtering process ground up some cells, etc, and released some phosphate.

A cleanup crew might be able to help process detritus, but if the tank is doing well enough, there's likely no need to spend money on such animals.

[Captainsreef]

Actually I would place clean up crew at the highest of priorities so I wouldn't listen to that advice. Cheers!
like I said the higher the index of species diversity the lower the likelihood of catastrophic failure and when we make a reef tank we are basically creating an artificially contained eco system. So of course a clean up crew becomes paramount and plays a very important role. This will help you and help push your tank over the top. Cheers!

[Bilk]

LOL well a cleanup crew isn't the issue I wanted to discuss. I actually have a pretty good CC - various crabs, stars, snails and a few cucumbers. Detritus is an inevitable fact no matter how many CC are employed in a system.

What I really want to discuss is the PO4 issue in relation to detritus and the accepted belief that detritus accumulation leads to elevated levels of PO4. I was wondering why the water I tested, that was extracted with the detritus from the sump, didn't test any differently than the tank water. I figured the large concentration of detritus, relative to the volume of water in the small shop-vac, would have caused a much higher reading of PO4 than what the normal tank reading shows. Is there a better method to test this? Did I need to leave the detritus in the water longer before filtering it? Also, as I stated in the OP, detritus is constantly being produced in every system and it's virtually impossible to capture it as it is being produced. So with that in mind, how long does it take for detritus, if indeed filled with PO4, to release that PO4 to the water column? If it's immediately then there's nothing that can be done about it unless you can capture and remove from the system, all the detritus as it forms. A filter sock does not remove it from the water column - immediately - as the sock remains in the water column until removed.

[bertoni]

Detritus consists of a variety of things, so I don't think a general rule about its dissolved nutrient contents is going to hold except as a statistical average. Sorry, I misunderstood your original post, but I'm not surprised either way. If the detritus gets a reasonable amount of flow through it, then the dissolved nutrients will equilibrate with the water column quickly. In my case, the sand kept flow low enough that the interstitial water was higher in phosphate than the water column. In your case, that doesn't seem to be true.

[reefwars]

Actually I would place clean up crew at the highest of priorities so I wouldn't listen to that advice. Cheers!
like I said the higher the index of species diversity the lower the likelihood of catastrophic failure and when we make a reef tank we are basically creating an artificially contained eco system. So of course a clean up crew becomes paramount and plays a very important role. This will help you and help push your tank over the top. Cheers!

sure but what happens to it after the cleanup crew have went through it? a CUC will help with uneaten organics for sure but they are not %100 efficient and the cuc themselves also create their own waste byproduct so at some point all the processing thats going to happen has happened and whats left may not break down any further and some animals may not consume whats left , whether or not you remove this is up to your self but most do remove it.

[Captainsreef]

sure but what happens to it after the cleanup crew have went through it? a CUC will help with uneaten organics for sure but they are not %100 efficient and the cuc themselves also create their own waste byproduct so at some point all the processing thats going to happen has happened and whats left may not break down any further and some animals may not consume whats left , whether or not you remove this is up to your self but most do remove it.
This is true and that's where routine maintenance comes in. Or the physical removal of dirty water and organics from the aquarium by the aquarist. There is no getting over this operation as aquariums are essentially just boxes of water that have no way of ridding themselves completely of waste except by removing it through siphoning etc. However my point is that the aquarium itsel will work much better as a whole if it's properly set up.this starts by adding the correct animals in the tank to care for it and as a PhD in icthyology and fisheries management I know thatif we create a higher index of species diversity to fullfill different roles that are essential to the tank by placing them in important roles within the tank to perform their natural functionsthen the band aids of things such as reactors etc become relatively useless. The importance is what's in the tank and having a very good and diverse clean up crew is essential. I wrote an article about it in the blog at nautilusaquarium dot com awhile back and it's due for an update. Cheers!

[Bilk]

Detritus consists of a variety of things, so I don't think a general rule about its dissolved nutrient contents is going to hold except as a statistical average. Sorry, I misunderstood your original post, but I'm not surprised either way. If the detritus gets a reasonable amount of flow through it, then the dissolved nutrients will equilibrate with the water column quickly. In my case, the sand kept flow low enough that the interstitial water was higher in phosphate than the water column. In your case, that doesn't seem to be true.

OK so then it follows, that as soon as detritus is produced, it soon releases what ever bound PO4 it contains, into the water column?

Detritus is produced from many sources and in all regions of the system. So how does one prevent the PO4 bound up in the detritus from entering into the water column when it cannot reasonably be removed immediately? Even when it does make it to the weirs of the overflow and gets trapped by the filter socks, it's probably still been either sitting on the substrate or suspended in the flow for enough time to be relieved of the PO4 it contains.

I was just surprised that the reading taken from the "dirty" water was the same as that of the tank water.

[reefwars]

well not that im against a CUC i know they have their benefits but mostly they are the ones we dont see often that doing the job not the ones you buy at the store , FWIW my system of 6 yrs has no cleanup crew purchased ever only what has hitchhiked in from corals as i also use no liverock in the system , we have around a few thousand corals in our prop tanks and they all do rather well:)

if pellets fall to the ground a shrimp or crab etc will help take care of that , a shrimp wont devour inert ditrius that has been broken down time and time again;)


i get that a CUC has its place but i dont think buying hermits and snails or shrimps is a make or break scenario to keeping a healthy reef, sure doesnt hurt though ill agree:)

[Captainsreef]

Actually it can and that's why so many crash so often is lack of species diversity.

[usingthejohn]

Subbed for later

[Captainsreef]

I recommend sand burrowing tapes clams, micro stars, copepods micro hermit crabs, blue legged hermit crabs etc. These animals actually provide huge benefits to reef tanks and in my 24 years of building and setting up professional aquariums for people I have learned a few tricks about clean up crews and balancing reef aquariums. So out of the hundreds of reef tanks I have setup (andthats tanks of all sizes) the ones that I have instituted this type of cleanup crew have gone on to become much much better tanks all around. So food for thought. I never said they would remove all of the waste but they will make youe tank much healthier, more balanced and to function alot better as a whole and it will cut down on your work load as well because you won't have to clean it near as much.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

As folks have mentioned, detritus is all kinds of stuff.

The organic matter in it that contains organic N and P will only release those elements as it is broken down, either by biologic action, or by abiotic degradation.

Measuring the water around detritus ought to be about the same as the rest of the water, because the release of N and P will be slow and steady, and it quickly diffuses into the water column as soon as it is released. But it takes a long time for it all to be released. Hence the concerns about detritus.

That said, I'm not hyper about detritus collecting in my tank. It let it collect all it wants in my sump and refugia. There's a thick layer in my sump, and probably more in my refugia.

[bertoni]

OK so then it follows, that as soon as detritus is produced, it soon releases what ever bound PO4 it contains, into the water column?
I think Randy has already commented more carefully on what happens, but what I meant was that if there's flow through the detritus, the phosphate will equilibrate with the water column as the phosphate and nitrate (and other dissolved nutrients) are produced, so I wouldn't expect all that much of a difference between a water column test and a "detritus zone" test in a lot of cases.

I don't deny that cleanup crews can be interesting and perform useful work, but I'm not convinced that stocking more is necessarily going to help a dissolved nutrient problem. Most live rock comes with bristleworms and other small animals, and I think most (but not all) people tend to add at least a few snails and the like, as well.

[Captainsreef]

Tapes clams are great! They are captive-bred, tropical sand clams of the genus Tapes, which
actively burrow into the sand and move about by means of a strong muscular
foot. They are about 15 mm (3/4 inch) long, and they feed on plankton and
detritus by means of their incurrent siphon, which protrudes slightly from
the sand. They have smooth, attractive shells with variable color patterns.
In reef tanks and refugia their potential benefits include stirring (and
therefore aerating)

[reefwars]

I never said they would remove all of the waste but they will make youe tank much healthier, more balanced and to function alot better as a whole and it will cut down on your work load as well because you won't have to clean it near as much.

ok so back to the glass box that like you said imports but on its own doesnt export the waste only processes it ( which is important ) , the animals you add also add waste even if they process some of the nasties they wont get it all and create a little along the way. adding animals isnt an export mechanism for the ecosystem so im not sure how adding them is make or break...especially the ones you listed as most are ornamental and are a small percentage of whats really happening in a ecosystem the real laborers are rarely ever seen;)

do i think a CUC is beneficial...of course it is

do i think you cant run a healthy tank without adding a CUC or purchasing one ...of course not

i would question how much a crab really eats and processes compared to what i can syphon out in 15mins....maybe im wrong though ;)

[Captainsreef]

Read Poe and the case for biodiversity in the reef aquarium. It's an article I wrote. Cheers!

[reefwars]

Read Poe and the case for biodiversity in the reef aquarium. It's an article I wrote. Cheers!

will do:)

[reefwars]

ok so i read your article , sounds great and youv'e obviously have a passion for it but it lacks alot of information.


http://nautilusaquarium.com/poe-and-the-case-for-biodiversity-in-the-reef-aquarium/

im assuming im reading the right article?

im not trying to be rude so i hope this doesnt come off as such but seems to me its no different then any other retailers site for CUC's and there information they provide , theres very little real data if any about what the animals do exactly and what role they play in an aquarium ,the description is rather vague..... you go on to say that equipment is but a band aid fix and the article is an article you wrote for the business you work for and conveniently enough you sell these animals no?


most of the animals listed are not in short demand in mot reefs .....pods, worms , shrimps etc. i have an abundance of these in a reef that was all dry rock , no sand and brand new equipment so if i have it surely mature reefs where the time has passed to reproduce must have more than me.

is it enough though?

if it is how do we know exactly if it is or isnt?

[Bilk]

Ah ok :) So would a better testing method be to leave the collected detritus in the water for a longer period before measuring? Is maintaining the same relative temperature of the tank important to this? If it's a time vs release mechanism, I assume readings at different intervals would prove necessary to somewhat determine the rate of release?

I'm really no chemist/biologist if you couldn't tell :fun4: So I had to look up abiotic degradation :p I only found references to it relating to chemicals, plastics and the like. Wiki had an article that has since been removed. Here's the initial definition:

Abiotic decomposition
Abiotic decomposition or abiotic degradation is degradation of a substance by chemical or physical processes, for example hydrolysis, reduction and oxidation.

So what precipitates the breakdown or release of the bound PO4/NO3? I'd assume bacteria act upon detrital matter, but then the PO4/No3 are being consumed. I can also see how acidification would cause it to be released, but our systems are alkaline. Does acidification happen in a localized region where detritus accumulates?

I guess what I'm trying to convey is, we believe that detrital matter has bound N&P, but what is the mechanism that releases it?

[bertoni]

The release will happen due to microbial action and bulk flow, I'd guess, but small animals might do some of the work, too. I have no idea of the time vs percentage released chart might look.

[Captainsreef]

Actually I sold the animals for a little while but we ran out of stock within 2 weeks and we do not sell live animals anymore. Mainly we sell tanks and dry goods and a lot of the articles have nothing to do with anything that we sell. They are just meant to be Informative. So with that said it's more about imparting information than anything. As for vague points if you give me examples I can certainly supply you with information. Cheers!

[reefwars]

I'm not sure adding animals you can't keep track of is a wise idea , for example the brittle stars I've seen them wipe a tank out smothered every available inch of space even the gorgs had stars wrapped around them. You have a recommendation of how many to add for example but yet say nothing of how fast they reproduce or the consequences of that or how to fix it etc.


Some of those animals also have risks that should be known , more detail on lifespans etc.

If you start a thread on it I'd love to hear about the systems and how these were the reason for success with them

[Captainsreef]

Good food for a newly update article perhaps...thanks for the input and I will work on it.I have never had plague proportion problems with the tiny stars though but I shall get to work.

[reefwars]

I did like it I even read it again just now , I'm not arguing the point that these animals dont have a place but adding these tiny animals also have side effects

What happens when a food source runs out , interactions with corals or fish etc.

Cheers:)

[Captainsreef]

I did like it I even read it again just now , I'm not arguing the point that these animals dont have a place but adding these tiny animals also have side effects

What happens when a food source runs out , interactions with corals or fish etc.

Cheers:)

Yes it does the side effects are a better functioning reef tank with a higher index of species diversity. There's also a company in Hawaii I believe that sells thousands of these clean up crews and they are awesome. As for plabue proportions of micro stars I read some stuff and it looks like hobbyists that have no idea how to slim down the populations of these when needed if they do reach those levels. In nature there are many components that inhabit the sand and to expect a reef aquarium to be any diferent merely because it's contained in a glass box would be misinformed to say the least. I do read these forums a lot and I goves me a headache all of the bad information passed along etc. However I am a professional.

[Captainsreef]

Oh and food sources shouldnt run out if you are feeding your aquarium the proper types of foods and at the proper levels for the stocking of your tank. The idea is to create a more biologically diverse tank that functione must like it's freshwater cousin the planted aquarium. A freshwater planted aquarium if done properly takes very little maintenance other than water changes every now and then and these types of tanks do the exact same when I set them up. So what I'm saying is that aquarists are often looking for the band aids of technology to do things that nature has already evolved to do and does much better on its own if simply supplied with the correct means to this end. Like the article I wrote about corals and reef aquariu lighting for example....all the forums focus on the technology of lighting and no mention is ever made as to the actual natural history of the corals in question so I wrote that article. Its a very popular one as well and the reason is for this novel approach to the problem. So that's a few examples and yes it does have an effect on a reef tank to add these animals but I have never had a bad one. In fact I have never had a tank crash and the reason for that primarily would be a high species index. Thanks for all the input. Cheers!

[Bilk]

The release will happen due to microbial action and bulk flow, I'd guess, but small animals might do some of the work, too. I have no idea of the time vs percentage released chart might look.

LOL Seems there's two conversations happening here. One about detritus in relation to PO4 levels and one about critters to help with tank maintenance by consuming detrital matter. I guess they're related. :spin2:

But back to the subject of my OP, the thing is, if it's microbial action (bacterium working on it?) wouldn't they be consuming it, converting it to fuel/food and not liberating it to the water column? Is what may be occurring similar to active transport or ion transport where molecules move from a place of high concentration to a place of lower concentration to equilibrate as you suggested? Or is detrital matter just very unstable where the ions are loosely bound, thus easily releasing them into the water column? If it's the latter, then the time test should show that. Given more time, the level of PO4 in the waste water should rise as more PO4 is released. If it's the former, then it will remain the same as it stays in equilibrium as you suggest.

I'm trying to understand how some tanks with no substrate, high water movement and effectively very little detrital buildup also have issues with PO4. Obviously detrital matter isn't the only source for it, but then maybe it's not a significant source for it either.

Well this was just my little mad science experiment after cleaning the sump. The water was sitting there and so was my ULR checker, so I figured what the heck.

[Big E]

I'm not sure some detritus in a sump is much of an issue, but if the detritus is on live rock or another area where it's going to receive light, nuisance algae is sure to follow. Once that algae gets established it's very good at grabbing that detritus to grow.

I think it's still a good idea to clean the sump occasionally as I think we've all accidently disturbed that muck and had it get pushed back into the display.

[Captainsreef]

Yeah it's 2 conversations that are interrelated but covering different aspects has been an interesting thread hahahaaha I do agree with Ed and typically if I clean the sump I do it once every few months and on an off week for cleaning the display as I don't want to disturb too much at once.

[bertoni]

Yes it does the side effects are a better functioning reef tank with a higher index of species diversity.
How do you know that's true?

Actually, I probably should split the animal discussion into a separate thread, since it's not relevant to the original topic.

[Bilk]

I'm not sure some detritus in a sump is much of an issue, but if the detritus is on live rock or another area where it's going to receive light, nuisance algae is sure to follow. Once that algae gets established it's very good at grabbing that detritus to grow.

I think it's still a good idea to clean the sump occasionally as I think we've all accidently disturbed that muck and had it get pushed back into the display.

I agree with both statements you made here. Yes we've all seen how latent detritus in the rock structure fosters growth of macro alga. Then that alga traps more detritus and the situation worsens as you also explained. However I'm still trying to get an explanation of how detritus releases nutrients to the water column.

If bacterium/microfauna is acting upon it, it's doing so to obtain those nutrients. So they're not being released to the water column, but are being consumed and then hopefully the skimmer works to remove the bacterium/microfauna from the system. If there's another mechanism working on the detritus, a chemical reaction at work, allowing the detritus to release nutrients, I'd like to know what that is.

If the nutrients are bound up in the detritus I can only see an how an acidic environment would foster that. Reefs and our tanks are an alkaline environments. Does the region local to the detritus acidify and cause the nutrients to become unbound? There is common believe that calcium carbonate either absorbs or adsorbs (not sure which) PO4. If alkalinity drops significantly enough, it will release it back to the water column. Is there another way in which the system will act upon the detritus to unbind the PO4 and release it to the water column? Again I'm no chemist or biologist so I'm here to learn :)

[bertoni]

I'm not sure why you think that the decay process won't release nutrients to the water column. Ammonia is a byproduct of protein metabolism, for example, and is going to be released. That can be measured in the tank cycling process.

[Bilk]

I'm not sure why you think that the decay process won't release nutrients to the water column. Ammonia is a byproduct of protein metabolism, for example, and is going to be released. That can be measured in the tank cycling process.
What causes the "decay"? It has to be biological or chemical, unless there's another process I'm missing.

My opinion is the biological decay would be the result of bacterium or microfauna breaking it down and they would be doing so as scavengers for the nutrients present in the detritus, thus not releasing them to the water column. If it's chemical, then what is at work here? I asked if it could be localized acidification. That would be a process that could release the nutrient ions, but how does that occur in an alkaline environment?

Is there another method other than the two I mentioned? I guess mechanical is one, but how would that apply? Mechanically breaking it down would just be making the particle smaller but not releasing the ions into the water. However, I'll try another test for the mechanical aspect. I'll test just the water filtered of sediment and then use a small electric hand mixer to work the sample, filter it and see what results that provides.

Edit: Yes ammonia is released from protein metabolism, but that's just the point - something is using the proteins as fuel. Similarly something that is acting on the detrital waste is utilizing it as fuel and those would probably be the residual nutrients stored in it.

[Big E]

I'd be curious to see if you tested the detritus in the display if the nutrient level was higher. The reason I say that is that the detritus may be inert but that could be catchall areas where food particles ect. settle.

My tank is bare bottom, so the only place I have build up is under rocks. Usually there's a small pool of detritus and I see scavengers under there like brittle stars or bristle worms.

It might be likely that the stuff in the display has something currently decaying whereas in the sump it's more just harmless dust.

In other words detritus as we define it, could be inert as far a nutrients but it's just a signal of where decaying particles will also settle.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

LOL Seems there's two conversations happening here. One about detritus in relation to PO4 levels and one about critters to help with tank maintenance by consuming detrital matter. I guess they're related. :spin2:

But back to the subject of my OP, the thing is, if it's microbial action (bacterium working on it?) wouldn't they be consuming it, converting it to fuel/food and not liberating it to the water column? Is what may be occurring similar to active transport or ion transport where molecules move from a place of high concentration to a place of lower concentration to equilibrate as you suggested? Or is detrital matter just very unstable where the ions are loosely bound, thus easily releasing them into the water column? If it's the latter, then the time test should show that. Given more time, the level of PO4 in the waste water should rise as more PO4 is released. If it's the former, then it will remain the same as it stays in equilibrium as you suggest.

I'm trying to understand how some tanks with no substrate, high water movement and effectively very little detrital buildup also have issues with PO4. Obviously detrital matter isn't the only source for it, but then maybe it's not a significant source for it either.
.

All heterotrophic organisms that consume organics release msot of the N and P in those organics because they have a higher need for the energy from the organic degradation than they have for N and P to build new tissues.

You, for example, release nearly all of the N and P in the foods you eat, and it is true of every heterotrophic organism. :)

The reason all tanks need to deal with N and P is because fish and other organisms that eat food excrete it directly. Nearly all the N and P they eat ends up int eh water as phosphate and ammonia.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

What causes the "decay"? It has to be biological or chemical, unless there's another process I'm missing.

My opinion is the biological decay would be the result of bacterium or microfauna breaking it down and they would be doing so as scavengers for the nutrients present in the detritus, thus not releasing them to the water column. If it's chemical, then what is at work here? I asked if it could be localized acidification. That would be a process that could release the nutrient ions, but how does that occur in an alkaline environment?



It is both. Hydrolysis of proteins and other biomolecules happens at any pH, but is accelerated by enzymes or by high or low pH. Oxidation with O2 and other reactive molecules also takes place. :)

[bertoni]

As Randy has stated, very few, if any, organisms consume and retain all of their food. Anemones or corals with photosynthetic symbionts might come the closest. Animal digestion in general is very inefficient at extracting nutrient or energy. Most of what goes into a fish comes back out, maybe 90% or so, for example.

[Captainsreef]

How do you know that's true?

Actually, I probably should split the animal discussion into a separate thread, since it's not relevant to the original topic.

Because it is true is how I know. A higher index of species diversity in any system will counteract catastrophic tank crashes or in other words the greater the species diversity the better it can maintain balance. That's just proper science and when we incorporate filter feeders that eat materials from the water column that would otherwise cause nuisance algae growth and those that feed on leftover food etc it stands to reason that the system will show an overall sign of healty as has been exhibited in all of my systems. I think you misundestand what my point is. My point is that by instituting the correct life forms in the tanks heirarchy we create a much more balanced and robust system that will still inherit detritus but not on the level of a tank that doesn't incorporate these methods. This results in stability and less cleanings needed along with less equipment because things in the tank are working for you rather than simply existing in the tank. So I think that you thought I mistook the conversation when the fact is that you are ot listening to what I am saying we both think each other the fool..hahahaha but I know I am right and I have a wealth of tanks and experience to prove it...hahahaha so no we wont eliminate detritus but we can get the tank working for us to help us out and there is more harm in not increasing the species index of our tanks than not. Anyone that would argue against increasing the species diversity of their tank and is not smart enough to understand how these ecosystems really work doesn't have any business giving advice and that's not to sound harsh to be truthful whereas the lives of animals are at stake. Detritus is going to collect in tanks because you are taking a natural setting and sealing it off from nature in a glass box with the waste having nowhere to go but to be siphoned out. The water as a result deteriorates over time and needs to be refreshed. That's just part of aquarium keeping. However when we take what nature does and use our brains we find that things will work a whole lot better and will take less care. So now maybe you will understand that yes it is interrelated and I know a thing or two that maybe some of you haven't considered hahhahaha

[bertoni]

Well, you are welcome to your opinions.

[Captainsreef]

It's not opinion it's fact. The thing with opinions is that they are fine to have but they will never change reality from being reality..hahahaha you can call something whatever you want to call it but that'll never change it from being what it is hahahhaa

[reefwars]

It's not opinion it's fact.

prove it?

[Captainsreef]

http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Wildlife-Conservation/Biodiversity.aspx
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/biodiversity/l-3/1-define-biodiversity.htm
http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/what-is-biodiversity-definition-and-relation-to-ecosystem-stability.html
http://coralreef.noaa.gov/aboutcorals/values/biodiversity/
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-the-reef/biodiversity
http://coral.org/coral-reefs-101/coral-reef-ecology/coral-reef-biodiversity/
http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/saltwater-science/why_are_coral_reefs_important
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-07/mvd/index.php
http://www.algagen.com/?p=14

[Captainsreef]

There's a few for ya covering all aspects now back at you disprove it..That's right you can't and there's more evidence to support my claims then there is to support the other. Cheers!

[Captainsreef]

http://www.esa.org/esablog/research/fish-biodiversity-protects-coral-reefs/
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0025026
http://www.defenders.org/coral-reef/basic-facts
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/295/5558/1280.short
http://m.pnas.org/content/99/17/11241.short
http://m.pnas.org/content/105/42/16201.short
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7166/abs/nature06197.html
there's a few more that I reviewed for my PhD

[Captainsreef]

Oh and I type tongue in cheek so I'm not being a jerk I'm just being straight up so don't take it the wrong way. Hahaha but yeah I know what I'm talking about and my aim is to help others to become better aquarists and the saltwater hobby is filled to the brim with know it alls that in reality need to check themselves before they rikkety wreck their animals hahaaha

[reefwars]

I know what biodiversity is , I could have googled that .

I'm talking about how is adding more micro life the only way I'll avoid a tank crash , if I filled my living room with as much diversity as I could that doesn't mean I have a healthy ecosystem , eventually food runs out and territories are staked , the highest on the chain out compete the lowest as escape is impossible , New mates are limited and the risk of failure is more.

I get it I do , I just don't think the way you state it is correct :)

[reefwars]

It's all good I know your passionate about it:)

As far as fact goes though I'd like to see aquarium reef related facts on diversity related to long term success or how it's the key in avoiding catastrophic failure:)

I find haywire heaters to be mostly a cause:)

[reefwars]

Power outages are another:)

I haven't heard anything for lack of diversity in the way of crashes :)

[Captainsreef]

It's all good I know your passionate about it:)

As far as fact goes though I'd like to see aquarium reef related facts on diversity related to long term success or how it's the key in avoiding catastrophic failure:)

I find haywire heaters to be mostly a cause:)
Haywire heaters certainly don't help hahahahaa

[bertoni]

That's right you can't and there's more evidence to support my claims then there is to support the other.
That's your opinion, too. None of those articles discusses the cause of tank crashes.

[Captainsreef]

So let me get this straight you are going to argue against bio diversity in aquariums because you actually believe that by not keeping a diversified tank you can benefit when we have millions of years of evidence and the natural history of these eco systems and you think thats opinion? Bwahahaha

[Captainsreef]

Why you think an aquarium would be any different when it essentially is the same thing only displaced and encased by artificial means. It is a well documented fact in nature that biodiversity is essential. It's no diffefent in an aquarium. The higher the index of species diversity the lower the likelihood of catastrophic failure? Cheers!

[boxfishpooalot]

Why you think an aquarium would be any different when it essentially is the same thing only displaced and encased by artificial means. It is a well documented fact in nature that biodiversity is essential. It's no diffefent in an aquarium. The higher the index of species diversity the lower the likelihood of catastrophic failure? Cheers!

I agree biodiversity will prevent a tank crash due to uptake of food. Less food, wether it's organic detritus, consumed by worms, food Uneaten that sits on the bottom, consumed by hermit crabs, chaeto consuming the inorganic nutrients will lower those, all those things will make an ecosystem. Of course there a lot more, but this is the idea of a functioning ecosystem. Our tanks can do the same as the sea but much smaller of course.

About detritus, I'm surprised too it wasn't higher. I bet it would raise after a day in a bucket with aeration. You going to try that?

[Big E]

Why you think an aquarium would be any different when it essentially is the same thing only displaced and encased by artificial means. It is a well documented fact in nature that biodiversity is essential. It's no diffefent in an aquarium. The higher the index of species diversity the lower the likelihood of catastrophic failure? Cheers!

I'm sorry, but I have to call BS on this statement.

I can run an SPS tank with no Live rock, barebottom and some ceramic material and they'll grow & thrive for as long as I'm alive.

I don't need bugs, pods, ect. or diversity of the bacteria.

[dkeller_nc]

Bilk -

Regarding your original question, your results make quite a lot of sense with respect to the physical chemistry aspects of solubilization and the partitioning of nutrients between organic and inorganic forms.

Most test kits are only designed to react with inorganic forms of nutrients (i.e., free PO4- and NO3- dissolved in the water), and won't quantitate more complex organic molecules that contain nitrogen and phosphorus. So environmental chemists will perform a more complex procedure called "digestion" that converts all of the chemical species in a sample to their simplest, oxidized forms. One then quantitates the total phosphate/nitrate in the digested sample, and subtracts the results from the un-digested sample. That yields a good estimate for the partitioning between the organic and inorganic forms of the nutrients.

The digestion procedure varies, but one example is acidifying the sample with nitric acid, then boiling it for 30 minutes. This isn't something I'd recommend to a hobbyist without a chemistry or other science background. Not only is nitric acid one of the compounds on the DOT watch list (it can be used for nefarious purposes), boiling mineral acid is quite dangerous without the proper equipment and knowledge.

A better plan might be to do some research to come up with a few papers where the authors have quantitated phosphorus and nitrogen in marine sediments. While I don't have any of those references at hand, I'm certain they're out there - ocean nutrient partitioning is of great interest in the scientific community.

[bertoni]

I agree biodiversity will prevent a tank crash due to uptake of food.
What effect does biodiversity have in this respect?

[reefwars]

one problem with adding as much biodiversity as possible is our closed systems wont support them all long term , sure they will all get along fine untill food runs out or predators decline the numbers ,so as captain said i guess i can feed more to keep these animals going but seems counter productive no and not very efficient.

i believe these animals have a place and important role but i dont think excess amounts of them being added is anything you can bank on longterm or even keep track of


many times ive heard of worms , stars, amphipoids etc growing out of control and then measures have to be taken to get pop down , since we dont feed them directly then we have very little control oh how they reproduce.

in fact i would be theres very little data on how ofetn they reproduce, their lifespans, needs, actual diets and reproductive stages/times


i think my bristle worms do a great job but im not about to add 40 ( thats the number i get from the recommendation given on my system) just to watch them either starve or reproduce to huge numbers......finding that sweet spot seems trial and error-ish


certain species play a larger role than others do , for example bacterium have many roles and we dont agree that adding more bacteria is always a good idea...i cant see micro fauna being any different in respect, the numbers that most reefs have are a natural balanced number based off the enviroment and its offerings that resulted in a balanced number of these species , adding to this or trying to manipulate this may and prob can cause grief as much a chance as it could benefits.

[reefwars]

i mean who here has ever added 40 micro stars or worms etc. and can tell me the actual number they have 5 yrs later?


it cant be done ,not realistically anyways ..... these animals cant be kept track of so is hard to say exactly what they are doing at any given , or the overall effect and im sure many other variables:)

interesting topic though...and i think RC needs a biology forum ( maybe we do and im just off lol )

proven that they help clean a tank and general house maintenance .....yes

proven that they can stop a potential crash from happening or are a deciding factor in a healthy reef is going to be hard to prove;)

[boxfishpooalot]

What effect does biodiversity have in this respect?

A tank crash due to detritus, variety is good, no? But a tank crash as far as adding chemicals, no amount of biodiversity will solve that. I mean we can't add biodiversity to combat low alkalinity or calcium. But you and others know that pods will eat detritus, worms, and bacteria too. Look at zeovit, that's based on biodiversity of bacteria.
But maybe biodiversity is the wrong word.

[bertoni]

I don't see why diversity would change the tendency of a tank to crash due to detritus. That seems counterintuitive to me. For example, ammonia can cause a tank crash, and the amount of ammonia produced per unit time is a function of the rate of protein metabolism. How does diversity affect that?

[Paul B]

so I'm questioning the common belief that detritus, if left unchecked and if my testing methodology was an accurate way to determine what is being released, should be such a concern.


I also question it and IMO it is a farce. I feel detritus is the end product of decomposition and siphoning it or leaving it there is no different. There is no visible detritus in my tank because I run a reverse UG filter. (OK stop laughing unless your tank is older then mine, and it is not) :lol:
Once a year I stir my gravel and suck out some detritus but I am sure there is some in there from when Nixon was President. The corals don't seem to care nor do the 23 year old fish. I also feel that if you have enough and the correct bacteria, you need not worry about detritus, nitrates or phosphorous. I don't. :dance:

[Bilk]

It is both. Hydrolysis of proteins and other biomolecules happens at any pH, but is accelerated by enzymes or by high or low pH. Oxidation with O2 and other reactive molecules also takes place. :)

All heterotrophic organisms that consume organics release msot of the N and P in those organics because they have a higher need for the energy from the organic degradation than they have for N and P to build new tissues.

You, for example, release nearly all of the N and P in the foods you eat, and it is true of every heterotrophic organism. :)

The reason all tanks need to deal with N and P is because fish and other organisms that eat food excrete it directly. Nearly all the N and P they eat ends up int eh water as phosphate and ammonia.


Bilk -

Regarding your original question, your results make quite a lot of sense with respect to the physical chemistry aspects of solubilization and the partitioning of nutrients between organic and inorganic forms.

Most test kits are only designed to react with inorganic forms of nutrients (i.e., free PO4- and NO3- dissolved in the water), and won't quantitate more complex organic molecules that contain nitrogen and phosphorus. So environmental chemists will perform a more complex procedure called "digestion" that converts all of the chemical species in a sample to their simplest, oxidized forms. One then quantitates the total phosphate/nitrate in the digested sample, and subtracts the results from the un-digested sample. That yields a good estimate for the partitioning between the organic and inorganic forms of the nutrients.

The digestion procedure varies, but one example is acidifying the sample with nitric acid, then boiling it for 30 minutes. This isn't something I'd recommend to a hobbyist without a chemistry or other science background. Not only is nitric acid one of the compounds on the DOT watch list (it can be used for nefarious purposes), boiling mineral acid is quite dangerous without the proper equipment and knowledge.

A better plan might be to do some research to come up with a few papers where the authors have quantitated phosphorus and nitrogen in marine sediments. While I don't have any of those references at hand, I'm certain they're out there - ocean nutrient partitioning is of great interest in the scientific community.

I also question it and IMO it is a farce. I feel detritus is the end product of decomposition and siphoning it or leaving it there is no different. There is no visible detritus in my tank because I run a reverse UG filter. (OK stop laughing unless your tank is older then mine, and it is not) :lol:
Once a year I stir my gravel and suck out some detritus but I am sure there is some in there from when Nixon was President. The corals don't seem to care nor do the 23 year old fish. I also feel that if you have enough and the correct bacteria, you need not worry about detritus, nitrates or phosphorous. I don't. :dance:

Thanks everyone for the responses. Detritus isn't a new subject for me or pretty much anyone who has kept reef tanks of one form or another. A better understanding of the subject is what I was looking to initiate. Seems there's plenty of opinions on what to either do about it or not do about it. There also seem to be differing opinions on the impact it has on our systems. Randy did provide me with a better explanation of the physical/chemical mechanism which further breaks down detritus to release nutrients into the water column.

I'm sure it's been posted here somewhere before, but will post it into this thread for posterity :)

The Infamous Detritivore (http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-03/rs/index.php)

Oh Paul, I came across a thread you started on Reef Sanctuary on this very subject while searching around for articles and such. Going to be reading that thread later today :)


.................

[Paul B]

Oh Paul, I came across a thread you started on Reef Sanctuary on this very subject while searching around for articles and such. Going to be reading that thread later today

I will have to look for it as I write somewhere between Hemmingway and Dr. Seuss.

[Boom]

Ah ok :) So would a better testing method be to leave the collected detritus in the water for a longer period before measuring? Is maintaining the same relative temperature of the tank important to this? If it's a time vs release mechanism, I assume readings at different intervals would prove necessary to somewhat determine the rate of release?

I'm really no chemist/biologist if you couldn't tell :fun4: So I had to look up abiotic degradation :p I only found references to it relating to chemicals, plastics and the like. Wiki had an article that has since been removed. Here's the initial definition:



So what precipitates the breakdown or release of the bound PO4/NO3? I'd assume bacteria act upon detrital matter, but then the PO4/No3 are being consumed. I can also see how acidification would cause it to be released, but our systems are alkaline. Does acidification happen in a localized region where detritus accumulates?

I guess what I'm trying to convey is, we believe that detrital matter has bound N&P, but what is the mechanism that releases it?
I asked Randy the same question but in a different light on a different forum recently. I performed the same experiment you did but for a different purpose.
I also tested my water in the tank and the water I removed with detritus for phosphates... with the same results. I then mixed Mrs Wages lime (one baby teaspoon in 5g dirty tank water. The dry kalk functioned as a flocculent. I allowed it all to settle on the bottom and retested the clear water for phosphates. I got a zero phosphate reading... twice.The clear water I drew off, I recycled and used in different cultures. The precipitated stuff I added to a phytoplankton culture with great results.
I asked the question: How could I re-release the precipitated nutrients to make them more available to my phytoplankton or would those nutrients automatically be re-released into a water column that already had lower nutrient concentrations, different temperatures, and ph. As you posed, our saline, alkaline water columns (I presumed) might create a different chemical environment.
Apparently not. According to RF-H, the thermodynamics of organic AND inorganic solutes remain IN FLUX. Randy, I hope I am not butchering this interpretation of what you explained to me earlier :o.

Since the chemical composition of our reef tanks is different, I vote we all do an informal experiment and report back the results!
I wish there was a cheap way to test the elements (trace if any) locked up in our detritus or the milky precipitate found in our sand beds :cool:

[bertoni]

The precipitated nutrients will redissolve when the water column is below the equilibrium point. I'd expect a lot of the phosphate to redissolve if added to zero-phosphate saltwater, and more will redissolve as the phytoplankton consume the nutrients.

[Boom]

The precipitated nutrients will redissolve when the water column is below the equilibrium point. I'd expect a lot of the phosphate to redissolve if added to zero-phosphate saltwater, and more will redissolve as the phytoplankton consume the nutrients.
Thanks.I figured that's what was happening when the phyto exploded once I added the precipitated gunk. I also inferred that if I reduce the salinity enough, more ions would be released into the column despite all the other ions' interactions, like Sr,Ca,and Mg.
Does anyone really know what our detritus is composed of?

[bertoni]

Does anyone really know what our detritus is composed of?
Not in any detail.

[Dan_P]

As folks have mentioned, detritus is all kinds of stuff.

The organic matter in it that contains organic N and P will only release those elements as it is broken down, either by biologic action, or by abiotic degradation.

Measuring the water around detritus ought to be about the same as the rest of the water, because the release of N and P will be slow and steady, and it quickly diffuses into the water column as soon as it is released. But it takes a long time for it all to be released. Hence the concerns about detritus.

That said, I'm not hyper about detritus collecting in my tank. It let it collect all it wants in my sump and refugia. There's a thick layer in my sump, and probably more in my refugia.

If detritus is accumulating, it would seem that even the bacteria are not finding much nutrition in it. Has any one taken a closer look at this material? Is there more than one type of detritus, the material you should be concerned with and the material that is not much different from terrestrial dirt? It sounds like you have some fairly inert material. The thing I wonder about is whether there is a stage at which it becomes anoxic and becomes more dangerous than garden soil in the sump.

[Dan_P]

Did some cleaning of the sump earlier and decided to test the water that was drawn out using my little shop-vac. I passed it thru a coffee filter to remove suspended solids and performed a ULR Hanna test on it.

I first tested the tank water drawn directly from the tank and then tested the nasty, yellow-tinted water drawn from the bottom of the sump after I filtered it as mentioned.

Results? Both read the same 13ppb. Maybe another test would show different results of I let the detritus sit in the water for an hour or more? I think I'll test NO3 and see what results I get as well.

Question - if indeed detritus is filled with measurable organics such as PO4 and NO3, when or should I ask, how soon after, does it reach the water column? It's near impossible to extract detritus as it forms, so I'm questioning the common belief that detritus, if left unchecked and if my testing methodology was an accurate way to determine what is being released, should be such a concern.

I really expected to get different results considering the sludge I removed ( I generally do this once every two weeks or so ) was yellowed somewhat and had a large concentration of detritus. :confused:

One thing you might try for fun. Dry the detritus you have collected. You might find there isn't much solid material left once the water is removed. If true, it won't be much of a phosphate or nitrate source. I would be interested in the results, as crude as they are.

[boxfishpooalot]

It's not the detritus that's the main problem it's the bacteria that will degrade it releasing those nutrients. This is probably why the king of bare bottom (Bomber?) used a large uv light.

I once read that scientists found that seawater, thought to contain millions of bacteria per drop actually Had billions via electron microscope.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

If detritus is accumulating, it would seem that even the bacteria are not finding much nutrition in it. Has any one taken a closer look at this material? Is there more than one type of detritus, the material you should be concerned with and the material that is not much different from terrestrial dirt? It sounds like you have some fairly inert material. The thing I wonder about is whether there is a stage at which it becomes anoxic and becomes more dangerous than garden soil in the sump.

I've not seen any analysis of it.

I expect that it is getting more and more processed all the time down to less and less digestable stuff. Detritus that has been around for a few years won't release much, certainly (yes, I have some of that :D). Detritus that was fish poop yesterday likely will.

FWIW, I never remove detritus from my tank, and my sump has a thick mud layer of it. My regufia probably do too, but I can't see the bottom of them.

You just need to have enough nutrient export to keep up with it and it becomes a non issue (IMO). :)

It may become anoxic in some cases, and I agree that would be more of a concern.

[Paul B]

I think (but am not sure) that it is shells from pods (copepods and amphipods) which are crustaceans so they shed their shell which is not calcium so it will stay around a while. Also the hard parts of bristle worms such as their bristles. I know in my tank I have loads of pieces of crab and urchin shells or spines. Many algae's have hard calcium parts (I forgot what you call those) but most soft corals also have them that helps give them their shape. Fish scales and bones I would imagine also contribute. All of those things I mentioned don't sound like much but if you have an old tank, that stuff accumulates and the dead, dying bacteria and partially digested fish poop tend to bind it together until it falls apart and only the hard parts remain.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Such shells will be made primarily of chitin, which will very slowly biodegrade, releasing nitrogen. :)

[Paul B]

As I said, but you say it more elequantly with that chemist brogue

which are crustaceans so they shed their shell which is not calcium so it will stay around a while.

[tmz]

This question came up on another thread:

These are my thoughts and observations as noted there, fwiw:

I also have some detritus buildups which mineralize in my cryptic fuges and some sump areas . It doesn't seem to do any harm as it degrades there; however, if it builds in the display it fuels cyano ,nuisance algae and seems to be harmful to corals positioned near it,IME.



It does release nutrients as it degrades from hydrolysis as well as microbial and biotic activity occurring in a cascade with each digestion reducing the nutrient value of the remaining detritus , ultimately leaving refractory remnants which are of little consequence.
I think when the degradation activity occurs and it's by products go into the water in lighted areas they feed nuisance algae and cyano but some of that activity and it's by products may disturb corals if it occurs in close proximity to accumulated detritus ,IME.
So, I don't worry about it in the sump or cryptic refugia since it may be of use to many animals but do remove it from display tanks and grow out tanks, via brisk flow and/or occasional siphoning in areas where fresh detritus may be harmful to it's neighbors.