Theory on nutrient ratios and algae/bacteria

[Brew12]

I would love to know how much of the ammonia released from organisms such as fish in a typical reef tank gets used as ammonia, and how much makes its way to nitrate and is then used.

I've wondered the same thing. Not based on anything but intuition, but I would guess that it is tied to how much algae is in the tank. In a tank running the Triton method I would guess most ammonia is consumed directly and the NO3 is more of a byproduct. In a new tank started with dry rock, I would guess most is processed by nitrifying bacteria. It's one of the reasons I think every new tank should add macro algae when they add fish.

I even use macro algae when I set up a new QT. I try to get bacteria established first and add the algae right when I add the fish. Not only does it provide some ammonia protection but it brings along some pods to help encourage feeding.

 

[Brew12]

According to the benthic cyanobacteria we are dealing with - maybe some experiences from fresh water may explain this. In the Swedish study I have referred to before the author put the question:

(I have translated the Swedish text with help of Google – I hope you understand it anyhow – it´s in Googlish with other words



They answer:


After this – they have a long discussion how they can get nitrogen beyond the mats, but I only translate this first thing about what trigger the build up of the mats. These cyanobacteria – we always have in our water, but they say clearly that the trigger for the forming of the mats is low nitrogen levels.

The conclusion that I make is that during normal conditions with some nitrogen in the water these cyanobacteria (including spirulina) will stay as own individuals but in low inorganic nitrogen levels (low in NH4/N3, NO2, NO3 and NOx) they start to form mats and fix their own resources

If you are interested of this things – copy the Swedish text and run it through Google (Chap 8:3) – you will get some good information


Sincerely Lasse

I think I have some reading to do tomorrow!

I really appreciate you providing resources I wouldn't normally be able to identify.

 

[Brew12]

Wow!This is where everyone is hiding

Yup, having another one of my in depth electrical discussions!

 

[MnFish1]

So if we are agreeing that competition for available resources are the driving factor for what thrives in the aquarium, then how did the Swedish explain the lakes with higher NO3, so presumably more resource, had less cyano? Are you suggesting they coincidentally ran out of another resource?
not an argument, just a question to understand the logic.

There are studies - suggesting xyz. It al depends on what they are mearsuring, how they are measuring it. - and why they are measuring it. there is bias in everything (those that want to disbelieve this - well ok ). The main thing is applying one study to 'the general truth'. The study applies only to that lake and the conditions in that study. Nothing more, nothing less. People that think they can pick 1 study and say 'this proves what im saying' are fooling themselves - because its a combined scientific consensus thats more important than an individual study... IMHO

 

[MnFish1]

This is where we disagree. If nitrogen and phosphorus weren't causing cyano/dino blooms we wouldn't worry about fertilizer run off so much.

There is no fertilizer run-off in your reef tank

 

[MnFish1]

I'll have to see if I can dig out the study I found that isolated the "non harmful" carbon limited bacteria to determine the 50:1 N: P ratio.
Did you want me to show a study with how these bacteria are absorbed by coral/algae or removed by skimmers?


It is the N: P ratio of the food we add to the tanks, not water supplements.

There is no evidence - whatsoever that suggests that what we feed our aquarium affects the growth of other 'things'. this is the problem I have with your OP in the first place. You are mixing science *(the Redfield ratio) - which says the opposite (i.e. that the phytoplankton influence the environment of their surroundings more than their environment influences them).

 

[MnFish1]

I feel there is no need to dose nutrients or increase feeding unless it is in response to a symptom in the tank. It could be coral health, growth rate, cyano, dino's or any number of other issues.

Sometimes, feeding more may be the right answer, especially if you are talking about coral health. If cyano is a problem and you have no detectable NO3, I would add that. If you have dino's and no detectable PO4 I would add that. If you have cyano and no PO4 I would NOT add PO4. If I had dino's and cyano at the same time, or if I had cyano and yet had detectable NO3 then I would start looking at trace elements like iron and manganese.

I apologize - I go back to what I said several pages ago - its your 'thinking'. - and its anecdotal. It may be 100@ correct - but you have no evidence that what you are saying is true in our aquariums. Thats the least offensive way I can say it.... With serious due respect *(mean it) to whatever research you have done - because - it is contradictory in some ways - depending on your thesis

 

[Brew12]

There is no evidence - whatsoever that suggests that what we feed our aquarium affects the growth of other 'things'. this is the problem I have with your OP in the first place.

I think you need to rephrase this. I hope you are not suggesting that feeding our aquarium doesn't impact the growth of things. If we don't feed fish and coral to get them to grow, why do we feed at all?

 

[MnFish1]

1. Multiple people have stated that the 'N.P" ratio does not reflect nitrate / phosphate but - total N and P (these cant be measured)
2. Y0u (@Brew12 ) have not shown any references as to how this is beneficial besides your anecdotal opionion (i.e. how do we use it in our aquaria)
3. Lots of people 'feel things' - d0se PO4, Dose Nitrate, etc - you feel a certain way - these ratios do not help document why anyone should feel any other way than they already feel.
4. The thought process you put into your OWN AQUARIUM and its health are above and beyond what most people would do - and for that you should be commended - x 100
5. Extrapolating those ratios to anything else is not justified.

This is my opinion - and Im not an expert. Im just basing it on my knowledge of microbiology and reefkeeping.
I applaud @Brew12 for throwing this out - it has resulted in multiple discussions and comments - which - to me - is what this is all about

 

[MnFish1]

I think you need to rephrase this. I hope you are not suggesting that feeding our aquarium doesn't impact the growth of things. If we don't feed fish and coral to get them to grow, why do we feed at all?

I'll bite - there is no evidence - that I have seen - that suggests that feeding a food with an N/P ratio of X is more or less likely to grow cyano/dinos/hair algae./etc etc etc (insert your nuisance issue here)

 

[MnFish1]

IMHO the bottom line - the ratios do not help decide what do to with the aquarium. I think that cuts to the chase here. You implied they may help - I do not believe they do. Needless to say - it was an extremely interesting discussion.

The main thing that leads me to this is Redfield himself - whose research conclusion in 1958 is considered seminal in marine biology. The phytoplankton themselves in the ocean influence the N in the ocean (concentration wise) - rather than the other way around. Our aquariums are no-where near the conditions in the oceans - but... There is is lots of evidence that your theories are not related to any ratio - based on the posts here. Rather than debating individual posts - lets get back to the original post - which is not defensible (though the work you put into it is admirable)

 

[MnFish1]

IMHO the bottom line - the ratios do not help decide what do to with the aquarium. I think that cuts to the chase here. You implied they may help - I do not believe they do. Needless to say - it was an extremely interesting discussion.

The main thing that leads me to this is Redfield himself - whose research conclusion in 1958 is considered seminal in marine biology. The phytoplankton themselves in the ocean influence the N in the ocean (concentration wise) - rather than the other way around. Our aquariums are no-where near the conditions in the oceans - but... There is is lots of evidence that your theories are not related to any ratio - based on the posts here. Rather than debating individual posts - lets get back to the original post - which is not defensible (though the work you put into it is admirable)

And I sincerely meant that - it was extremely interesting....

 

[Lasse]

There are studies - suggesting xyz. It al depends on what they are mearsuring, how they are measuring it. - and why they are measuring it. there is bias in everything (those that want to disbelieve this - well ok ). The main thing is applying one study to 'the general truth'. The study applies only to that lake and the conditions in that study. Nothing more, nothing less. People that think they can pick 1 study and say 'this proves what im saying' are fooling themselves - because its a combined scientific consensus thats more important than an individual study... IMHO

In general - very true.

However - In this case - with the Swedish report - it’s both a case study of some lakes and a review of the level of knowledge back in 2006. The statement of why and when the benthic cyanobacteria start to form mats – its not a finding from this study – it is in the knowledge base – till someone show me evidence of the opposite – I will believe in that. The things that is speculations from me – that I haven’t seen anything about before – it is the statement that they fix their phosphorus with help of anaerobic (and NO3 free condition) below the mats. The speculation of this is based on many basic facts about biochemical processes during anaerobic conditions – I have put 1+1 and got 2.

IMO – at least forming of the Cyanobacteria mats is depending of N starvation. One way (the easiest way and most controllable) to prevent N starvation is to add NO3 to the aquarium. Its also important to stress the NO3 molecules different roles – both as an nutrient and a changer of biochemical processes in our aquaria. According to some Dinos – I would not be surprised if there is similar processes involved

However, in a another post you state that’s we do not handle nutrient run off in our aquarium – but the eutrophication level in our aquarium is normally high – many times corresponding to levels way off from even bodies of water with high eutrophication levels.

According to the OP – I´m not sure that you can totally run out the ratio. If the P/N ratio is something like Some/zero – IMO it has importance. With other rations – I think that You must consider how the substances are absorbed by the organism – there is pathways which is due to differences in the concentration of different substances and there is pathways that are active

Sincerely Lasse

 

[mcarroll]

There is no fertilizer run-off in your reef tank

We may not call it "run-off" but there are LOTS of folks that have LOTS of extra nutrients in their water. Is it different?

I mentioned earlier that time is the main thing being left out of the "balance" conversation. Still is. Balance is not invalid, but we can't have a meaningful conversation about balance without time.

Time is also crucial in the addition of nutrients, not only in their usage.

There are natural, seasonal flushes of nutrients into the ocean. Over time, natural microbial cycles – inlcuding blooms of diatoms, dinoflagellates and umpteen other microbes – have developed around these seasonal nutrient flushes and the associated nutrient limitations. Think of these natural, seasonal flushes as being like your stable feeding routine.

Eutrophication is what happens when you overload those cycles and change the limitations.

Critters which were naturally and harmoniously stable and limited might bloom out of control. Think of this as being like someone adding a whole bunch of new fish (and the required amount of food) all at once to a new tank. Or like someone dosing amino's and flake food into the tank every time you turn your back.

In oceanic terms, the explanation is usually human disturbance of the soil causing an unnatural amount of nutrients to be flushed into the water.

The catch on remediating systems that have "too many nutrients" is that pretty much all microbial cycles have evolved to conserve nutrients. When we throw nutrients into a system (eutrophication), it's not so simple as applying a little Magic Filter Media™ to get them back out. We're working against the natural system's tendencies (which we barely comprehend*) when we do.
Here's an example I saved back in Feb:
Response of heterotrophic bacteria, autotrophic picoplankton and heterotrophic nanoflagellates to re-oligotrophication

* Not exaggerating....another article (repeat link from June):
We are living in a bacterial world, and it's impacting us more than previously thought

^---That title is the scientists talking c.2013...only a few years ago. It's still a pretty deep read – even if you think microbes are really important you are still probably underestimating their presence and impact.

@MnFish1 and @Lasse (and the rest of us too!) Phosphorus versus nitrogen limitation in the marine environment is a classic which will make an interesting read. There are some differences between lakes and coastal environments. It's also gonna make some folks nervous since it talks about "optimal ratios" a little. You can find lots of more current material on this search (just for starters).

 

[Lasse]

Phosphorus versus nitrogen limitation in the marine environment is a classic which will make an interesting read. There are some differences between lakes and coastal environments. It's also gonna make some folks nervous since it talks about "optimal ratios" a little. You can find lots of more current material on this search (just for starters).

I´m totally aware of this - in general - saltwater - nitrogen limitation - in freshwater - phosphorus limitation - and to that we have the Baltic there it could be whatever The article I have cited before lead to a change in policy in Sweden according to N removal at the treatments plants. Today it does not considered to be so important to freshwater recipients and to the Baltic north of the island of Öland. In the Stockholm archipelago they have done test with NO3 in the effluent of a large wastewater plant and succeeded to stop the bloom of cyanobacteria in the bay outside the plant!

Sincerely Lasse

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

In general - very true.

However - In this case - with the Swedish report - it’s both a case study of some lakes and a review of the level of knowledge back in 2006. The statement of why and when the benthic cyanobacteria start to form mats – its not a finding from this study – it is in the knowledge base – till someone show me evidence of the opposite – I will believe in that. The things that is speculations from me – that I haven’t seen anything about before – it is the statement that they fix their phosphorus with help of anaerobic (and NO3 free condition) below the mats. The speculation of this is based on many basic facts about biochemical processes during anaerobic conditions – I have put 1+1 and got 2.

IMO – at least forming of the Cyanobacteria mats is depending of N starvation. One way (the easiest way and most controllable) to prevent N starvation is to add NO3 to the aquarium. Its also important to stress the NO3 molecules different roles – both as an nutrient and a changer of biochemical processes in our aquaria. According to some Dinos – I would not be surprised if there is similar processes involved

However, in a another post you state that’s we do not handle nutrient run off in our aquarium – but the eutrophication level in our aquarium is normally high – many times corresponding to levels way off from even bodies of water with high eutrophication levels.

According to the OP – I´m not sure that you can totally run out the ratio. If the P/N ratio is something like Some/zero – IMO it has importance. With other rations – I think that You must consider how the substances are absorbed by the organism – there is pathways which is due to differences in the concentration of different substances and there is pathways that are active

Sincerely Lasse

So a small cyano spot in the tank is a localized nitrate starvation?

 

[Lasse]

So a small cyano spot in the tank is a localized nitrate starvation?

No but in other parts of your tank - there maybe is not other good conditions for forming mats. Nitrogen starvations is ONE known trigger - with this statement you can´t exclude other triggers or conditions for the building of mats. Something have to trigger the construction of the mats - because these Cyanobacteria are always present in our aquarium - the problem starts when they star to form mats.

What´s your NO3 level?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

In general - very true.

However - In this case - with the Swedish report - it’s both a case study of some lakes and a review of the level of knowledge back in 2006. The statement of why and when the benthic cyanobacteria start to form mats – its not a finding from this study – it is in the knowledge base – till someone show me evidence of the opposite – I will believe in that. The things that is speculations from me – that I haven’t seen anything about before – it is the statement that they fix their phosphorus with help of anaerobic (and NO3 free condition) below the mats. The speculation of this is based on many basic facts about biochemical processes during anaerobic conditions – I have put 1+1 and got 2.

IMO – at least forming of the Cyanobacteria mats is depending of N starvation. One way (the easiest way and most controllable) to prevent N starvation is to add NO3 to the aquarium. Its also important to stress the NO3 molecules different roles – both as an nutrient and a changer of biochemical processes in our aquaria. According to some Dinos – I would not be surprised if there is similar processes involved

However, in a another post you state that’s we do not handle nutrient run off in our aquarium – but the eutrophication level in our aquarium is normally high – many times corresponding to levels way off from even bodies of water with high eutrophication levels.

According to the OP – I´m not sure that you can totally run out the ratio. If the P/N ratio is something like Some/zero – IMO it has importance. With other rations – I think that You must consider how the substances are absorbed by the organism – there is pathways which is due to differences in the concentration of different substances and there is pathways that are active

Sincerely Lasse

Hi - I wasn't talking about the Swedish study- but the problem with using 1 study to prove a point - Often there are multiple studies - whose results conflict - as science moves forward. Unless one is going to do a complete literature review - or knows the literature (i.e. an expert in the field - as you are), it becomes difficult.

As to the N P Ratio - again it depends on what ratio you are talking about - the Redfield Ratio? The ratio in the tank water ? The ratio in experiments lakes? Whether some Cyanobacteria are inhibited at higher nitrates may very well be true - its also true that other are not inhibited by high nitrates.

As to the eutrophication in our aquariums - what chemical 'level' are you using to compare our aquaria to bodies of water with high eutrophication levels?

 

[XNavyDiver]

Redfield is orgism uptake. Not system or in the water i.e. availability.

How many threads are there with a guy with three no3and Po4 tests that don't match is triton.


Read the Red Sea maturation method. It's actually exactly what you describe.

And buddy if you haven't pegged .75 Po4 , you haven't lived.


Sorry my quote thing isn't working.
Alge , coral ? yea. iPhone. No

I believe this is the point where the tank will collapse in on itself creating a nutrient black hole.

 

[MnFish1]

Back to the original thread - Im sure there are conditions in which cyanobacteria will grow better then dinos and vice versa. Im also sure that there are conditions where neither of them will grow (well).

I do not believe (nor do I believe anyone here has shown) how to use the ratios posted in the original post will to determine those optimal conditions (or the conditions to prevent their growth).

In the original post, the ratios is a ratio of the total nitrogen/phosphorous of the bacteria/cyanobacteria/dinoflagellates themselves. There is absolutely no way to use the content of an organism to determine the best conditions in which it will grow or not grow (IMHO).

The N in the NP ratio quoted in the original post does not just come from 'nitrate' in the water. The P in the ratios does not just come from the Phosphate in the water - (or phosphorous) which are the only things we can measure. We cannot measure the N and P content, for example, of the bacteria that the dinoflagellates eat. etc etc. I just do not see any way to transfer the ratios in the original post to something usable in the aquarium.

@Lasse What do you think the results of this experiment would be: 3 tanks - each with perfect growth parameters for a strain of cyanobacteria and no other bacteria or living things. Each tank has a varying amount of nitrate lets say .5, 1 and 10 (since you stated that levels above 2 inhibit cyanobacteria). My guess is that there would still be Cyanobacteria growing in the tank with the high level.

In the Stockholm archipelago they have done test with NO3 in the effluent of a large wastewater plant and succeeded to stop the bloom of cyanobacteria in the bay outside the plant!

Are you saying they added nitrate? or limited nitrate from the wastewater?