cmac330
Active Member
Not the most scientific approach but I tried to be detailed in how I am dealing with this.
Tank stats:
36" x 24" x 22" with external overflow with custom acrylic sump providing a total of 83g of water
Reef Octopus 110SSS
2 MP40W QD one running constant at 60% the other running at 40% on long wave
1 Vectra M1 running at 45%
~40lbs live rock loose stacked in display (Dead Rock 2.5 months ago)
1 8"x8"x4" Marine pure block pre-seeded for 6 months in established tank
Calcium 410-430
Alkalinity 8.4-8.8
Magnesium 1350-1380
Temp 76.5-77.5
I have Dinos so NO3 and PO4 are undetectable at the moment using salifert and hannah respectively
Salinity 34ppt at start have slowly dropped to 32ppt on hannah
Plumbing is schedule 40 PVC
6 bulb ATI Sunpower with 4 blue plus run 9 hours a day 1 true actinic and 1 purple plus run 4 hours a day
Tank is barebottom
Tank inhabitants:
2x Bubble tip anemones
1x SSC acro
1x Pocillipora
3x Chalice various sp.
2x Acan lord
1x Montipora cap
Fire shrimp
Cleaner shrimp
Blue leg hermits
Powder blue tang
1 occ. clown and 1 perc
2 azure damsels
Quick background: tank was setup using established inhabitants from another tank, had small cycle in which the tank was a phyto factory, used water changes to clear this out. Nitrates never reached above 3 since setup. Some hair algae grew on the rocks right before the dinos, this seems to be where the dinos preferred to grow first. Dinos have grown on all surfaces now including the glass. The tank does get some sunlight but the areas of the tank with this do not seem any worse.
Assumptions I am holding true in developing my plan of attack:
1) Nothing good happens quickly in this hobby
2) None of the tanks inhabitants have shown negative effects from when dinos appeared in the tank, indicating no toxicity (I have another tank I could transfer inhabitants to if this appears to change)
3) Dinos keep the NO3 and PO4 down meaning water changes for export of these nutrients need not occur
4) This is the big one: An explosion of growth of an invasive organism in an environment is due to a selection event. Either it is selected for by an abundance of a resource or against by a lack of a predator/barrier to reproduction.
5) Simple and single celled organisms generally have less complex relationships with their environments. This is to say that when conditions are favorable they adapt quickly and multiply rapidly. (for example: nitrifying bacteria populate a tank in days, coralline algae months with more specific needs)
6) We try to achieve a balance in our tanks in months similar to what has taken millions of years to achieve in nature.
7) Natural is not necessarily best.
8) We try to maintain stable tanks for two reasons, it lowers the number of variables and allows inhabitants to adjust habits for increased survival.
9) Dinos appear in both new and established aquaria, indicating that their presence being induced as part of a cycle is unlikely.
10) I have seen several people report (and my experience seems to agree with this) that water changes seem to induce blooms most notably in tanks that have successfully fought off dinos in their tank. If this occurs with water changes but not with top-off, coupled with the fact that most report no issues with their RO/DI, it leads me to believe that dinos are growth may be aided by a particular trace element.
Thoughts on carbon dosing and UV sterilizers:
Both are proven tools in the reef keeping hobby. If I believed that I had a more toxic form of dinos a UV would've been on my tank a couple weeks ago. I think carbon dosing is great in situations where one wants to generate extreme coral growth in systems where traditional nutrient export (skimmers, livestock, live rock, water changes) fail to keep up (situations perhaps where feeding is heavy in an sps system). I however have not had issues in the past of keeping nutrients down with the knowledge I now have. I feel that carbon dosing is not always exact in which bacteria it selects for, and when you select for something it also means something is being selected against. This being the case it makes me uneasy as I feel if something were to go wrong with the dosing schedule that unintended consequences could occur very quickly by an imbalance in the system as bacteria generational cycles are so quick. Again, it is a proven method, but for my tank and situation it feels like it would make little sense at this point.
UV sterilizers I feel like are not specific enough in their killing of organisms, and it concerns me that I might be killing things I would like to keep in my system. Also this feels like killing a symptom more than treating the cause.
I threw Dino-X and similar products right out, I don't like dosing chemicals as is and since the symbiotic zooaxenthelle in coral are a species of dinoflagelletes I find it hard to believe that this product is very broad spectrum.
Theory: Dinoflagelletes quickly utilize all NO3 and PO4 in the tank but the abundance of these nutrients does not seem to be the limiting factor in their growth. It also seems unlikely that these organisms would be able to outcompete all others for these nutrients without other environmental factors playing a role. It is my belief that some factor is selecting for these organisms that gives them a competitive advantage. Essentially the logic is similar to that used for carbon dosing for algae removal; increasing carbon selects for bacteria that utilize the same food source even though these bacteria are already present in the tank it is the dosing that allows them to take off despite the NO3 and PO4 input having not changed. A similar principle is used for algae turf scrubbers; provide a favorable environment with no change in input of nutrients and competitive forces take over. So this lead me to wonder how to remove the competitive advantage.
Hypothesis: Dinoflagelletes have appeared in my tank due to an imbalance in my tank that favors their growth and if I export the dinoflagelletes from my tank with minimal import, then I will also be removing the growth factor favoring the dinoflagelletes until it once again reaches a stable level at which and the dinoflagelletes are outcompeted for resources.
Method and materials: Using tightly compacted filter floss in an area lit by my refugium light I will be able to daily remove a large population of dinos as they tend to congregate on rough surfaces. My skimmer cup will be emptied on a twice daily basis in order to prevent overflow. Using a micron sock daily after 4 hours of light (seems to be a high point of when the dinos are out on the LR and is convenient with my schedule) I will siphon the display tank into the sock placed in the sump and manually remove as many dinos as possible. Corals are also blown of twice daily with a turkey baster to avoid them being choked out. The only other change from normal care is that the tank will not receive a water change until 1 week after dinos are gone, and that salinity was dropped 2ppt to hopefully slow growth of the dinos just a bit for the sake of the corals.
Variables:
Me- I am spending substantial amounts of time in the tank, this increases the chance of change in the tank if something comes off my gloves or myself.
Socks- I am washing socks every other day as the cost would be a little ridiculous if i used a new one each time. However, this likely increases the chance of a foreign contaminant.
What is siphoned with dinos- It is hard to say what other variables might be changed by the sock, other organisms, organics and inorganics are also likely removed. Other compounds utilized by the dinos other than what is likely in abundance could be removed and could disturb the balance of my tank.
While I believe this process would be just as well served with water changes if my theory were true (assuming water used is more stable in parameters than existing water in regards to the growth factor), my belief is that large population of dinoflagelletes would give them a competitive advantage and would take substantially longer lose out. My goal here is to choke them out and then return my tank to an appropriate balance.
I also believe that a UV sterilizer in conjunction with massive/frequent water changes could achieve the same result, I am just not high on UV sterilization as I am just unsure of what all effects it may have on organisms in my water column. I understand there is similar risk in what I am doing I just feel as though it is slightly more discriminatory.
Tank stats:
36" x 24" x 22" with external overflow with custom acrylic sump providing a total of 83g of water
Reef Octopus 110SSS
2 MP40W QD one running constant at 60% the other running at 40% on long wave
1 Vectra M1 running at 45%
~40lbs live rock loose stacked in display (Dead Rock 2.5 months ago)
1 8"x8"x4" Marine pure block pre-seeded for 6 months in established tank
Calcium 410-430
Alkalinity 8.4-8.8
Magnesium 1350-1380
Temp 76.5-77.5
I have Dinos so NO3 and PO4 are undetectable at the moment using salifert and hannah respectively
Salinity 34ppt at start have slowly dropped to 32ppt on hannah
Plumbing is schedule 40 PVC
6 bulb ATI Sunpower with 4 blue plus run 9 hours a day 1 true actinic and 1 purple plus run 4 hours a day
Tank is barebottom
Tank inhabitants:
2x Bubble tip anemones
1x SSC acro
1x Pocillipora
3x Chalice various sp.
2x Acan lord
1x Montipora cap
Fire shrimp
Cleaner shrimp
Blue leg hermits
Powder blue tang
1 occ. clown and 1 perc
2 azure damsels
Quick background: tank was setup using established inhabitants from another tank, had small cycle in which the tank was a phyto factory, used water changes to clear this out. Nitrates never reached above 3 since setup. Some hair algae grew on the rocks right before the dinos, this seems to be where the dinos preferred to grow first. Dinos have grown on all surfaces now including the glass. The tank does get some sunlight but the areas of the tank with this do not seem any worse.
Assumptions I am holding true in developing my plan of attack:
1) Nothing good happens quickly in this hobby
2) None of the tanks inhabitants have shown negative effects from when dinos appeared in the tank, indicating no toxicity (I have another tank I could transfer inhabitants to if this appears to change)
3) Dinos keep the NO3 and PO4 down meaning water changes for export of these nutrients need not occur
4) This is the big one: An explosion of growth of an invasive organism in an environment is due to a selection event. Either it is selected for by an abundance of a resource or against by a lack of a predator/barrier to reproduction.
5) Simple and single celled organisms generally have less complex relationships with their environments. This is to say that when conditions are favorable they adapt quickly and multiply rapidly. (for example: nitrifying bacteria populate a tank in days, coralline algae months with more specific needs)
6) We try to achieve a balance in our tanks in months similar to what has taken millions of years to achieve in nature.
7) Natural is not necessarily best.
8) We try to maintain stable tanks for two reasons, it lowers the number of variables and allows inhabitants to adjust habits for increased survival.
9) Dinos appear in both new and established aquaria, indicating that their presence being induced as part of a cycle is unlikely.
10) I have seen several people report (and my experience seems to agree with this) that water changes seem to induce blooms most notably in tanks that have successfully fought off dinos in their tank. If this occurs with water changes but not with top-off, coupled with the fact that most report no issues with their RO/DI, it leads me to believe that dinos are growth may be aided by a particular trace element.
Thoughts on carbon dosing and UV sterilizers:
Both are proven tools in the reef keeping hobby. If I believed that I had a more toxic form of dinos a UV would've been on my tank a couple weeks ago. I think carbon dosing is great in situations where one wants to generate extreme coral growth in systems where traditional nutrient export (skimmers, livestock, live rock, water changes) fail to keep up (situations perhaps where feeding is heavy in an sps system). I however have not had issues in the past of keeping nutrients down with the knowledge I now have. I feel that carbon dosing is not always exact in which bacteria it selects for, and when you select for something it also means something is being selected against. This being the case it makes me uneasy as I feel if something were to go wrong with the dosing schedule that unintended consequences could occur very quickly by an imbalance in the system as bacteria generational cycles are so quick. Again, it is a proven method, but for my tank and situation it feels like it would make little sense at this point.
UV sterilizers I feel like are not specific enough in their killing of organisms, and it concerns me that I might be killing things I would like to keep in my system. Also this feels like killing a symptom more than treating the cause.
I threw Dino-X and similar products right out, I don't like dosing chemicals as is and since the symbiotic zooaxenthelle in coral are a species of dinoflagelletes I find it hard to believe that this product is very broad spectrum.
Theory: Dinoflagelletes quickly utilize all NO3 and PO4 in the tank but the abundance of these nutrients does not seem to be the limiting factor in their growth. It also seems unlikely that these organisms would be able to outcompete all others for these nutrients without other environmental factors playing a role. It is my belief that some factor is selecting for these organisms that gives them a competitive advantage. Essentially the logic is similar to that used for carbon dosing for algae removal; increasing carbon selects for bacteria that utilize the same food source even though these bacteria are already present in the tank it is the dosing that allows them to take off despite the NO3 and PO4 input having not changed. A similar principle is used for algae turf scrubbers; provide a favorable environment with no change in input of nutrients and competitive forces take over. So this lead me to wonder how to remove the competitive advantage.
Hypothesis: Dinoflagelletes have appeared in my tank due to an imbalance in my tank that favors their growth and if I export the dinoflagelletes from my tank with minimal import, then I will also be removing the growth factor favoring the dinoflagelletes until it once again reaches a stable level at which and the dinoflagelletes are outcompeted for resources.
Method and materials: Using tightly compacted filter floss in an area lit by my refugium light I will be able to daily remove a large population of dinos as they tend to congregate on rough surfaces. My skimmer cup will be emptied on a twice daily basis in order to prevent overflow. Using a micron sock daily after 4 hours of light (seems to be a high point of when the dinos are out on the LR and is convenient with my schedule) I will siphon the display tank into the sock placed in the sump and manually remove as many dinos as possible. Corals are also blown of twice daily with a turkey baster to avoid them being choked out. The only other change from normal care is that the tank will not receive a water change until 1 week after dinos are gone, and that salinity was dropped 2ppt to hopefully slow growth of the dinos just a bit for the sake of the corals.
Variables:
Me- I am spending substantial amounts of time in the tank, this increases the chance of change in the tank if something comes off my gloves or myself.
Socks- I am washing socks every other day as the cost would be a little ridiculous if i used a new one each time. However, this likely increases the chance of a foreign contaminant.
What is siphoned with dinos- It is hard to say what other variables might be changed by the sock, other organisms, organics and inorganics are also likely removed. Other compounds utilized by the dinos other than what is likely in abundance could be removed and could disturb the balance of my tank.
While I believe this process would be just as well served with water changes if my theory were true (assuming water used is more stable in parameters than existing water in regards to the growth factor), my belief is that large population of dinoflagelletes would give them a competitive advantage and would take substantially longer lose out. My goal here is to choke them out and then return my tank to an appropriate balance.
I also believe that a UV sterilizer in conjunction with massive/frequent water changes could achieve the same result, I am just not high on UV sterilization as I am just unsure of what all effects it may have on organisms in my water column. I understand there is similar risk in what I am doing I just feel as though it is slightly more discriminatory.
