class paper... please help

[jake stevo]

So I'm writing a research paper for one of my classes and need a few sources. I have a few questions that I'm going to ask and hopefully i can get a good amount of replies to base some of my paper off of. If I could get responses from some marine biologists that would be golden.

1. Are there any reef inhabitants be it fish/inverts/or corals that do better in an aquarium (1000 gallons or less) then the ocean? I'm looking for a common name and scientific name for this if possible. Even ones that do equally as well would be fine, but please specify.

2. what are the maximum flow rates you can reach in your home system personally?

3. Do you have any fish or inverts that have a different temperament then they would in their natural ocean reef? Again common name and scientific if possible. Also what the change in temper is.

Any responses would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advance

 

[ChoxRox]

Is this for a HS class or a college level class?

 

[jake stevo]

college level

 

[jake stevo]

not certain how to edit posts on this forum yet but I'd like to add that I'm not trying to be lazy and have you guys answer my questions. My research goal here is to group answers here together to make my own sort of source rather then just grab bits and pieces from another article.

 

[Nails12]

I think every fish would honestly do better in the ocean to some degree.. No fish would be better off in an aquarium... The ocean is where they were bred and what they are used to, our water we use is artificial and may come close to ocean water but not exact..
Maximum Flow rates honestly depend on what kind of powerheads and return pumps you have.. 20 monster pumps pumping into a small tank, though that would create a tremendous amount of flow, its not needed.. Change in temperment... Every fish changes in temperment when living in a confined tank to some degree. . . Fish in the ocean dont have to be as aggressive because they arent as confined..

 

[Steven R]

Tangs big time for being social in the wild there will be a ton together and in a tank there can on the regular only be one of the same kind.

 

[nrbelk]

You might want to look into Banggai Cardinals. They were almost fished to extinction but captive breeding is helping to increase their numbers again.

 

[ChoxRox]

not certain how to edit posts on this forum yet but I'd like to add that I'm not trying to be lazy and have you guys answer my questions. My research goal here is to group answers here together to make my own sort of source rather then just grab bits and pieces from another article.

While I see what you're getting at, all of my college courses required peer-reviewed journals as sources. I would double check to make sure you won't get in trouble.
(Not trying to sound condescending, I just don't want you to get a lower grade than you deserve!)

 

[Pkunk35]

So I'm writing a research paper for one of my classes and need a few sources. I have a few questions that I'm going to ask and hopefully i can get a good amount of replies to base some of my paper off of. If I could get responses from some marine biologists that would be golden.

1. Are there any reef inhabitants be it fish/inverts/or corals that do better in an aquarium (1000 gallons or less) then the ocean? I'm looking for a common name and scientific name for this if possible. Even ones that do equally as well would be fine, but please specify.

2. what are the maximum flow rates you can reach in your home system personally?

3. Do you have any fish or inverts that have a different temperament then they would in their natural ocean reef? Again common name and scientific if possible. Also what the change in temper is.

Any responses would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advance

1) Captive coral right now are enjoying a boom in terms of their success and availability whereas the coral populations around the world have been in decline for the last half century or more. Also, look at clownfish who have been bred in captivity for a long time now and enjoy great success in aquariums. Same thing for seahorse which is a highly endangered species and breeding efforts have essentially allowed huge aquariums to have amazing seahorse exhibits whereas in the wild they are in the decline (see Ocean Rider website for seahorse breeding).

2) As much as I want, but different species have diff requirments. its always up to what you are keeping not you.

3) I thought the tang example was great. Many fish are going to have different habits inside a tank because of the confinement. Corals can also change or morph color depending on the amount of lighting, flow, nutrients (we think anyway).

 

[cymaster007]

Id say nano gobies and nano fish do better in captivity- less predators so less stress, regular feedings so no food competition...

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Detroit_306]

I guess an arguement for a captive held fish is the lack of predators

 

[nrbelk]

I guess an arguement for a captive held fish is the lack of predators

And probably a more steady source of food (in most cases).

 

[Pkunk35]

And probably a more steady source of food (in most cases).

Not if you count the aquarist as a predator or food source. How many fish don't live a full lifespan because of their owner? I would figure almost all (even amongst the experts).

Also, to test real success we would have to be testing reproduction which is abysmally poor in aquariums with few exceptions.

However I do think that if say 1000 gallon tanks were a norm you might start seeing species do as well in captivity as they do in the wild...provided sufficient habitat space was given for reproduction efforts (like clownfish or coral spawning events in reef tanks).

 

[cparka23]

While I see what you're getting at, all of my college courses required peer-reviewed journals as sources. I would double check to make sure you won't get in trouble.
(Not trying to sound condescending, I just don't want you to get a lower grade than you deserve!)

Yeah. An internet forum where people post anonymously is probably not the best choice for sources that need to be cited in a research paper. If someone can say, "My fish like ketchup on their burgers" just as easily as "My fish have a better chance of survival in/away from the ocean," then it's not a good source. The entire point behind peer-reviewed publications is that you get evidence supporting an opinion, and that evidence can be checked by anyone.

While I'm not a marine biologist, my first degree was biology, so I can offer some insight:
- Question 1 asks whether animals are "better" in captivity or in the wild. You can't measure "better", so people use things like fertility, fecundity, and rate-of-survival-to-breeding-age as metrics that estimate an animal's "fitness." Fitness is a very fundamental concept to understand when you read biology research. How someone defines fitness should always be kept in mind when evaluating their conclusions.

Even if you meant to ask "Which fish look healthier?", how would people know? I've seen tangs in the ocean twice in my life for a total of less than 10 minutes. I don't think this question can be answered by anyone in a very informed manner.

- Question 3 concerns animal behavior. The fact that an animal does something different in captivity is inconsequential. Most wild fish will never see people and even fewer would associate them with food pellets. We can safely say "Captive fish behave differently. Fact." Ask the question, "So what?"

There is an area of biology called behavioral ecology that tries to answer that question. An conclusion might say, "An animal behaves thusly, which causes ____ effect on fitness." The behaviors that aren't related to mating or survival don't mean much in this field.

Some other research looks at teaching behaviors to animals. This is usually to test animal capacity for reason, which probably isn't what you're looking for.


As Pkunk suggested, you might want to look into captive breeding programs. There will usually be data there about the number of animals in the wild before and after the program started. Online journals will have tons of data that is super easy to find. You can also find resources at universities, public aquariums, and fisheries. I don't think reef clubs will help much. hope this info helps you a bit.

 

[jake stevo]

I'm aware its not the best of sources. however, I asked before I went for it and was told it was perfectly fine for a primary source. Its viewed the same as writing a paper on taking 'in god we trust' off the dollar bill and asking people on the street how they feel about it.

 

[jake stevo]

Thanks for the replies thus far. Any more would be great!

 

[Timfish]

I think every fish would honestly do better in the ocean to some degree.. No fish would be better off in an aquarium . . . Change in temperment... Every fish changes in temperment when living in a confined tank to some degree. . . Fish in the ocean dont have to be as aggressive because they arent as confined..

Nails12, I agree this sounds reasonable on the surface but when you look at longevity the picture changes dramaticly. Just like animals in zoos properly cared for fish in our aquariums will have life expectancies much longer than in the wild. As far as changes in temperment because of confinement certainly there are numerous cases when fish are kept together in social groups that would not be encountered in the wild. However the vast majority of aquarium specimens are juveniles and as they mature changes in temperment should be expected as adults often have to maintain a territory against competitors or maintain a social position in a group which I would argue requires them to be constantly accert themselves to protect their position or territory. It seems to me for many species an aquarium would be much less stressful since they do not have to defend their territory or maintain their position in a hierachy.

 

[Timfish]

So I'm writing a research paper for one of my classes and need a few sources. . . If I could get responses from some marine biologists that would be golden.

1. Are there any reef inhabitants be it fish/inverts/or corals that do better in an aquarium (1000 gallons or less) then the ocean? I'm looking for a common name and scientific name for this if possible. Even ones that do equally as well would be fine, but please specify.

Sorry, I'm not a biologist but I have been keeping marine aquariums since 1988.

You should look at the aquarium adapted variant of Calurpa taxifolia. It is causing problems in the mediteranian due to it's adaptation to cooler temperatures in aquaria. Nova had a show on this species about ten years ago. This question about adaptation to different environmental conditions in aquaria is a complex one and arguably a source of frustration for aquarists when corals are moved to systems that may have different conditions. Charles Delbeek at "Nextwave 2011" in Dallas in February 2011 related a problem the Stienhart Aquarium in San Francisco had when stocking their new aquarium. Over the first eighteen months virtually all the colonies donated by aqaurists died while all the wild collected specimens thrived.

. . . 2. what are the maximum flow rates you can reach in your home system personally? . . .

I have a system using just air bubbles (A Lee Chin Eng system, See Delbeck and Sprungs "Reef Aquarium" Vol III) so it would be hard to guess what the flow is in it. I have had systems with power heads running as much as 30X. As far as how much is needed through a sump or refugium I wouldn't bother with more than a few turnover per hour.

. . . 3. Do you have any fish or inverts that have a different temperament then they would in their natural ocean reef? . . .

Not having studied fish in the wild I would have no idea of any specifics. You might check out "Reef Fish Behaviour" by Ned Deloach and Paul Humann then get with local aqaurists and see what the say about identical species kept in tanks.

Have fun!

 

[ChoxRox]

Yeah. An internet forum where people post anonymously is probably not the best choice for sources that need to be cited in a research paper. If someone can say, "My fish like ketchup on their burgers" just as easily as "My fish have a better chance of survival in/away from the ocean," then it's not a good source. The entire point behind peer-reviewed publications is that you get evidence supporting an opinion, and that evidence can be checked by anyone.

While I'm not a marine biologist, my first degree was biology, so I can offer some insight:
- Question 1 asks whether animals are "better" in captivity or in the wild. You can't measure "better", so people use things like fertility, fecundity, and rate-of-survival-to-breeding-age as metrics that estimate an animal's "fitness." Fitness is a very fundamental concept to understand when you read biology research. How someone defines fitness should always be kept in mind when evaluating their conclusions.

Even if you meant to ask "Which fish look healthier?", how would people know? I've seen tangs in the ocean twice in my life for a total of less than 10 minutes. I don't think this question can be answered by anyone in a very informed manner.

- Question 3 concerns animal behavior. The fact that an animal does something different in captivity is inconsequential. Most wild fish will never see people and even fewer would associate them with food pellets. We can safely say "Captive fish behave differently. Fact." Ask the question, "So what?"

There is an area of biology called behavioral ecology that tries to answer that question. An conclusion might say, "An animal behaves thusly, which causes ____ effect on fitness." The behaviors that aren't related to mating or survival don't mean much in this field.

Some other research looks at teaching behaviors to animals. This is usually to test animal capacity for reason, which probably isn't what you're looking for.


As Pkunk suggested, you might want to look into captive breeding programs. There will usually be data there about the number of animals in the wild before and after the program started. Online journals will have tons of data that is super easy to find. You can also find resources at universities, public aquariums, and fisheries. I don't think reef clubs will help much. hope this info helps you a bit.

This man answers like a true scientist!

 

[Pkunk35]

Charles Delbeek at "Nextwave 2011" in Dallas in February 2011 related a problem the Stienhart Aquarium in San Francisco had when stocking their new aquarium. Over the first eighteen months virtually all the colonies donated by aqaurists died while all the wild collected specimens thrived.

Fascinating. Why would this be at all? Did they ever come to any conclusions as to why this may have happened?

I'll try to do some research too on it.

Great thread!