• Why not take a moment to introduce yourself to our members?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Anonymous

Guest
coprolite":1j3qravy said:
http://www.marine.usf.edu/videos/2007-01-26.wmv

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 061206.php

Coral death results from bacteria fed by algae
Coral (Acropora) from the Line Islands covered by bubble algae (Dictyosphaeria)
Click here for more information.
(Santa Barbara, Calif.) �� Bacteria and algae are combining to kill coral �� and human activities are compounding the problem.

Scientists have discovered an indirect microbial mechanism whereby bacteria kill coral with the help of algae. Human activities are contributing to the growth of algae on coral reefs, setting the stage for the long-term continued decline of coral.

Reporting in the June 5 on-line version of the scientific journal Ecology Letters, scientists described laboratory experiments on coral and algae.

First author Jennifer Smith, a postdoctoral fellow at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) at the University of California, Santa Barbara, explained that the team of scientists, as part of a research expedition to the Line Islands, put algae and coral in chambers of seawater with filters between them. All of the corals with neighboring algae died, while coral without neighboring algae did not die. However, with the addition of an antibiotic, coral death even in the presence of algae was prevented, showing that bacteria fed by the algae are the agents of coral death. "We are the first to link these processes together," said Smith.

"This study tightly links the fields of microbiology with coral reef ecology to help guide reef conservation efforts," said senior author Forest Rohwer, assistant professor of microbiology at San Diego State University.

"Our study shows that bacteria are the front line that kill corals," Smith explained. "Algae release sugar, fueling bacterial growth on the corals. These bacteria suffocate the coral by cutting off the supply of oxygen. Once the corals die, this frees more space for more algae to grow. We think this process sets up a positive feedback loop that accelerates the rate of decline in already damaged reef ecosystems."

The report describes the other conditions that put coral reefs at risk. Overfishing reduces the number of fish that graze on algae, thus increasing the amount of algae on the reef. Nutrients from sewage and agricultural run-off fertilize the algae. Warmer water and more intense hurricanes resulting from global climate change are also blamed for coral death.

"Anyone who has been to the tropics and has had the experience of diving on a coral reef will not deny the spectacular beauty of these systems," said Smith. "They support numerous species of animals and plants and many species that remain undiscovered to science. These ecosystems are particularly important to humans because they support abundant fisheries �� commercial, subsistence, and recreational �� and they generate a large tourism industry."

She added that the reefs themselves protect coastal areas from erosion. From a biological perspective, coral reefs are more productive and support more species than any other marine ecosystem on the planet. While more reefs die every year due to an onslaught of human impacts, many scientists are hopeful that it is not too late to stop the destruction. She mentioned that there is a lot of excitement within the scientific community to begin working towards reef restoration and recovery in areas that have been heavily degraded.

Co-author Enric Sala said, "On certain coral heads I witnessed about half of the coral alive and half dead and covered by fleshy algae. In between the living half and the algae there was a 'band of sickness and death.' I thought, as many others did, that the corals were dying because of a disease, something unknown. But what we found is that the algae are enhancing the coral disease."

Sala is leader of the Line Islands Expedition (http://sio.ucsd.edu/lineislands) and is an associate professor at UC San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography. He is also deputy director of the Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation there. Sala explained that for hundreds of thousands of years there have been natural disturbances, such as hurricanes, and coral reefs have always recovered. But now, because of threats such as global warming and pollution, the reefs are losing their ability to recover because humans are adding so many more disturbances to the ocean ecosystem. "In the same way that we take care of our bodies and treat illnesses, we cannot pretend to have healthy coral reefs by addressing individual threats," he said. "The human shadow is longer than we thought and there are invisible, lethal threats that we induce."

Co-author Stuart Sandin, a postdoctoral researcher in Sala's group, said, "This research highlights a little-appreciated, yet critically important interaction between algae and corals, key players on the coral reef. As algae become more abundant on reefs, through the effects of overfishing and pollution, there are indirect effects that accelerate further loss of corals. On the flip side, however, if algae are controlled by abundant fish populations, then the reef gains a capacity for recovery from other forms of disturbance, like hurricanes and sea warming."

bump :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
clekchau":1lld4h2h said:
vitz,

why would anyone take advice from you? what advice do you have to give that people like anthony calfo, bob fenner or randy holmes farley hasn't already written articles about? have you written any articles? do you have a tank of the month that wins the admiration of others worldwide like oregon reef? i'm just curious as to how you qualify to critize someone who is obviously passionate about this 'method' and willing to help anyone and everyone set something up similar.

if you are out to prove him wrong, instead of making immature retorts, why don't you prove him wrong by setting up 3 10 gallon aquariums, one with carbon dosing, one with an ats and one with a refugium and compare which one effectively removes po4 and nitrates more efficiently during a 1 month course etc? sure someone with your expertise and knowledge can easily do that?


oh wait, its much easier to criticize from the sidelines with childish jokes, i get it, frankly not only are you annoying, you are childish.

oh, er, and...

if you truly had bothered to read the threads, you would have seen the LINK i provided by RHF as the fairly conclusive proof against santa's ridiculoulsy drivelish thread title ;)

so how much PO4 does a damsel produce per hour, and what's the uptake rate of PO4 for a healthy/typical (whatever that means, lol) sq. inch of turf srubber?

wait, what about the water flow/hour? at what point does CONTACT TIME become too short for efficient absorption of the PO4 by the qlgae-is this an issue or not?

do you realize how many IMPORTANT variables are involved in a 'bio processor' of any sort?

what about light cycle?

is the appearance of growth of the algae more important than the PO4 uptake rate? is it even related?

how much PO4 does turf algae release on a continual basis? (it's a number greater than zero)

santa is so ignorant he's not even aware of the existence of these questions, or the need for them to be asked, BY HIS OWN VOLITION, before making ANY claim whatsoever about ANY biofilter

a biofilter is dynamic, and it's working in/on a HIGHLY dynamic system, and both operate on thousands of feedback loops at a minimum, some affect others only, some interact indirectly, directly, etc etc etc ad infinitum per nauseaum ipso facto amen :P

yet the overly simplistic 2 yr old ins salesman will only adress those who might be impressed with that level of understanding from teh espouiser of said method

so far, even the biggest proponent of this method on any of the threads i've read by santa couldn't show a picture of an SPS DOMINATED mature tank, that uses ONLY a turf scrubber as it's sole means of husbandry for water quality parameters, particularly NO3 and PO4

it was a nice tank-merely showed that a nice healthy tank can be maintained using an algae scrubber, ALONG WITH carbon, and water changes (iirc)

no-one here said that wasn't possible or likely

it is my pfofound hope that you and many others don't go about building your learning curve the way the o.p. did, for more than one reason-but most importantly (to me) so that animals don't need to either be killed or simply suffer or be needlessly wasted because of a misunderstood/misrepresenting sales pitch :(
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
one last food for thought:

the algae scrubber will become, as the tank becomes more productive/mature/healthier, MORE work intensive...

as things grow, reproduce, become better adapted to a tank environment, MORE waste is produced-more waste consumer mass HAS to follow


dollars to donuts the typical turf user needs to harvest slimy green muck, or fuzzy brownish green turf, or whatever photosynthesizers are being used, far more often than i need to clean out my skimmer, IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN INITIAL EFFICIENCY LEVELS OF FILTRATION?PROCESSING

and 50 sump bux to anyone who can prove that a skimmer removes either fewer organics, or removes them more slowly than an algae mat



NOW

this will really bake your noodle :P ....

i know for a fact that it's indeed possible to have a knockout sps dominated tank w/an algal scrubber as the primary-one of my co-workers, whos piscatorial/aquatic fw/marine knowledge base and experience i highly respect, and who's one of the more sensible and level headed folks i've ever met, swears by them, and i have absolutely NO reason to doubt his experience-i will accept his testimony after discussing this issue w/him on faith, simply because i know just how extensive his experience and knowledge are, after working with him for abit over 2 yrs

i also know for a fact that those systems use scrubbers of a whole 'nother level, with a regimen/routine/design of a whole other level, and are being run by people of a whole other level

i surmise that not a one of them would ever go about recommending them in a fashion even remotely similiar-ish to the op

tanstaafl is axiomatic ;)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
GreshamH":7cu55e23 said:
Dang it Vitz, stop bumping that paper up :lol:

:P

:twisted:

:wink:

:D

i'm watchin blue planet on sci channel right now, while my powder blue is on anti gramma patrol over a new red/green favia :)

it's the little things in life that make it all worthhwile :)
 

clekchau1

Active Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
vitz":24aitb7k said:
clekchau":24aitb7k said:
vitz,

why would anyone take advice from you? what advice do you have to give that people like anthony calfo, bob fenner or randy holmes farley hasn't already written articles about? have you written any articles? do you have a tank of the month that wins the admiration of others worldwide like oregon reef? i'm just curious as to how you qualify to critize someone who is obviously passionate about this 'method' and willing to help anyone and everyone set something up similar.

if you are out to prove him wrong, instead of making immature retorts, why don't you prove him wrong by setting up 3 10 gallon aquariums, one with carbon dosing, one with an ats and one with a refugium and compare which one effectively removes po4 and nitrates more efficiently during a 1 month course etc? sure someone with your expertise and knowledge can easily do that?


oh wait, its much easier to criticize from the sidelines with childish jokes, i get it, frankly not only are you annoying, you are childish.

:lol:

i'm not out to prove anything-don't have to, as it's ALREADY BEEN DONE!!

anyone who claims that a skimmer doesn't remove phosphates or nitrates as fact is a blithering idiot and a tool-it's been established for DECADES by commercial wastewater treatment facilities that it does, and its a method that was already in existence quite awhile before sw ornamental keeping went 'mainstream'

i wasn't aware that writing articles is what makes one knowledgeable, or an expert, on anything, nor was i aware that having a totm does so as well

i know what i know, and i know how and why i know it-would you like me to list my cv and qualifications ?



again-the 'experiments' you desire to see HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE-use your brain, get some gumption, and do some research :)

if you're so tired of what you label as 'childish responses', you always have the option of not encouraging them to begin with ;)

you remind me of the character who pm'd me 3 times on RC during the santa discussions, who took offense that i didn't spoon feed him like a baby

i owe you NOTHING,NO explanations-demanding help/info is not the way to get it from someone.

google is your friend-i'm not ;)

if you are not out to prove anything, why not leave the thread? he is spending alot of time and energy fine tuning and documenting his approach, some people are trying it and he's helping them with every step of the way, who is he actually hurting? if you are so passionate about disproving him, actions speak louder than words, OR you could always post on a forum and say 'i don't owe you anything' ;)

yes his way is a new twist on incorportating an ats sort of like anthony calfo's rdsb was a new approach to keeping a rdsb. will it work? he seems to be fine tuning it and getting some results, so have other people, if you strongly believe this will not work, prove him worng... oh wait, you don't owe anyone anything.....

i don't need your cv or recommendations, i was merely suggesting tact over flames, action over words

you don't have to write articles or have a fantastic reef setup to to claim you are a reef expert on reefs.org.... you can just say it with annoying flames, wow you showed us :D
 

clekchau1

Active Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
vitz":2658v8xu said:
clekchau":2658v8xu said:
vitz,

why would anyone take advice from you? what advice do you have to give that people like anthony calfo, bob fenner or randy holmes farley hasn't already written articles about? have you written any articles? do you have a tank of the month that wins the admiration of others worldwide like oregon reef? i'm just curious as to how you qualify to critize someone who is obviously passionate about this 'method' and willing to help anyone and everyone set something up similar.

if you are out to prove him wrong, instead of making immature retorts, why don't you prove him wrong by setting up 3 10 gallon aquariums, one with carbon dosing, one with an ats and one with a refugium and compare which one effectively removes po4 and nitrates more efficiently during a 1 month course etc? sure someone with your expertise and knowledge can easily do that?


oh wait, its much easier to criticize from the sidelines with childish jokes, i get it, frankly not only are you annoying, you are childish.

oh, er, and...

if you truly had bothered to read the threads, you would have seen the LINK i provided by RHF as the fairly conclusive proof against santa's ridiculoulsy drivelish thread title ;)

so how much PO4 does a damsel produce per hour, and what's the uptake rate of PO4 for a healthy/typical (whatever that means, lol) sq. inch of turf srubber?

wait, what about the water flow/hour? at what point does CONTACT TIME become too short for efficient absorption of the PO4 by the qlgae-is this an issue or not?

do you realize how many IMPORTANT variables are involved in a 'bio processor' of any sort?

what about light cycle?

is the appearance of growth of the algae more important than the PO4 uptake rate? is it even related?

how much PO4 does turf algae release on a continual basis? (it's a number greater than zero)

santa is so ignorant he's not even aware of the existence of these questions, or the need for them to be asked, BY HIS OWN VOLITION, before making ANY claim whatsoever about ANY biofilter

a biofilter is dynamic, and it's working in/on a HIGHLY dynamic system, and both operate on thousands of feedback loops at a minimum, some affect others only, some interact indirectly, directly, etc etc etc ad infinitum per nauseaum ipso facto amen :P

yet the overly simplistic 2 yr old ins salesman will only adress those who might be impressed with that level of understanding from teh espouiser of said method

so far, even the biggest proponent of this method on any of the threads i've read by santa couldn't show a picture of an SPS DOMINATED mature tank, that uses ONLY a turf scrubber as it's sole means of husbandry for water quality parameters, particularly NO3 and PO4

it was a nice tank-merely showed that a nice healthy tank can be maintained using an algae scrubber, ALONG WITH carbon, and water changes (iirc)

no-one here said that wasn't possible or likely

it is my pfofound hope that you and many others don't go about building your learning curve the way the o.p. did, for more than one reason-but most importantly (to me) so that animals don't need to either be killed or simply suffer or be needlessly wasted because of a misunderstood/misrepresenting sales pitch :(


vitz, honeslty i think you mean well but your way of presenting it is coming across wrong, which is why i suggested action over words and doing a simple experiment. for someone who doesn't owe anyone anything, you sure type alot to prove your case =D

i've read articles, i've tried every type of method possible, if not for effectiveness for curiousity sake, remember reverse flow undergravel filters or were you in the hobby that far back? is the bb/dsb debate still going around? is metal halide still superior over t5? what about the new rage, carbon dosing (at least new to me) ? i've ready every tank of the month from reefs.org and rc and all are different in one way or another in terms of setup and husbandry, some would make the tang police cringe yet it works for them, who's to say what they are doing is wrong?

for my personal use, i've found a very efficient skimmer, alot of flow, bare bottom and gfo was the best way to remove nutrients, i never had much luck with refugiums, but i did attempt to try them and never tried to discourage anyone from keeping a refugium even though it didn't work all that well for me. like i said, there are many ways to remove nutrietts and op is spending alot of time trying to tweak it and doing tests to make it work better why discourage him?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I do not see any one 'discouraging' anyone from anything.

I see people 'encouraging' a deeper knowledge of what its going on, and a glimpse of the CONS of a system like this.

Santa fails to consider the cons.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
clekchau":35ufogn3 said:
like i said, there are many ways to remove nutrietts and op is spending alot of time trying to tweak it and doing tests to make it work better why discourage him?

I'm glad to see this portion of the discussion going at a more even keel now.

Hmm, if SM backed off of his original claims I think people would be much more willing to cut him a little slack. As it is, it still appears that he is preaching his turf filter to be a complete filtration approach. This is misleading to say the least. Think of how much time, money, and effort the newbies trying this method are putting into their tanks...to allow them to follow bad advice without speaking up against absurd claims would be irresponsible on the part of the non-believers.

Let's plug this into an example...

What if your neighbor wanted to get into the hobby? What if he/she wanted to throw down the cash and time to set up a full blown reef tomorrow, found this thread, and wanted to use this method? Would you recommend to your neighbor that he/she use the method described in this thread as a complete filtration approach?

To take that a step further - What would you recommend if he/she wanted to dose Iodine as a rookie even though three of the most knowledgable reef chemistry gurus I can think of recommend against dosing (RHF, bertoni and Billybeau1) and have expressed a clear lack of faith in the applicability of iodine test kits?
 

clekchau1

Active Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
miwoodar":4xuedz4j said:
clekchau":4xuedz4j said:
like i said, there are many ways to remove nutrietts and op is spending alot of time trying to tweak it and doing tests to make it work better why discourage him?

I'm glad to see this portion of the discussion going at a more even keel now.

Hmm, if SM backed off of his original claims I think people would be much more willing to cut him a little slack. As it is, it still appears that he is preaching his turf filter to be a complete filtration approach. This is misleading to say the least. Think of how much time, money, and effort the newbies trying this method are putting into their tanks...to allow them to follow bad advice without speaking up against absurd claims would be irresponsible on the part of the non-believers.

Let's plug this into an example...

What if your neighbor wanted to get into the hobby? What if he/she wanted to throw down the cash and time to set up a full blown reef tomorrow, found this thread, and wanted to use this method? Would you recommend to your neighbor that he/she use the method described in this thread as a complete filtration approach?

To take that a step further - What would you recommend if he/she wanted to dose Iodine as a rookie even though three of the most knowledgable reef chemistry gurus I can think of recommend against dosing (RHF, bertoni and Billybeau1) and have expressed a clear lack of faith in the applicability of iodine test kits?

honestly i don't know what i would recommend as there are so many different ways to export nutrients, i've seen die hard experts go against any type of sand, carbon dosing, even over skimming. i could only recommend what works for me, heavy skimming, heavy flow and gfo. if ats works for sm, there is no reason why he shouldn't recommend it, and no reason for people to come crap in his thread as others have.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
clekchau":36nxy39k said:
if ats works for sm, there is no reason why he shouldn't recommend it, and no reason for people to come crap in his thread as others have.

While I don't think the way some people has shown different opinions than SM are the best way to go about it, I see every reason why people would want to question his methods and claims. This is an open discussion forum and all thoughts and opinions are welcome. Thats kind of the purpose of a discussion forum, and one of the things that makes posting here different from writing articles.

I should also say that the way SM presented his ideas made it obvious that people were going to react somewhat negatively to what he had to say. This was exacerbated by the way he chose to pick and choose his evidence and they way he ignored and belittled criticism and evidence counter to his ideas (he actually spun that kind of evidence into support for what he was saying) regardless of how that criticism was phrased. Dogma is dogma, and as reefers IMO, we should look at anyone promoting dogma with critical eyes, and look even more critically at people who even reject to enter into discussion about what they are promoting.

There are many ways to skin a reef. I think ATS have their place, and may run one in my ceph system, not really as a filter, but as a place to grow and harvest pods. What I remain unconvinced of is ATS being a panacea for reefing or even good for SPS tanks long term, and have yet to see a pic of a SPS tank running SPS long term. It also seems pretty clear that there is evidence that turf will kill SPS so care is warranted.

What I fear is that people are going to jump on what SM is promoting and that we will soon be deluged with a barrage of posts asking how to fix the damage that was done by people band wagon jumping to ATS.

That said, I would love it if this were the kind of miracle filter SM makes it out to be. However, we are going to need at least 5 year old successful reefs of all kinds to make that sort of determination. Until then, I urge caution to any that read this thread - the same kind of caution I, and others, urge whenever a 'new' idea catches fire in the reefkeeping world.

Finally, I would hope that we can all have rational, open minded discussion about this, and all topics. Without that, we get reduced to name calling and putting the blinders on and end up with artificial polarization's that help no one.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Thales":1e0eg90n said:
That said, I would love it if this were the kind of miracle filter SM makes it out to be. However, we are going to need at least 5 year old successful reefs of all kinds to make that sort of determination.

to convince me it will take at least 6 years, 8 months, 18 days, 9 hours, 32 minutes and 31.9133333333333 seconds.
 

eric.m.s

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
coprolite":fztvk3eu said:
http://www.marine.usf.edu/videos/2007-01-26.wmv

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 061206.php

Coral death results from bacteria fed by algae
Coral (Acropora) from the Line Islands covered by bubble algae (Dictyosphaeria)
Click here for more information.
(Santa Barbara, Calif.) �� Bacteria and algae are combining to kill coral �� and human activities are compounding the problem.

Scientists have discovered an indirect microbial mechanism whereby bacteria kill coral with the help of algae. Human activities are contributing to the growth of algae on coral reefs, setting the stage for the long-term continued decline of coral.

Reporting in the June 5 on-line version of the scientific journal Ecology Letters, scientists described laboratory experiments on coral and algae.

First author Jennifer Smith, a postdoctoral fellow at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) at the University of California, Santa Barbara, explained that the team of scientists, as part of a research expedition to the Line Islands, put algae and coral in chambers of seawater with filters between them. All of the corals with neighboring algae died, while coral without neighboring algae did not die. However, with the addition of an antibiotic, coral death even in the presence of algae was prevented, showing that bacteria fed by the algae are the agents of coral death. "We are the first to link these processes together," said Smith.

"This study tightly links the fields of microbiology with coral reef ecology to help guide reef conservation efforts," said senior author Forest Rohwer, assistant professor of microbiology at San Diego State University.

"Our study shows that bacteria are the front line that kill corals," Smith explained. "Algae release sugar, fueling bacterial growth on the corals. These bacteria suffocate the coral by cutting off the supply of oxygen. Once the corals die, this frees more space for more algae to grow. We think this process sets up a positive feedback loop that accelerates the rate of decline in already damaged reef ecosystems."

The report describes the other conditions that put coral reefs at risk. Overfishing reduces the number of fish that graze on algae, thus increasing the amount of algae on the reef. Nutrients from sewage and agricultural run-off fertilize the algae. Warmer water and more intense hurricanes resulting from global climate change are also blamed for coral death.

"Anyone who has been to the tropics and has had the experience of diving on a coral reef will not deny the spectacular beauty of these systems," said Smith. "They support numerous species of animals and plants and many species that remain undiscovered to science. These ecosystems are particularly important to humans because they support abundant fisheries �� commercial, subsistence, and recreational �� and they generate a large tourism industry."

She added that the reefs themselves protect coastal areas from erosion. From a biological perspective, coral reefs are more productive and support more species than any other marine ecosystem on the planet. While more reefs die every year due to an onslaught of human impacts, many scientists are hopeful that it is not too late to stop the destruction. She mentioned that there is a lot of excitement within the scientific community to begin working towards reef restoration and recovery in areas that have been heavily degraded.

Co-author Enric Sala said, "On certain coral heads I witnessed about half of the coral alive and half dead and covered by fleshy algae. In between the living half and the algae there was a 'band of sickness and death.' I thought, as many others did, that the corals were dying because of a disease, something unknown. But what we found is that the algae are enhancing the coral disease."

Sala is leader of the Line Islands Expedition (http://sio.ucsd.edu/lineislands) and is an associate professor at UC San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography. He is also deputy director of the Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation there. Sala explained that for hundreds of thousands of years there have been natural disturbances, such as hurricanes, and coral reefs have always recovered. But now, because of threats such as global warming and pollution, the reefs are losing their ability to recover because humans are adding so many more disturbances to the ocean ecosystem. "In the same way that we take care of our bodies and treat illnesses, we cannot pretend to have healthy coral reefs by addressing individual threats," he said. "The human shadow is longer than we thought and there are invisible, lethal threats that we induce."

Co-author Stuart Sandin, a postdoctoral researcher in Sala's group, said, "This research highlights a little-appreciated, yet critically important interaction between algae and corals, key players on the coral reef. As algae become more abundant on reefs, through the effects of overfishing and pollution, there are indirect effects that accelerate further loss of corals. On the flip side, however, if algae are controlled by abundant fish populations, then the reef gains a capacity for recovery from other forms of disturbance, like hurricanes and sea warming."

Hi Coprolite & Gresham :lol:

While I agree with much of what has been said in this thread regarding Turf filters, their ineffectiveness, and the initial claims made... This has little contribution to the argument.

You are comparing organic carbon being released directly next to the coral where detrimental bacteria on the surface of the coral can quickly utilize it...to that being released away from the coral giving preference to other strains as well as the location of the biofilm growth. In my opinion all the article does is highlight the benefits a protein skimmer can bring in addition to a turf filter.

FWIW, Ken and Kelly show an aquarium with abnormally elevated levels of TOC with no ill effects here: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/9/aafeature2

That is all I will say, carry on :D

Regards,
Eric Michael
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0

honestly i don't know what i would recommend as there are so many different ways to export nutrients, i've seen die hard experts go against any type of sand, carbon dosing, even over skimming. i could only recommend what works for me, heavy skimming, heavy flow and gfo.


True. We've seen dozens of TOTM quality tanks using DSB vs SSB vs BB, carbon dosing vs no carbon dosing, underskimmed vs overskimmed, GFO vs no GFO. These are time proven techniques no matter which option you choose in each case...a little different than the debate at hand.

I only have one tank ATM and I've chosen heavy skimming, heavy flow, small GFO, GAC, VSV, AA, and fairly heavy lighting. I don't necessarily tell people to manage their tanks the way I manage mine though. But I do try to help people avoid pit falls. For instance, 'say no to UG'. 'Buy a quality skimmer, especially if you're new'. 'Don't waste your money on a micron canister filter or a power filter'. 'Buy good ca/alk/mag test kits'. 'Don't put all of your eggs in the turf bandwagon'.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
eric.m.s":1lv0t70g said:
coprolite":1lv0t70g said:
http://www.marine.usf.edu/videos/2007-01-26.wmv

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 061206.php

Coral death results from bacteria fed by algae
Coral (Acropora) from the Line Islands covered by bubble algae (Dictyosphaeria)
Click here for more information.
(Santa Barbara, Calif.) �� Bacteria and algae are combining to kill coral �� and human activities are compounding the problem.

Scientists have discovered an indirect microbial mechanism whereby bacteria kill coral with the help of algae. Human activities are contributing to the growth of algae on coral reefs, setting the stage for the long-term continued decline of coral.

Reporting in the June 5 on-line version of the scientific journal Ecology Letters, scientists described laboratory experiments on coral and algae.

First author Jennifer Smith, a postdoctoral fellow at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) at the University of California, Santa Barbara, explained that the team of scientists, as part of a research expedition to the Line Islands, put algae and coral in chambers of seawater with filters between them. All of the corals with neighboring algae died, while coral without neighboring algae did not die. However, with the addition of an antibiotic, coral death even in the presence of algae was prevented, showing that bacteria fed by the algae are the agents of coral death. "We are the first to link these processes together," said Smith.

"This study tightly links the fields of microbiology with coral reef ecology to help guide reef conservation efforts," said senior author Forest Rohwer, assistant professor of microbiology at San Diego State University.

"Our study shows that bacteria are the front line that kill corals," Smith explained. "Algae release sugar, fueling bacterial growth on the corals. These bacteria suffocate the coral by cutting off the supply of oxygen. Once the corals die, this frees more space for more algae to grow. We think this process sets up a positive feedback loop that accelerates the rate of decline in already damaged reef ecosystems."

The report describes the other conditions that put coral reefs at risk. Overfishing reduces the number of fish that graze on algae, thus increasing the amount of algae on the reef. Nutrients from sewage and agricultural run-off fertilize the algae. Warmer water and more intense hurricanes resulting from global climate change are also blamed for coral death.

"Anyone who has been to the tropics and has had the experience of diving on a coral reef will not deny the spectacular beauty of these systems," said Smith. "They support numerous species of animals and plants and many species that remain undiscovered to science. These ecosystems are particularly important to humans because they support abundant fisheries �� commercial, subsistence, and recreational �� and they generate a large tourism industry."

She added that the reefs themselves protect coastal areas from erosion. From a biological perspective, coral reefs are more productive and support more species than any other marine ecosystem on the planet. While more reefs die every year due to an onslaught of human impacts, many scientists are hopeful that it is not too late to stop the destruction. She mentioned that there is a lot of excitement within the scientific community to begin working towards reef restoration and recovery in areas that have been heavily degraded.

Co-author Enric Sala said, "On certain coral heads I witnessed about half of the coral alive and half dead and covered by fleshy algae. In between the living half and the algae there was a 'band of sickness and death.' I thought, as many others did, that the corals were dying because of a disease, something unknown. But what we found is that the algae are enhancing the coral disease."

Sala is leader of the Line Islands Expedition (http://sio.ucsd.edu/lineislands) and is an associate professor at UC San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography. He is also deputy director of the Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation there. Sala explained that for hundreds of thousands of years there have been natural disturbances, such as hurricanes, and coral reefs have always recovered. But now, because of threats such as global warming and pollution, the reefs are losing their ability to recover because humans are adding so many more disturbances to the ocean ecosystem. "In the same way that we take care of our bodies and treat illnesses, we cannot pretend to have healthy coral reefs by addressing individual threats," he said. "The human shadow is longer than we thought and there are invisible, lethal threats that we induce."

Co-author Stuart Sandin, a postdoctoral researcher in Sala's group, said, "This research highlights a little-appreciated, yet critically important interaction between algae and corals, key players on the coral reef. As algae become more abundant on reefs, through the effects of overfishing and pollution, there are indirect effects that accelerate further loss of corals. On the flip side, however, if algae are controlled by abundant fish populations, then the reef gains a capacity for recovery from other forms of disturbance, like hurricanes and sea warming."

Hi Coprolite & Gresham :lol:

While I agree with much of what has been said in this thread regarding Turf filters, their ineffectiveness, and the initial claims made... This has little contribution to the argument.

You are comparing organic carbon being released directly next to the coral where detrimental bacteria on the surface of the coral can quickly utilize it...to that being released away from the coral giving preference to other strains as well as the location of the biofilm growth. In my opinion all the article does is highlight the benefits a protein skimmer can bring in addition to a turf filter.

FWIW, Ken and Kelly show an aquarium with abnormally elevated levels of TOC with no ill effects here: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/9/aafeature2

That is all I will say, carry on :D

Regards,
Eric Michael

You expect me to answer when you laugh after addressing the post to me and Chris 8O :roll:

I had a reply but I'm not sure posting it would change your mind. In the future if you actually want me to reply try loosing the laughing emicon when addressing me ;) Otherwise I simply can't take you serious.

hint...think closed system compared to open ocean as in the article...HUGE....small
 

clekchau1

Active Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
GreshamH said:

lol i can get some scientists that will prove smoking is good for you, would you believe it if i continued to post the article over and over again? :lol:

so if you and vitz and the other naysayers saw evidence, say a tank that used a ats exclusively with no other means of nutriet export, and had great coral growth, especially sps, has been set up for some time say over 2 years, would you guys kindly leave out the 'it's crap it will never work' negative comments and discontinue to grace us with your godlike reef expertise? i don't know if we are worthy honestly
 

clekchau1

Active Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
browncj7":3dw809tv said:
I do not see any one 'discouraging' anyone from anything.

I see people 'encouraging' a deeper knowledge of what its going on, and a glimpse of the CONS of a system like this.

Santa fails to consider the cons.

it could be done in a less condescending manner, i don't see how you could read some of vitz's and other's comments and see that as 'encouraging'. i guess you could say a marine drill sargeant is encouraging also :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
clekchau":3fxll9f4 said:
so if you and vitz and the other naysayers saw evidence, say a tank that used a ats exclusively with no other means of nutriet export, and had great coral growth, especially sps, has been set up for some time say over 2 years, would you guys kindly leave out the 'it's crap it will never work' negative comments and discontinue to grace us with your godlike reef expertise? i don't know if we are worthy honestly

Please stop posts like this. You can make the same points in better ways. The ad homenim sarcasm makes it hard to take you seriously because if you are going to argue against people 'craping' on others and ask that people be less condescending, it makes little sense for you to 'crap' on people and be condescending yourself. This kind of bs back and forth will most likely end with this thread being closed like the last one was.

I don't think, though I could be wrong, that anyone said it will never work. Mostly, people have said why they don't think it will work, why they think it hasn't worked in the past, why people should be careful of extraordinary claims, and have requested information on tanks it has been working on long term. Most of the people in this thread love it when they are shown to be wrong, and require decent evidence to begin that process.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Sponsor Reefs

We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.

Click here to sponsor $10:


Top