Help me understand low phosphates regarding Cyano Bacteria

[flampton]

I'm not sure that anyone is going to touch this one with a ten foot pole, so I'll dive right in!

Here are my observations (FWIW):

1. These types of general public forums are prone to becoming 'cults of personality' over time. Human nature, it's inevitable. I'm sure that somewhere, in the dark recesses of R2R, someone is even following me

2. The tactic of using witticisms to gain favor/advantage with an audience is as old as our civilization. Interestingly, we often don't even know that we are being played until someone glaringly points it out (as politicians know all too well)

3. Forums that are open to the general public can be a challenge for scientists since the vast majority of the audience is not trained in the discipline of scientific method and is not familiar with many of the scientific terms. As laymen, many of us will automatically assume that someone who speaks 'in big scientific words' is an authority and knows what they are talking about, and so feel intimidated to the point of possibly not contributing to a discussion...or worse, just pack up and 'leave the room'.

5. Related to #4 above, my favorite quote comes from the well known and respected physicist, Richard Feynman:

"If you can’t explain something in simple terms, you don’t really understand it."

Disclaimer: I am NOT a trained scientist...and even after a long period of reef keeping there's still a heck of a lot of reef related stuff that I would like to know more about.

Ralph.

I appreciate this! And to follow up if you (and anyone else) doesnt understand a topic please feel free to ask me to explain whatever I'm talking about. I'll give it my best shot within reason.

As what Feynman said it's totally true because if you can't explain the science in an understandable way and have it based on some reality you either have no clue what you're talking about or you need to go back to the drawing board and present your case in another fashion. I have had to do this at least once for every class I've ever taught. If your student doesn't understand it and they're applying themselves then you're the problem. Surprisingly a lot of teachers don't get this

 

[Nano sapiens]

I appreciate this! And to follow up if you (and anyone else) doesnt understand a topic please feel free to ask me to explain whatever I'm talking about. I'll give it my best shot within reason.

As what Feynman said it's totally true because if you can't explain the science in an understandable way and have it based on some reality you either have no clue what you're talking about or you need to go back to the drawing board and present your case in another fashion. I have had to do this at least once for every class I've ever taught. If your student doesn't understand it and they're applying themselves then you're the problem. Surprisingly a lot of teachers don't get this

One last item that I'd like to add for the night. I believe that knowledge is best served when the parties involved are respectful of one another's differing thoughts and ideas, as long as they have a basis in reality. Assuming that an answer is not forthcoming from previous scientific investigation, it is my understanding that Scientific Method would be the primary tool used to determine what is correct, and what is not, since it was specifically developed to eliminate our natural human biases and failings.

 

[flampton]

Yes! except the correct part. We almost never answer questions to 100% correctness. We learn and place markers down. It's like driving a swerving car, hitting the guardrails constantly as we slowly get closer to the truth. So you'll never see me say that I'm going to prove something to you. This unfortunately is not math.

 

[Lasse]

Lasse if you keep peddling this pseudoscientific garbage I’m going to keep thrashing you until you realize you have no freaking clue. I however will not respond directly to you again until you hit the books, run hypotheses by people, consider alternatives, don’t talk in absolutes and finally say I DO NOT KNOW HOW IT WORKS, but it works for me.

I´ll take this as a threat - that if I argue against you again - you are going after me till I will be quiet. Your welcome to do that - its up to you - I do not bother - I´m used of furious attacks and can handle them.

If anyone else sees this as a personal attack on me and wants to defend me, please do not. I handle this myself.

It is interesting to see that you nowadays is an expert how nitrate suppress the hydrogen sulfide production, a week ago you had no clue at all about this before I highlight that in an answer to you. You even give me a thank for that which I appreciate

I haven´t say (please show me where I have done that) - that I know how it works - I have put forward this hundred of times as an suggestion

Once again -
I have said that low nitrate or zero nitrate in the water column can trigg mat forming among benthic cyanobacteria - including and/or PO4.
I have said that nitrate in the water block the forming of H2S below the mats. hence hinder release of bound PO4 from the substrate
I have said that if mat forming benthic cyanobacteria can not use nitrate as nitrogen source (that Dan-P:s experiment indicate) - nitrate in the water column can favour competing organisms for space and other nutrients.

About the blocking featuring of the nitrate for H2S production - I have no clue how its work and never have try to explain it either - only knows that it is that way. Around 2 ppm of nitrate in the water column will block the forming of H2S in the substrate as long it is not denitrified. It is a well known method.

And I will still argue for using nitrate and/or phosphate addition if a benthic cyanobacteria bloom is preceded of zero or very low nitrate and/or phosphate readings.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

new found cutting edge knowledge and would start dosing nitrite.

What a wonderful idea if your explanation of the cause effect is true!

Do you know the mean concentration of nitrite in a fully working reef aquarium?
What will happen if you dose low levels of nitrite in a fully working reef aquarium and what should be the the disadvantage of this in a reef aquarium?
What´s the disadvantage of keeping NO3 levels around 2-5 mg/L in a reef aquarium?

Educate me of this, please.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[flampton]

Well everyone it has been a long day, I'm sure you're all wondering what I'm going to say.

Well no more heat because I'm pretty positive most people see what's happening here, and if you don't well I don't know what to tell you. And all because of ego. It's a shame.

So if you're Lasse's friend please reach out

And it has been suggested my post was a threat. Nope it's a promise to try and keep the reefing community safe from polished turds.

I hate to go further since I've beaten the horse to death a bunch of times but I still don't know if everyone understands. So if a level of 2mg/L suppresses hydrogen sulfide production then how can you possibly get cyano mat formation at 5, 10, 20 or more ppm under this hypothesis? The answer is hypothesis fail, return to the literature and at least try to find a plausible explanation. I mean you don't even need to perform an experiment.

And okay I will be the first to admit that I'm not an expert in nitrate reduction and DNRA microbes. And have never claimed to be. Yet it took me around ten minutes to discover the proposed mechanism that had actual scientific evidence to back it. Take that for what you will.

Finally before this actually becomes a thing. Dosing nitrite is highly unlikely to have benefits beyond a increase in nitrogen availability and a hypothetical decrease in hydrogen sulfide. And so I must ask why dose nitrite when every single organism we care about can utilize ammonia? I mean even if it's not used by tissue building within the aquarium panes it will be turned to nitrate. And then if you're really concerned about hydrogen sulfide build up you can increase the ammonium dosing until the DNRA microbes produce enough nitrite from the increased available nitrate.

I'm not the greatest at wittiscms, so I'll leave it at this
Oh, he's nothing more than a human being!
Hans Christian Anderson, The Emperor's New Clothes

Hmm maybe there was heat... I'm just so tired.

 

[Lasse]

Oh, he's nothing more than a human being!

Exactly and its valid for all of us

production then how can you possibly get cyano mat formation at 5, 10, 20 or more ppm under this hypothesis?

There can be hundreds of possible pathways for that (mostly probably when available bond phosphorus is not in the form of metal bond phosphate. It can be as organic matter or dead coral tissue ) but massive mat forming with these concentrations are probably only in 10 -20 % of the case I have seen or heard about.

Dosing nitrite is highly unlikely to have benefits beyond a increase in nitrogen availability and a hypothetical decrease in hydrogen sulfide. And so I must ask why dose nitrite when every single organism we care about can utilize ammonia? I mean even if it's not used by tissue building within the aquarium panes it will be turned to nitrate.

I also asked

what should be the the disadvantage of this in a reef aquarium?

because of your concerns that newbies should start to dose nitrite
Sincerely Lasse

 

[MabuyaQ]

I hate to go further since I've beaten the horse to death a bunch of times but I still don't know if everyone understands. So if a level of 2mg/L suppresses hydrogen sulfide production then how can you possibly get cyano mat formation at 5, 10, 20 or more ppm under this hypothesis? The answer is hypothesis fail, return to the literature and at least try to find a plausible explanation. I mean you don't even need to perform an experiment.

Who is to say there isn't more than one trigger for benthic cyanobacterial mat formation, one at low nitrate levels and one at high nitrate levels?

All I know from experience (my own and many other Dutch reefers) is that when mats are formed at very low measured nitrate levels dosing nitrates is very effective (in combination with disturbing these mats during peak light) in getting rid of them and when nitrates are then kept measurable at at least 2 ppm it prevents mats from forming again.

 

[Lasse]

dosing nitrates is very effective (in combination with disturbing these mats during peak light)

I always advise the same but David never touch the mats. To stir the mats speed up the recovering process IME

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MabuyaQ]

I always advise the same but David never touch the mats. To stir the mats speed up the recovering process IME

Sincerely Lasse

I once read a paper where they grew collected BCM's (Danish cold water if I remember correctly) for over a year in a lab and in one of the experiments watched what happened when they introduced a large and varied benthic microfauna to some of these thriving BCM's. The feeding and disturbing alone resulted in the complete breakdown and disappearing of the BCM where this microfauna was introduced. Nothing wrong by acting like microfauna yourself, especially in (young) reefs that haven't been set up with liverock so likely don't have the kind of microfaune required.

Years ago after having had a well established and fullgrown SPS reef for several years (never had any cyano in that aquarium) with stable low nutrients I wanted to go ULN through zeovit. After about a year allmost all my liferock started growing light green patches of cyanobacteria. Only after I started dosing nitrate (KNO3) to the point there was at least some coloration on my nitrate test could I get rid of it.

 

[taricha]

But more importantly to everything is that ancient cyanobacteria are responsible for the great oxidation event,...
Most anaerobic bacteria and archaeal species perished while some evolved to become aerobes....
a primordial preeukaryotic cell (a possible Archaea) ingested one of these bacterial aerobes which became fixed in place. This was the first eukaryotic cell and the bacterial aerobe eventually became the mitochondria.

And if that wasn't ridiculous enough...
Trees and vegetables and all plant matter, true algae etc are direct descendants from an event in which a eukaryote (already with it’s mitochondria) took in a cyanobacteria (the plastid.)

Agreed. I have mix of awe and dislike for cyano. Cyanobacteria (the whole phylum) is to me like a sprawling international organized crime syndicate. Every sketchy thing that happens, every seemingly unlikely biological process and every niche and growth form, you can find a cyanobacteria that has its hands in it.

Oh and as far as the nitrate/cyano question. I really do not know the answer. I’ve presented a few ideas, but I DON’t KNOW...

The risks and cautions of pseudoscience in these boards are very real - and your scenario isn't absurd.
I spoke with a researcher studying dinoflagellates years ago and he talked me out of using species names to ID dinos. He explained how often that would be incorrect without genetic toolkit, and that some genera have so much cryptic diversity that professionals don't even bother trying to describe some new species (impact/cost ratio too low).
I stick to genus and even then, when googling sometimes I find my own IDs to be a disturbingly large number of the hits on some types, gonna be a heck of a mess if I've been wrong.
But that's not the worst. The worst is "chrysophytes" they show up occasionally (3 cases posted on the board in the last 2 weeks), and all we can say is that they are clearly distinct from dinos, cyano, chlorophytes, rhodophytes etc, and their behavior/structure is nothing like diatoms. I can pigment extract and show they have Chl A&C and no Peridinin-Chl A (not a dino), and no phycobillins (not cyano, or red algae), no Chl B (not a green).

All we can say is that we can read all the papers we get our hands on, and there are no better matches for a this marine benthic goo-forming nuisance algae than "chrysophytes" but we have zero scientific evidence that we are even talking about the right class of organism.

And I will still argue for using nitrate and/or phosphate addition if a benthic cyanobacteria bloom is preceded of zero or very low nitrate and/or phosphate readings.

Indeed. And the case for low PO4 connection to dino outbreaks suffers from all the same lack of scientific proof (as @Dan_P would remind me) and overwhelming anecdotal evidence in favor of it.

I'm reminded that inoculation to prevent smallpox was practiced 100 years before germ theory.
Mendel and the practice of breeding for genetics predates Watson and Crick by a similarly absurd time gap.

So nobody deeply involved with science should be surprised that the mechanics gets worked out before the underlying mechanism.

 

[Lasse]

Agreed. I have mix of awe and dislike for cyano. Cyanobacteria (the whole phylum) is to me like a sprawling international organized crime syndicate. Every sketchy thing that happens, every seemingly unlikely biological process and every niche and growth form, you can find a cyanobacteria that has its hands in it.

 

[Lasse]

And the case for low PO4 connection to dino outbreaks suffers from all the same lack of scientific proof

There is one interesting observation I have done. Dinos outbreak seems to be more common in the US compared with Sweden. There is few or any threads in the swedish forums about dinoflagellate. But what i understand - they must be able to use another PO4 source than PO4 in the water column. Have you any idea if it is low PO4 and low NO3 in the water column that create the worst outbreak or is it enough with low to zero PO4 in the water column. Can NO3 be above 2 mg/L in the water column and still promote a heavy outbreak of dinoflagellates if the PO4 is low or zeroed?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[taricha]

There is one interesting observation I have done. Dinos outbreak seems to be more common in the US compared with Sweden. There is few or any threads in the swedish forums about dinoflagellate. But what i understand - they must be able to use another PO4 source than PO4 in the water column. Have you any idea if it is low PO4 and low NO3 in the water column that create the worst outbreak or is it enough with low to zero PO4 in the water column. Can NO3 be above 2 mg/L in the water column and still promote a heavy outbreak of dinoflagellates if the PO4 is low or zeroed?

Sincerely Lasse

Dinos are fine with blank PO4 water and make good use of particulate or organic food sources.
The correlation between dinos and near zero PO4 is strong, the correlation with low N03 is there but weaker. The strongest correlation with dinos is probably the heavy use of gfo.
I'm guessing that the hobby in Sweden is a few more degrees of separation from the collection sites in the tropics where these dinos hitchhike from. But maybe differences in husbandry trends in the two countries could matter.

 

[taricha]

Oh, and regarding the notion of NO3 addition to control cyano...
The moderate NO3 addition ~5ppm NO3 (I've done plenty of it) doesn't prevent or suppress cyano mats in my system.
Unfortunately, that info doesn't really falsify the aragonite PO4 release hypothesis because my water PO4 is sufficiently high (0.10-0.15 ppm PO4) that my cyano wouldn't need to get it from aragonite anyway.
It might weigh against the competition hypothesis though.

 

[flampton]

Agreed. I have mix of awe and dislike for cyano. Cyanobacteria (the whole phylum) is to me like a sprawling international organized crime syndicate. Every sketchy thing that happens, every seemingly unlikely biological process and every niche and growth form, you can find a cyanobacteria that has its hands in it.



The risks and cautions of pseudoscience in these boards are very real - and your scenario isn't absurd.
I spoke with a researcher studying dinoflagellates years ago and he talked me out of using species names to ID dinos. He explained how often that would be incorrect without genetic toolkit, and that some genera have so much cryptic diversity that professionals don't even bother trying to describe some new species (impact/cost ratio too low).
I stick to genus and even then, when googling sometimes I find my own IDs to be a disturbingly large number of the hits on some types, gonna be a heck of a mess if I've been wrong.
But that's not the worst. The worst is "chrysophytes" they show up occasionally (3 cases posted on the board in the last 2 weeks), and all we can say is that they are clearly distinct from dinos, cyano, chlorophytes, rhodophytes etc, and their behavior/structure is nothing like diatoms. I can pigment extract and show they have Chl A&C and no Peridinin-Chl A (not a dino), and no phycobillins (not cyano, or red algae), no Chl B (not a green).

All we can say is that we can read all the papers we get our hands on, and there are no better matches for a this marine benthic goo-forming nuisance algae than "chrysophytes" but we have zero scientific evidence that we are even talking about the right class of organism.



Indeed. And the case for low PO4 connection to dino outbreaks suffers from all the same lack of scientific proof (as @Dan_P would remind me) and overwhelming anecdotal evidence in favor of it.

I'm reminded that inoculation to prevent smallpox was practiced 100 years before germ theory.
Mendel and the practice of breeding for genetics predates Watson and Crick by a similarly absurd time gap.

So nobody deeply involved with science should be surprised that the mechanics gets worked out before the underlying mechanism.

Yup! And we try our best to propose hypotheses based on the available scientific material. Oh and actually bother to test them.

Btw small pox variolation was thought to have started in the 1500s so many many years before germ theory. And you'll want to look at the Avery MacLeod McCarty experiment for the first evidence DNA is genetic material (1944).

A quick aside:
Watson and Crick (and Rosalind Franklin) landed on the double helix model of DNA in 1953, which was after awhile accepted as correct. Do you believe they just were like well let's solve DNA today. It was research research research relying on the available literature, the available equipment, and their brains. DNA was isolated for the first time in 1869 and the molecule has been studied continuously since then, with research absolutely exploding after the Avery experiment. Watson et al were in a race to solve the structure, this didn't just come out of thin air with a quick cherry pick perusal of the available research where counter arguments were rejected because they didn't personally like them.

Again
You can't just come on here and just keep repeating what ifs, well what if the nitrate gets reduced to nitrous oxide and the cyano mat can't stop laughing and thus falls apart.

Oh and nitrate works but make sure you stir the substrate, that's very important, lol! Or no it has to be a specific species, or well it works this way but only in a full moon.

And one final note. If you make any change to your aquarium you're not experimenting. You have no controls. The result is truly meaningless. Now you can try to base your changes on anecdotal evidence but you must be aware that it may work, especially if it's actually grounded, but it is definitely not guaranteed and thus your aquarium might have an extremely negative reaction.

So a recommendation to best control this is to seek out those that teach and not those that preach

 

[Lasse]

Oh, and regarding the notion of NO3 addition to control cyano...
The moderate NO3 addition ~5ppm NO3 (I've done plenty of it) doesn't prevent or suppress cyano mats in my system.
Unfortunately, that info doesn't really falsify the aragonite PO4 release hypothesis because my water PO4 is sufficiently high (0.10-0.15 ppm PO4) that my cyano wouldn't need to get it from aragonite anyway.

How high do you need to go in rising the NO3 in order to suppress the mats on the substrates? In our cases the PO4 normally run below 0.05 in the water column

It might weigh against the competition hypothesis though.

at least competition about phosphate but there could still be a competition about nitrogen

Dinos are fine with blank PO4 water and make good use of particulate or organic food sources.
The correlation between dinos and near zero PO4 is strong, the correlation with low N03 is there but weaker. The strongest correlation with dinos is probably the heavy use of gfo.
I'm guessing that the hobby in Sweden is a few more degrees of separation from the collection sites in the tropics where these dinos hitchhike from. But maybe differences in husbandry trends in the two countries could matter.

i ask because dinos move around and as I understand that they normally disappear during night from the surface of the substrate (some species up in the water column - some down in the substrate) I remember now about one case with identified dinos that was cured with UVC in Sweden.

There is an very good investigation in Sweden (unlucky it only exist in swedish) about N2 fixating cyanobacteria (phytobacteria) that migrate vertically during night into the anaerobic zone an pick up released phosphorous. Phosphorous that have been released by the H2S effect I have describe earlier. This type of pelagic cyanobacteria blooms (and migration) did only occur in freshwater bodies with NO3 concentration below 2 mg/L . There was a sample of around 10 small freshwater lakes. My thoughts is if there could be the same effect with some Dinos that because of their mobility can penetrate deeper into the sanbed?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

I agree. But that did not happen in this instance. The guy that I bought the tank from used dead rock. It had gone through a cycle but it all appeared dead to me. I have added 30lbs of KP rock to it now and it is looking much better but the tank has had too much change in few months, it will take time to get to an established stage. We are starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel though. Just this week there was a mass spawning of copepod it seems, the glass is covered. Many new worms and micro fauna everywhere, seeing the start of coralline algae. My refugium is starting to show really good diversity. The cyano has definitely lessened but I really think if I wait this out and work on the phosphates, maybe increase feeding of natural foods then the phosphate / nitrate ratio will get better.

I might suggest to you - that 'dead rock' - is 2-3 months is 'live rock'. IME - the best way to avoid nusiance algae, etc - is to add corals. If you look in the ocean as well - areas covered by live coral do not have a large amount of algae - areas with little coral have more. Also IME - over time - tanks become 'less diverse' - not 'more diverse' - unless you're constantly adding things.

 

[Lasse]

'm guessing that the hobby in Sweden is a few more degrees of separation from the collection sites in the tropics where these dinos hitchhike from. But maybe differences in husbandry trends in the two countries could matter.

I have been with importing directly from south east asia for more than 15 years - both corals and fish. It means that some just end up in my aquaria Never seen it. I think it is more a question of husbandry - the first discussions about the danger of low nutrients levels starts here 10 years ago

Sincerely Lasse

 

[flampton]

By the way, pose this question to yourself. If all these nutrient models that are proposed on this board are correct then why isn't a real reef with low concentrations of nitrate and phosphate completely covered with dinoflagellates and cyanobacterial mats?

So obviously it's not the actual nutrient levels. Now starting from there you can make a more informed hypothesis. Go...