So you've probably read about that huge coral reef system recently discovered at the mouth of the Amazon River, right?
(Image from Discovery News)
We're talking about a surprisingly vibrant reef system that stretches some 600 miles near that muddy output from one of the world's mightiest river systems. And it's been "hiding in plain sight" for eons! The murky waters, with rather treacherous currents, held this secret largely because it has been long thought that you can't have a reef system in such turbid, muddy conditions.
(Image from Discovery News)
And we were wrong.
Turns out that the currents are significant enough to keep some of the sediments from the river from settling onto the reef, which is positioned around 50-100 meters in depth. And, at various times of the year, seasonal currents and weather patterns do allow a lot more light to penetrate down to the reef proper. Initial surveys found branching soft corals, stony corals, tubeworms, and 60-plus species of sponges in this reef system.
Well, it's not quite as diverse as other reef systems, and the environment is more challenging, but what does this tell us about corals and other reef creatures? Are there some implications for reefers? Some lessons to be learned from this unique and largely unexplored reef system?
Perhaps.
I mean, think about it. Corals are surprisingly adaptable animals, aren't they? Life is tenacious. In our home reefs, we often subject them to conditions far less conducive to thriving than they would like, yet they continue to grow and thrive. We subject our corals to more change in a week than they probably go through in a year in nature, in terms of flow, water chemistry fluctuations, temperature changes, and other physical intervention.
Now, I'm not saying that because we've discovered a reef in a rather extreme location means that we can go ahead and treat our corals with reckless abandon. What I'm getting at is that we're probably doing a lot of things right as hobbyists! And I'm sure that there are much "higher level" discussions on the implications of this discovery than this one by some of my reef peers, and in the forums, but for our "everyman's reef keeping" purposes, I think it's a fun topic to discuss here!
I'm always fascinated by the idea of sediment and mud interacting with reef systems. At its worst, this interaction can smother and decimate a reef pretty quickly, as we've seen in various parts of the world where agricultural runoff and siltation from human activities inland affects reefs far offshore.
However, some of the constituents of mud must have some benefits for reef animals, if "delivered" in less voluminous quantities, wouldn't you think? I mean, a lot of these muds from rivers contain things like manganese, iron, potassium, magnesium, etc., all of which corals can use. As reefers, we're instructed to do water changes, or dose, or use a method like Triton, to keep trace element levels more or less constant. So, could it be that the one benefit of this river/reef relationship is a continuous "extra helping" of the good stuff?
(Interestingly, in researching a bit about Amazon River sediments, I found a study that postulated that about 80% of the suspended sediment "transfer" from the Amazon occurred only during about 10 days of the year. Take that and chew on it a bit. So, perhaps the corals are receiving a continuous "helping" of the many major and minor trace elements and nutrients they utilize, but the more negative results of serious sedimentation are occurring only during a limited time of the year? Just a thought...)
As reefers, I think that the other major takeaway from this discovery, besides the fact that corals in the wild may be more durable than we give them credit for, is that they benefit to some extent from strong currents (yeah, we know that already) and a regular influx of nutrients to make up for the lower light penetration. In other words, they can compensate for lower light by eating more. Again, not a revelation for reefers, as we've kind of known this. However, in our "frighteningly-remeniscent-of-the-early-2000's-obsession" with blasting high- intensity lighting onto our corals, we might once again be overlooking the other part of the equation- that being that flow, food, and- here we go again- stability- are just as important, if not more so, and can help compensate-indeed, should compensate for-or, rather- compliment- somewhat reduced lighting intensity.
Not new concepts, but seemingly pushed aside often in our era of looking for the high-tech, off-the-shelf- answer for our coral challenges.
I'm not saying to dump tons of "Fiji Gold" or "Marien Biosediment" into your tanks to simulate the "Amazonian River Mouth Reefs" (It's certainly not that simple- and would be downright reckless on our parts), but these products are pretty cool, IMHO. I AM thinking that we should at least examine the concept of regular trace element/nutrient supplementation, through water exchanges or straight-up measured additions- with a new, more enlightened eye. Again, taking away the importance of the "stability" aspect of reef keeping. Corals having more or less stable parameters to compensate for other possible shortcomings in our closed systems.
(Vincent Thomas' tank has NO shortcomings, btw )
I'm probably making more of this than needs to be done, but I'm fascinated by the implications for aquariums. I'm also fascinated by the relationship of freshwater systems and reef systems, so it's kind of cool.
The ideas discussed here are not new. Not really rocket science for most reefers. But interesting stuff to "sweep out from under the rug", take another look at with a different mindset, and see what lessons we can draw from it.
I think that is kind of fun.
What are your thoughts on this. What takeaways or hypothesis do YOU have from this discovery that might have implications for our hobby endeavors?
Discuss.
Stay nice. Stay inquisitive. Stay engaged.
And stay wet.
Scott Fellman
(Image from Discovery News)
We're talking about a surprisingly vibrant reef system that stretches some 600 miles near that muddy output from one of the world's mightiest river systems. And it's been "hiding in plain sight" for eons! The murky waters, with rather treacherous currents, held this secret largely because it has been long thought that you can't have a reef system in such turbid, muddy conditions.
(Image from Discovery News)
And we were wrong.
Turns out that the currents are significant enough to keep some of the sediments from the river from settling onto the reef, which is positioned around 50-100 meters in depth. And, at various times of the year, seasonal currents and weather patterns do allow a lot more light to penetrate down to the reef proper. Initial surveys found branching soft corals, stony corals, tubeworms, and 60-plus species of sponges in this reef system.
Well, it's not quite as diverse as other reef systems, and the environment is more challenging, but what does this tell us about corals and other reef creatures? Are there some implications for reefers? Some lessons to be learned from this unique and largely unexplored reef system?
Perhaps.
I mean, think about it. Corals are surprisingly adaptable animals, aren't they? Life is tenacious. In our home reefs, we often subject them to conditions far less conducive to thriving than they would like, yet they continue to grow and thrive. We subject our corals to more change in a week than they probably go through in a year in nature, in terms of flow, water chemistry fluctuations, temperature changes, and other physical intervention.
Now, I'm not saying that because we've discovered a reef in a rather extreme location means that we can go ahead and treat our corals with reckless abandon. What I'm getting at is that we're probably doing a lot of things right as hobbyists! And I'm sure that there are much "higher level" discussions on the implications of this discovery than this one by some of my reef peers, and in the forums, but for our "everyman's reef keeping" purposes, I think it's a fun topic to discuss here!
I'm always fascinated by the idea of sediment and mud interacting with reef systems. At its worst, this interaction can smother and decimate a reef pretty quickly, as we've seen in various parts of the world where agricultural runoff and siltation from human activities inland affects reefs far offshore.
However, some of the constituents of mud must have some benefits for reef animals, if "delivered" in less voluminous quantities, wouldn't you think? I mean, a lot of these muds from rivers contain things like manganese, iron, potassium, magnesium, etc., all of which corals can use. As reefers, we're instructed to do water changes, or dose, or use a method like Triton, to keep trace element levels more or less constant. So, could it be that the one benefit of this river/reef relationship is a continuous "extra helping" of the good stuff?
(Interestingly, in researching a bit about Amazon River sediments, I found a study that postulated that about 80% of the suspended sediment "transfer" from the Amazon occurred only during about 10 days of the year. Take that and chew on it a bit. So, perhaps the corals are receiving a continuous "helping" of the many major and minor trace elements and nutrients they utilize, but the more negative results of serious sedimentation are occurring only during a limited time of the year? Just a thought...)
As reefers, I think that the other major takeaway from this discovery, besides the fact that corals in the wild may be more durable than we give them credit for, is that they benefit to some extent from strong currents (yeah, we know that already) and a regular influx of nutrients to make up for the lower light penetration. In other words, they can compensate for lower light by eating more. Again, not a revelation for reefers, as we've kind of known this. However, in our "frighteningly-remeniscent-of-the-early-2000's-obsession" with blasting high- intensity lighting onto our corals, we might once again be overlooking the other part of the equation- that being that flow, food, and- here we go again- stability- are just as important, if not more so, and can help compensate-indeed, should compensate for-or, rather- compliment- somewhat reduced lighting intensity.
Not new concepts, but seemingly pushed aside often in our era of looking for the high-tech, off-the-shelf- answer for our coral challenges.
I'm not saying to dump tons of "Fiji Gold" or "Marien Biosediment" into your tanks to simulate the "Amazonian River Mouth Reefs" (It's certainly not that simple- and would be downright reckless on our parts), but these products are pretty cool, IMHO. I AM thinking that we should at least examine the concept of regular trace element/nutrient supplementation, through water exchanges or straight-up measured additions- with a new, more enlightened eye. Again, taking away the importance of the "stability" aspect of reef keeping. Corals having more or less stable parameters to compensate for other possible shortcomings in our closed systems.
(Vincent Thomas' tank has NO shortcomings, btw )
I'm probably making more of this than needs to be done, but I'm fascinated by the implications for aquariums. I'm also fascinated by the relationship of freshwater systems and reef systems, so it's kind of cool.
The ideas discussed here are not new. Not really rocket science for most reefers. But interesting stuff to "sweep out from under the rug", take another look at with a different mindset, and see what lessons we can draw from it.
I think that is kind of fun.
What are your thoughts on this. What takeaways or hypothesis do YOU have from this discovery that might have implications for our hobby endeavors?
Discuss.
Stay nice. Stay inquisitive. Stay engaged.
And stay wet.
Scott Fellman
Last edited:
