Nuisance Algae

[andrewey]

Everything I'm going to write is a gross over simplification and more importantly, my opinion, so I wouldn't put much stock in it, but here it goes

For as much as we talk about the ocean, our little boxes of water are a crude approximation at best. We often place animals that have never coexisted in the same environment. We select for the organisms we want and attempt to eliminate those we don't want- towards this end we tinker with animal selection, chemistry, nutrients, lighting, and flow. Since the majority of reefs are centered around the growth of corals, those organisms whose needs are more similar to the needs of the corals will tend to do better than those organisms with differing needs.

Many marine algae grow well within our environments, however their needs and preferences are not perfectly matched. Often, we can utilize these differences between the two organisms to select against the algae. For example, we often include animals that eat algaes and restrict access to those animals that eat corals. Similarly, we often select the wavelength of our lighting to best promote the coral, not the algae.

However, dinoflagellates, are an extremely diverse group. The corals and other animals that we are hoping to grow already contain endosymbiotic dinoflagellates in the form of zooxanthellae. Therefore, the selective pressure becomes harder- how does one target certain dinoflagellates without harming the dinoflagellates we wish to keep?

 

[andrewey]

I have two questions now, but will ask them one at a time.

How do we differentiate between a dinoflagellate bloom that might originate from an increase in the number of dinoflagellates in the system to a bloom that might originate merely from dinoflagellates congregating in a favorable locale, say, from floating all over the system to alighting on a rock surface?

It's a good question and I interpret it two ways.

The first is sort of an operational definition, which is to say, if dinoflagellates simply existed in our water column or were confined to the back of the sump or our rockwork, I'm not sure we would consider them much of a pest or take the same steps to eliminate them (if we ignore their toxicity to certain animals). Therefore, it is their presence as either an eyesore or their direct effect on the death of some of the inhabitants we want to keep (e.g. coral, snails) that often force hobbyists into action.

The second way I interpret the question is that I don't think it's a relocation per se. From the samples I've collected, during a dinoflagellate "outbreak" their populations seem to grow exponentially. Even in closed environments where I've sampled from the walls of the container and water column, I don't observe a relocation during the "outbreak", rather a growth in population size. This gets a bit muddier if we're talking about those dinoflagellates that enter the water column at night, but in general, most of the literature suggests a true population increase, not just a relocation (although relocation is happening).

That being said, I'm in no way an expert on dinos, so if anyone more knowledgeable comes along (e.g. @taricha ), they will likely correct all my factual inaccuracies and save my butt

 

[Dan_P]

Everything I'm going to write is a gross over simplification and more importantly, my opinion, so I wouldn't put much stock in it, but here it goes

For as much as we talk about the ocean, our little boxes of water are a crude approximation at best. We often place animals that have never coexisted in the same environment. We select for the organisms we want and attempt to eliminate those we don't want- towards this end we tinker with animal selection, chemistry, nutrients, lighting, and flow. Since the majority of reefs are centered around the growth of corals, those organisms whose needs are more similar to the needs of the corals will tend to do better than those organisms with differing needs.

Many marine algae grow well within our environments, however their needs and preferences are not perfectly matched. Often, we can utilize these differences between the two organisms to select against the algae. For example, we often include animals that eat algaes and restrict access to those animals that eat corals. Similarly, we often select the wavelength of our lighting to best promote the coral, not the algae.

However, dinoflagellates, are an extremely diverse group. The corals and other animals that we are hoping to grow already contain endosymbiotic dinoflagellates in the form of zooxanthellae. Therefore, the selective pressure becomes harder- how does one target certain dinoflagellates without harming the dinoflagellates we wish to keep?

An enlightening perspective on our hobby! This is the sort information that gets the yellow (or pink) highlighter treatment in text books. Thanks

 

[sixty_reefer]

Yes, I have read about the idea of “clean“ vs “dirty” systems, the former somehow enabling dinoflagellate growth. One thing I don’t understand about this idea is the method by which an observer can determine whether a system is “dirty” or “clean” or something in between. Do you have a good explanation of “clean” vs “dirty”?

A dirty system to me is a tank we’re someone allow carbon sources to decompose naturally giving the bacteria the much food/energy needed to make a healthy system

A clean system is we’re someone can be to aggressive removing carbon sources, example mechanical filtration methods like roller filters and oversized protein skimmers. Some strains of bacteria in a bottle. All the above will create an impact on your natural bacteria population, making it weaker and in some cases die off.

 

[ScottB]

Hit me with all the phycology you can. What makes dinoflagellates so different from the other pesky organisms that grow in my aquarium?

Not sure we should derail the OPs thread with such a discussion, but your questioning highlights how little we understand this extremely diverse set of creatures. Scientists still argue about how to classify these free swimming yet photosynthetically capable protists. Even the label "protist" remains debated despite the fact you can watch them (most, not all) swimming around. Some abound in super high nutrient conditions (red tide, blue/green "algae") but most use toxins to overcome weakened/starved organisms like film algae, phytoplankton, zooplankton, coralline, GHA, coral tissue and consume them. They create mucus nets to capture waterborne prey.

As to what is different about them? The answer -- limited to talking about a handful among thousands of different species -- would be a doctoral dissertation.

As a hobbyist how would I answer the question? Well, our general observation is that dinos overtake a balanced, enclosed system when previous nutrient levels are reduced, the biome is then weakened & parts of it die, the dinos are the quickest to consume the nutrient released and multiply, they are able to selectively swim to their next host, they are able to kill that host and eat it, then multiply and repeat. Their growth rate is exponential. It takes quite a long time for other pests to multiply like dinos can. And which plants or animals prey upon dinos?

Can any of the hundreds of algae do that? Not so much. Multiple predators.
Can aiptasia do that? Not so much. Multiple predators.
Can aefw do that? Not so fast. Limited prey. Multiple predators.
Can nudis do that? Not so much. limited prey. Multiple predators.
Do dinoflagellates have predators? Not so much. Are they brilliant competitors? Yes, they are.

Are we having fun yet?

Sorry OP for the diversion. Did you manage to get that microscope while we were blabbering??

 

[Dan_P]

It's a good question and I interpret it two ways.

The first is sort of an operational definition, which is to say, if dinoflagellates simply existed in our water column or were confined to the back of the sump or our rockwork, I'm not sure we would consider them much of a pest or take the same steps to eliminate them (if we ignore their toxicity to certain animals). Therefore, it is their presence as either an eyesore or their direct effect on the death of some of the inhabitants we want to keep (e.g. coral, snails) that often force hobbyists into action.

The second way I interpret the question is that I don't think it's a relocation per se. From the samples I've collected, during a dinoflagellate "outbreak" their populations seem to grow exponentially. Even in closed environments where I've sampled from the walls of the container and water column, I don't observe a relocation during the "outbreak", rather a growth in population size. This gets a bit muddier if we're talking about those dinoflagellates that enter the water column at night, but in general, most of the literature suggests a true population increase, not just a relocation (although relocation is happening).

That being said, I'm in no way an expert on dinos, so if anyone more knowledgeable comes along (e.g. @taricha ), they will likely correct all my factual inaccuracies and save my butt

OK, I see your points. Thanks.

It seems like It might be a tricky thing to prove. Let’s see if @taricha has any observations to give us a percent probabilty that we are looking at growth rather than relocation and concentration. We can then both grill him with questions.

 

[Dan_P]

A dirty system to me is a tank we’re someone allow carbon sources to decompose naturally giving the bacteria the much food/energy needed to make a healthy system

A clean system is we’re someone can be to aggressive removing carbon sources, example mechanical filtration methods like roller filters and oversized protein skimmers. Some strains of bacteria in a bottle. All the above will create an impact on your natural bacteria population, making it weaker and in some cases die off.

Got it. A good working definition for me. Thanks.

 

[andrewey]

Not sure we should derail the OPs thread with such a discussion, but your questioning highlights how little we understand this extremely diverse set of creatures. Scientists still argue about how to classify these free swimming yet photosynthetically capable protists. Even the label "protist" remains debated despite the fact you can watch them (most, not all) swimming around. Some abound in super high nutrient conditions (red tide, blue/green "algae") but most use toxins to overcome weakened/starved organisms like film algae, phytoplankton, zooplankton, coralline, GHA, coral tissue and consume them. They create mucus nets to capture waterborne prey.

As to what is different about them? The answer -- limited to talking about a handful among thousands of different species -- would be a doctoral dissertation.

As a hobbyist how would I answer the question? Well, our general observation is that dinos overtake a balanced, enclosed system when previous nutrient levels are reduced, the biome is then weakened & parts of it die, the dinos are the quickest to consume the nutrient released and multiply, they are able to selectively swim to their next host, they are able to kill that host and eat it, then multiply and repeat. Their growth rate is exponential. It takes quite a long time for other pests to multiply like dinos can. And which plants or animals prey upon dinos?

Can any of the hundreds of algae do that? Not so much. Multiple predators.
Can aiptasia do that? Not so much. Multiple predators.
Can aefw do that? Not so fast. Limited prey. Multiple predators.
Can nudis do that? Not so much. limited prey. Multiple predators.
Do dinoflagellates have predators? Not so much. Are they brilliant competitors? Yes, they are.

Are we having fun yet?

Sorry OP for the diversion. Did you manage to get that microscope while we were blabbering??

You clearly haven't encountered the same aiptasia I have

I'm kid, I kid- great post! I really enjoyed your perspective ScottB!

 

[Dan_P]

Not sure we should derail the OPs thread with such a discussion, but your questioning highlights how little we understand this extremely diverse set of creatures. Scientists still argue about how to classify these free swimming yet photosynthetically capable protists. Even the label "protist" remains debated despite the fact you can watch them (most, not all) swimming around. Some abound in super high nutrient conditions (red tide, blue/green "algae") but most use toxins to overcome weakened/starved organisms like film algae, phytoplankton, zooplankton, coralline, GHA, coral tissue and consume them. They create mucus nets to capture waterborne prey.

As to what is different about them? The answer -- limited to talking about a handful among thousands of different species -- would be a doctoral dissertation.

As a hobbyist how would I answer the question? Well, our general observation is that dinos overtake a balanced, enclosed system when previous nutrient levels are reduced, the biome is then weakened & parts of it die, the dinos are the quickest to consume the nutrient released and multiply, they are able to selectively swim to their next host, they are able to kill that host and eat it, then multiply and repeat. Their growth rate is exponential. It takes quite a long time for other pests to multiply like dinos can. And which plants or animals prey upon dinos?

Can any of the hundreds of algae do that? Not so much. Multiple predators.
Can aiptasia do that? Not so much. Multiple predators.
Can aefw do that? Not so fast. Limited prey. Multiple predators.
Can nudis do that? Not so much. limited prey. Multiple predators.
Do dinoflagellates have predators? Not so much. Are they brilliant competitors? Yes, they are.

Are we having fun yet?

Sorry OP for the diversion. Did you manage to get that microscope while we were blabbering??

Hey thanks! Appreciate the details. This helps. I’m certainly having fun

 

[andrewey]

An enlightening perspective on our hobby! This is the sort information that gets the yellow (or pink) highlighter treatment in text books. Thanks

More like the textbook you return to the bookstore without reading because it's worthless garble

Thank you, that's too kind. Your questions are fantastic and right on the money. We often take the complexiities of the ecosystems we're growing for granted. There's a lot we know and so much more we don't know- it's really fascinating stuff!

 

[ScottB]

Personally, I think dinoflagellates should have their own forum on this site given the prevalence @revhtree.

Anyhow, back to our companion @ShepherdReefer and the quest for answers. I will agree with those that suggest you MAY have some dinos running amuck. If you can get access to a student level (400X) microscope we can confirm two important questions:
a) Do you have dinos?
b) If so, what species?

The first question can actually be answered without a microscope if you like this way:
1) Take a sample of that gunk along with some tank water in a sealable cup/jar and shake it like mad.
2) Pour the cloudy water through a coffee filter into a clear glass vessel.
3) Place the glass under a bright light source for one hour.
4) If the gunk coagulates again into brownish clumps... welcome to the club nobody wants to join.

That second question determines whether or not you need to shell out more money for a UV. One of the 5 species does not actively swim in the water column so the UV expense would be wasted. That is the good news. The bad news is that would mean large cell amphidinium, for which the treatment protocol is, lets say, a bit more experimental.

 

[ShepherdReefer]

Before adding any "quick fixes" or supplements to the tank, I would start with the basics. Try and raise your nitrates to 10 and your phosphates to at least 0.10.

I just started adding N and P to the tank on a very slow basis and will continue to raise that level just a tad while monitoring the nitrates and Phosp. I will invest in a UV here soon.

 

[taricha]

How do we differentiate between a dinoflagellate bloom that might originate from an increase in the number of dinoflagellates in the system to a bloom that might originate merely from dinoflagellates congregating in a favorable locale, say, from floating all over the system to alighting on a rock surface?

Even in closed environments where I've sampled from the walls of the container and water column, I don't observe a relocation during the "outbreak", rather a growth in population size. This gets a bit muddier if we're talking about those dinoflagellates that enter the water column at night, but in general, most of the literature suggests a true population increase, not just a relocation (although relocation is happening).

It seems like It might be a tricky thing to prove. Let’s see if @taricha has any observations to give us a percent probabilty that we are looking at growth rather than relocation and concentration. We can then both grill him with questions.

This is a great discussion. Sorry I'm so late to the party!
Hobbyists do get fooled by the redistribution of dinos sometimes. Here's a few cases I can think of where what looks like growth should be instead interpreted as relocation.

• Sand / rock gets lighter in late afternoon and overnight, and darker during the lights-on period as already mentioned. This is just the daily migration of cells - most commonly into the water.
• Stringy dino strands can lengthen enormously in one day. From near zero to 1-3" often happens. This does not represent an insanely rapid multiplication of cells in the strands - it represents the attachment of disperse cells from the water onto the forming strand. (In fact the existence and size of strands is a good indicator of the degree to which the dinos are taking to the water at night - the stringier they are, the more effective UV will be.)
• Adding filter floss in high flow area in the water will brown up rapidly. Again, concentration of cells from the water, and not cell multiplication.

Because of this strong daily cycle, changes in dino populations need to be observed like other daily cyclical things. Just like you would take pH at the same time in the same place to observe day over day changes. We tell people to look at the same areas at the same times. But most people figure that out and aren't fooled after the first couple of days "It got better, then worse, then better!"
Mostly @andrewey is right that when we see increasing pigment/biomass on surfaces from one day to the next, it's a geniune population increase. Dinos typically don't just spend days highly dispersed and then coalesce when conditions change, because so much of dinoflagellate traits involve having a critical mass in one area. The toxins, mucus mats etc are only effective in numbers. These benthic types are at constant risk of being eaten by herbivores along with the algae they attach to, so if they spread out too thinly, the low level of toxin, mucus, and distasteful chemicals won't change herbivore behavior. There's safety in numbers though, and even a small patch of nasty dino cells generally gets avoided.

By the way, I find it fascinating that dinos don't wait until darkness to make their nightly cycle, the surfaces start lightening up in mid afternoon when there's still hours of quality light, nor do the dinos immediately attach to surfaces en masse at first light in the morning. So surfaces stay mostly bare for the first and last few hours of light. And if you look at peak grazing times of herbivorous fish (I'm thinking specifically of blennies here) it syncs up. High grazing frequency during the very early and very late daylight hours. This benefits both fish and dinos by allowing them to miss each other, but who's accomodating who?

On the question of what makes dinos different, I need to dig up a great ecology paper that's basically a compare and contrast of dinflagellate and diatom strategies. It paints with pretty broad brush strokes, but it is very descriptive of dino issues we see in the hobby.