Biome conversations from BRS

[JulesH]

Hi All, from that bankrupt little Island north of Europe.

I have been following BRSTV's excellent series on the biological functionality of a reef tank during the cycle. Perhaps we should think of the holistic nature of the reef tank. It would be very interesting to monitor water chemistry and see how it relates to the tank biome. For example if certain bacteria do better under certain higher or lower levels of various elements/salinity/pH/ alkalinity etc within the water make up?

These videos have started me thinking about the usefulness of water changes, from a bacterial point of view do they have a positive or negative effect? I would be very interested in people's views on this.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

Well for starters the visual effects of the ugly phase were a little misleading due to huge variations in nutrient levels...for example, why would you let all that die off occur on the live gulf rock tank without a water change to mitigate the algal growth? They made it look like the dry rock/sand tank was faring better but that was only because it had so few nutrients. They should have leveled the playing field a little better when it came to things like that.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Without telling us the residual nutrients I find it pointless and probably misleading results

 

[Oregon Grown Reef]

I think what I did learn, regardless of flawed method, is that copepods play an essential part of the reef and can help mitigate/prevent the uglies from getting out of hand. I knew they were good to have prior to that series, but they are incredibly useful it turns out.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

I think what I did learn, regardless of flawed method, is that copepods play an essential part of the reef and can help mitigate/prevent the uglies from getting out of hand. I knew they were good to have, but they are incredibly useful.

Yeah that was something I took away from it too but I kinda already add copepods from the start since I always use live rock...other than that and adding Phyto to feed them from the start nothing said or the results really surprised me tbh given how it was done

 

[ISpeakForTheSeas]

Hi All, from that bankrupt little Island north of Europe.

I have been following BRSTV's excellent series on the biological functionality of a reef tank during the cycle. Perhaps we should think of the holistic nature of the reef tank. It would be very interesting to monitor water chemistry and see how it relates to the tank biome. For example if certain bacteria do better under certain higher or lower levels of various elements/salinity/pH/ alkalinity etc within the water make up?

These videos have started me thinking about the usefulness of water changes, from a bacterial point of view do they have a positive or negative effect? I would be very interested in people's views on this.

Certain bacteria definitely do better under different conditions than other bacteria. Bacteria are incredibly diverse as a group, and some thrive in conditions that would kill others while many compete for a piece of the same territory with various advantages or disadvantages depending on the environment.

One example of bacterial differences that is relatively well known in the hobby is the sponge/macroalgae feedback loop, where - essentially - sponges and macroalgae work together to shift the microbiome into one that favors sponges and macroalgae growth over coral growth. Generally speaking, the bacteria in the microbiome that favor sponge and algae growth are copiotrophic or eutrophic bacteria species (meaning they do better in high nutrient environments), while the bacteria that favor coral growth conditions are oligotrophic (meaning they do better in low nutrient environments).

There are a nearly endless number of variables that decide which bacteria will thrive and which will fail, including trace element amounts, temperature, oxygenation, flow, surfaces they have to grow on in the tank, salinity, etc.

As aquarists, we can (and arguably should if we aim to grow corals) attempt to manipulate the microbiome of the environment in the tank to be one that favors coral growth. Whether or not water changes would be beneficial towards that end depends on a number of factors (tank nutrient levels and trace element levels, to name two). For example, if the tank's nutrients are too high, water changes may be an effective method of lowering them until they're back into levels that would favor oligotrophic bacteria growth. If the nutrient levels are too low, however, water changes may hurt instead of help.

 

[CoralClasher]

Certain bacteria definitely do better under different conditions than other bacteria. Bacteria are incredibly diverse as a group, and some thrive in conditions that would kill others while many compete for a piece of the same territory with various advantages or disadvantages depending on the environment.

One example of bacterial differences that is relatively well known in the hobby is the sponge/macroalgae feedback loop, where - essentially - sponges and macroalgae work together to shift the microbiome into one that favors sponges and macroalgae growth over coral growth. Generally speaking, the bacteria in the microbiome that favor sponge and algae growth are copiotrophic or eutrophic bacteria species (meaning they do better in high nutrient environments), while the bacteria that favor coral growth conditions are oligotrophic (meaning they do better in low nutrient environments).

There are a nearly endless number of variables that decide which bacteria will thrive and which will fail, including trace element amounts, temperature, oxygenation, flow, surfaces they have to grow on in the tank, salinity, etc.

As aquarists, we can (and arguably should if we aim to grow corals) attempt to manipulate the microbiome of the environment in the tank to be one that favors coral growth. Whether or not water changes would be beneficial towards that end depends on a number of factors (tank nutrient levels and trace element levels, to name two). For example, if the tank's nutrients are too high, water changes may be an effective method of lowering them until they're back into levels that would favor oligotrophic bacteria growth. If the nutrient levels are too low, however, water changes may hurt instead of help.

I got rid of my macros last year and my corals really started growing. Now I’m working on getting the sponges out. My last few water changes have been done after lights out hoping to improve bacteria populations.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

I got rid of my macros last year and my corals really started growing. Now I’m working on getting the sponges out. My last few water changes have been done after lights out hoping to improve bacteria populations.

How would doing your water changes after lights out change the bacterial populations? I must've missed that

 

[CoralClasher]

How would doing your water changes after lights out change the bacterial populations? I must've missed that

Just my thoughts that Cyano and Dino are photosynthetic and replacing trace minerals at lights out must help the non photosynthetic bacteria.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

Just my thoughts that Cyano and Dino are photosynthetic and replacing trace minerals at lights out must help the non photosynthetic bacteria.

I don't think it works like that since the cyano and dinos arent feeding off the fresh saltwater you add and I can't see how it would give the non photosynthetic bacteria a edge for any reason either...was this in the video?

 

[CoralClasher]

I don't think it works like that since the cyano and dinos arent feeding off the fresh saltwater you add and I can't see how it would give the non photosynthetic bacteria a edge for any reason either...was this in the video?

I haven’t watched any recent BRS videos. I don’t know if it helps or not doing water changes at night but I don’t see anything negative happening so I will continue.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

I haven’t watched any recent BRS videos. I don’t know if it helps or not doing water changes at night but I don’t see anything negative happening so I will continue.

Yeah I wouldn't expect anything negative or positive...I was just curious why you decided to make a point of choosing night to do it and if that was supported by any evidence

 

[Jubei2006]

The point of no water changes and daily cleaning for for consistency of the experiment. Eliminate as many variables as possible. If you went further into the series, they alao showed what happened to each tank when they purposely put concentrated uglies into the tanks. 4 of the 12 were able to combat them. Those tanks were all either established source rock/sand or maricultured live rock/sand. They also showed how microcrusta eans come into the mix against the uglies. I wouldve also been curious to see how phytoplankton wouldve helped out the experiments. Yes there are changes to be made, but overall, execellent series so far, and hopefully starts to change more of our reefing hobby for the better.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

The point of no water changes and daily cleaning for for consistency of the experiment. Eliminate as many variables as possible. If you went further into the series, they alao showed what happened to each tank when they purposely put concentrated uglies into the tanks. 4 of the 12 were able to combat them. Those tanks were all either established source rock/sand or maricultured live rock/sand. They also showed how microcrusta eans come into the mix against the uglies. I wouldve also been curious to see how phytoplankton wouldve helped out the experiments. Yes there are changes to be made, but overall, execellent series so far, and hopefully starts to change more of our reefing hobby for the better.

Yeah, they successfully eliminated variables but that comes with a cost. They could have shown more realistically what the average hobbyist would have been facing which would have improved the experiment. I did watch further into the series btw and yes I thought it was interesting as well.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Bacteria and algae are organisms that thrive under nutrients. having a hole experiment aimed at looking to see the effects of different organisms without mentioning inorganic and organic nutrients once is just a bonkers sales pitch, do anyone really believes that the folks involved in the experiment don’t know that? And still left the main variable that can aid nuisance algaes and bacteria out of the discussion. They talk about photosynthesis like throwing sand in your eyes, we can’t have photosynthesis without nutrients to synthesise is not just about light. Light alone is useless and let’s not forget most of the beneficial bacteria doesn’t require light they require a good constant input of inorganic and organic nutrient if they not present nuisances will always prevail.
They have mentioned the names of heterotrophic bacteria and then just casually not mentioned if there is enough nutrients for that bacteria to grow in all the different experimental tanks.
Most of this ugly stages bloom once inorganic nutrients are lower than optimal specially in a new system that can’t manage organic nutrients quite well yet. In the Marco rock tank diatoms only lasted a week, that tells me that that particular system has very low residual of organic nutrients in comparison with some of the others.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

Bacteria and algae are organisms that thrive under nutrients. having a hole experiment aimed at looking to see the effects of different organisms without mentioning inorganic and organic nutrients once is just a bonkers sales pitch, do anyone really believes that the folks involved in the experiment don’t know that? And still left the main variable that can aid nuisance algaes and bacteria out of the discussion. They talk about photosynthesis like throwing sand in your eyes, we can’t have photosynthesis without nutrients to synthesise is not just about light. Light alone is useless and let’s not forget most of the beneficial bacteria doesn’t require light they require a good constant input of inorganic and organic nutrient if they not present nuisances will always prevail.
They have mentioned the names of heterotrophic bacteria and then just casually not mentioned if there is enough nutrients for that bacteria to grow in all the different experimental tanks.
Most of this ugly stages bloom once inorganic nutrients are lower than optimal specially in a new system that can’t manage organic nutrients quite well yet. In the Marco rock tank diatoms only lasted a week, that tells me that that particular system has very low residual of organic nutrients in comparison with some of the others.

I also found flaws in their methods but we can still learn some from it...just gotta analyze everything you're seeing and hearing for yourself and not just take it at face value

 

[sixty_reefer]

I also found flaws in their methods but we can still learn some from it...just gotta analyze everything you're seeing and hearing for yourself and not just take it at face value

I can’t see much useful information, at list for me. Other objection I have is the aragonite phosphates absorbing ability and leaching abilities. Some rocks can easily remove all the phosphates from a system and inhibit bacterial growth others can leach phosphates and aid the growth of bacteria I don’t think it’s fair to have a experiment we’re all the test subjects don’t have a equal chances of success. Was there anything you saw that was innovative or useful?

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

I can’t see much useful information, at list for me. Other objection I have is the aragonite phosphates absorbing ability and leaching abilities. Some rocks can easily remove all the phosphates from a system and inhibit bacterial growth others can leach phosphates and aid the growth of bacteria I don’t think it’s fair to have a experiment we’re all the test subjects don’t have a equal chances of success. Was there anything you saw that was innovative or useful?

Well like I said earlier, I didn't know the role copepods played in consuming diatoms but I've always been an advocate of live ocean rock anyway which comes with copepod hitchhikers pretty much 100% of the time...I don't want to sound arrogant here as it may come off, but I already knew a good bit about the microbiome and how it affects the early stages of a tank's progression because I've always thought that to be important (which it is). I don't really agree with the blackout period they were talking about putting live rock through to kill off photosynthetic organisms because that also kills important photosynthetic bacteria and disrupts the composition of the microbiome as a whole if I were to guess. Another thing I didn't like (or possibly just didn't fully understand) was the "balance" DNA metric they kept comparing the tanks with. What evidence do they have that their model "average" tank DNA is optimal instead of just typical?

 

[sixty_reefer]

Well like I said earlier, I didn't know the role copepods played in consuming diatoms but I've always been an advocate of live ocean rock anyway which comes with copepod hitchhikers pretty much 100% of the time...

they will and probably will eat dinoflagellates to a certain point also. My view is that diatoms and dinoflagellates can multiply at a much faster rate that copepods can eat them in the end they are phytoplankton and copepods are known to eat

I don't want to sound arrogant here as it may come off, but I already knew a good bit about the microbiome and how it affects the early stages of a tank's progression because I've always thought that to be important (which it is). I don't really agree with the blackout period they were talking about putting live rock through to kill off photosynthetic organisms because that also kills important photosynthetic bacteria and disrupts the composition of the microbiome as a whole if I were to guess.

I also disagree with the black out, could some of the issues we saw be due to that, the die off of organisms will create all type of nutrients, probably not a good idea to turn the light off, 4 weeks will ensure that all organisms depend in light will die off and increase nutrients.

Another thing I didn't like (or possibly just didn't fully understand) was the "balance" DNA metric they kept comparing the tanks with. What evidence do they have that their model "average" tank DNA is optimal instead of just typical?

The template is just a average of many tanks, no system will ever be identical to that.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

they will and probably will eat dinoflagellates to a certain point also. My view is that diatoms and dinoflagellates can multiply at a much faster rate that copepods can eat them in the end they are phytoplankton and copepods are known to eat




I also disagree with the black out, could some of the issues we saw be due to that, the die off of organisms will create all type of nutrients, probably not a good idea to turn the light off, 4 weeks will ensure that all organisms depend in light will die off and increase nutrients.


The template is just a average of many tanks, no system will ever be identical to that.

Sounds like we're in agreement on pretty much all of it