"Natural" closed biotope? - Page 2

alpha0r · 08/12/2008, 10:53 PM

I am glad to hear your opinion on Tyree's book. As I said I haven't read it but I was intrigued by the idea. He claims that sponges and sea squirts eat waste from the "reef flat zone" but you say the opposite.

I see that you are a marine biologist so I will take this information seriously. Thanks.

greenbean36191 · 08/13/2008, 08:04 AM

No, I'm not really saying the opposite. It is true that sponges and tunicates do eat waste from other parts of the reef. However, what he doesn't mention is that that waste is also one of the primary food sources for many corals. He's only telling half of the story.

Most sponges and tunicates are primarily feeding on bacterioplankton and bacteria coated bits of particulate matter. This is exactly the same thing many corals such as Acropora make a living on. Also, both release waste from these food sources in the form of DIN (ammonia, which ends up as nitrate), but the big difference is that corals kept in the light cycle that DIN with their zooxanthellae rather than just dumping it into the water. Sponges and tunicates kept in the dark don't have any photosymbionts, so all of it goes back into the water. Ironically, there are sponges that keep photosymbionts and release less of their N into the water, but these are the ones being selected against by keeping these filters in the dark.

With them removing coral food and acting as sources of nitrogen, I'm left scratching my head as to what problem they're supposed to be solving.

sly fox · 08/25/2008, 10:42 AM

wow, thats interesting, so how are the nitrates then being removed from the water via the live rock and sand? as sponges need quite a bit of food i believe, do they produce a lot of nitrate?

greenbean36191 · 08/25/2008, 02:26 PM

LR and sand house anaerobic bacteria that break nitrate down into nitrogen gas.

Yes, these sponges produce ammonia at a rate comparable to or even greater than fish. For comparison, a large adult clownfish will produce a maximum of about 1.8 umol/g/hr. Compare that to sponges which have been measured at rates from .5- 2.7 umol/g/hr.

sly fox · 08/25/2008, 02:48 PM

wow, thats a lot.... what i dont get then is how mr. tyree gets by with them in a skimmerless tank... anyone know what his water change schedule is like?

with those figures you have to figure it would be better off just having the front zone and packing the rest out with live rock haha seriously tho those figures dont make tri-zonal filtration at all viable...

has anyone tried to replicate mr. tyrees method to see if it works or not?

BeanAnimal · 08/25/2008, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by greenbean36191
That last point brings up one of my main objection to [FILL IN LATEST FAD]. I've yet to meet a proponent for them that has a realistic understanding of the limitations and drawbacks of such a system or even what kind of benefit they provide. For the most part it's a solution looking for a problem...

...poorly written and researched and has very little basis in real biology. He also uses a lot of jargon and misuses a lot of scientific terms [...] in an effort to sound like he's an authority on the subject.

Pretty fitting for MANY fads, accepted methods and ideas in this hobby. There are plenty of bright pioneers out there, but also a boat load of those who just plain full of it.

If a guy has nice looking coral and attributes it throwing two boogers and a toenail in the tank, AND can get himself noticed by saying the right things at the right place...

...then he stands to be an icon in the hobby, no matter what the reality of his methods or ideas are.

sly fox · 08/26/2008, 09:21 AM

out of interest how do you think hes keeping his tanks stable then?

greenbean36191 · 08/26/2008, 02:25 PM

I don't know Tyree's maintenance schedule, but many people run skimmerless tanks without issue. There are several examples in this thread.

Comparing a skimmer to sponges is apples to oranges though. There's not much overlap between what they can remove from the water. Neither one removes dissolved inorganic nitrogen like ammonia or nitrate either.

jeffkeith_us · 08/01/2015, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbean36191

I don't know Tyree's maintenance schedule, but many people run skimmerless tanks without issue.

Hi Everyone
I know Steve's method and operation quite well; no I'm not going to tell you, you go ask him. What I will tell you guys is that he truly runs a skimmerless system that grows beautiful SPS coral without feeding either coral or sponges. They feed each other!

saf1 · 08/01/2015, 10:28 PM

Think of a reef tank like a tool box. Odd I know but it sort of goes like this. Some people will reach in and grab a tool they want and when done with the job just put it in any drawer. Could be with a drawer with a jig saw, socket, allen wrench, or any other number or random tools in the tool box. Then you have other people whom group similar tools together. A drawer by screw driver type, hammers, saws, wrench type a, b, etc. You get the idea.

Now with reef tanks one of the first things I was taught was to think about the bio type you are keeping. Corals, substrate, fish, geographic location, etc. This was said because getting back to the tool box. If I have low light, sandy bottom, coral and fish type then I really don't want high intensity lights, bare bottom, and SPS type corals, right? Just like if I want SPS type A then it will need different flow, lighting, and water quality.

One thing I've noticed over the years is that we just throw whatever looks good in the tank regardless if it has similar requires as to the coral(s) next to it. Hence my tool and tool box comment. We just throw stuff in there because it looks good and before you know it we have a tank full of skittles

Not saying this is bad - just saying that if you plan for the biotype and stick to it then yes, you can go without a skimmer, reduce water changes, or any number of things and have a successful tank.

Nano sapiens · 08/01/2015, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saf1

Not saying this is bad - just saying that if you plan for the biotype and stick to it then yes, you can go without a skimmer, reduce water changes, or any number of things and have a successful tank.

I agree that 'sticking to a particular biotope' makes it easier to succeed. But, for some aquarists (like me) the challenge of a 'mixed reef' using just live rock and live sand is an interesting challenge. And having a mixed reef in just 10g of total water volume for seven years...well, that's even more interesting!

saf1 · 08/02/2015, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nano sapiens

I agree that 'sticking to a particular biotope' makes it easier to succeed. But, for some aquarists (like me) the challenge of a 'mixed reef' using just live rock and live sand is an interesting challenge. And having a mixed reef in just 10g of total water volume for seven years...well, that's even more interesting!

Agreed, for sure. There is a lot more going on with this hobby in regards to how people do things and their success than most others. I struggle with a 40 gallon not by failure but by being an active scuba diver and viewing something on a larger scale yet trying to replicate something similar in such a small space.

I don't think I could do it regardless of tank size yet some on these forums manage pretty well.

08/13/2008, 08:04 AM	#27
greenbean36191 Premium Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Ft. Lauderdale Posts: 10,598	No, I'm not really saying the opposite. It is true that sponges and tunicates do eat waste from other parts of the reef. However, what he doesn't mention is that that waste is also one of the primary food sources for many corals. He's only telling half of the story. Most sponges and tunicates are primarily feeding on bacterioplankton and bacteria coated bits of particulate matter. This is exactly the same thing many corals such as Acropora make a living on. Also, both release waste from these food sources in the form of DIN (ammonia, which ends up as nitrate), but the big difference is that corals kept in the light cycle that DIN with their zooxanthellae rather than just dumping it into the water. Sponges and tunicates kept in the dark don't have any photosymbionts, so all of it goes back into the water. Ironically, there are sponges that keep photosymbionts and release less of their N into the water, but these are the ones being selected against by keeping these filters in the dark. With them removing coral food and acting as sources of nitrogen, I'm left scratching my head as to what problem they're supposed to be solving. __________________ Some say the sun rises in the East. Some say it rises in the West. The truth must be somewhere in the middle. Current Tank Info: tore them down to move and haven't had the time or money to set them back up

08/25/2008, 02:26 PM	#29
greenbean36191 Premium Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Ft. Lauderdale Posts: 10,598	LR and sand house anaerobic bacteria that break nitrate down into nitrogen gas. Yes, these sponges produce ammonia at a rate comparable to or even greater than fish. For comparison, a large adult clownfish will produce a maximum of about 1.8 umol/g/hr. Compare that to sponges which have been measured at rates from .5- 2.7 umol/g/hr. __________________ Some say the sun rises in the East. Some say it rises in the West. The truth must be somewhere in the middle. Current Tank Info: tore them down to move and haven't had the time or money to set them back up

08/26/2008, 02:25 PM	#33
greenbean36191 Premium Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Ft. Lauderdale Posts: 10,598	I don't know Tyree's maintenance schedule, but many people run skimmerless tanks without issue. There are several examples in this thread. Comparing a skimmer to sponges is apples to oranges though. There's not much overlap between what they can remove from the water. Neither one removes dissolved inorganic nitrogen like ammonia or nitrate either. __________________ Some say the sun rises in the East. Some say it rises in the West. The truth must be somewhere in the middle. Current Tank Info: tore them down to move and haven't had the time or money to set them back up

08/01/2015, 10:28 PM	#35
saf1 Registered Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: California Posts: 2,259	Think of a reef tank like a tool box. Odd I know but it sort of goes like this. Some people will reach in and grab a tool they want and when done with the job just put it in any drawer. Could be with a drawer with a jig saw, socket, allen wrench, or any other number or random tools in the tool box. Then you have other people whom group similar tools together. A drawer by screw driver type, hammers, saws, wrench type a, b, etc. You get the idea. Now with reef tanks one of the first things I was taught was to think about the bio type you are keeping. Corals, substrate, fish, geographic location, etc. This was said because getting back to the tool box. If I have low light, sandy bottom, coral and fish type then I really don't want high intensity lights, bare bottom, and SPS type corals, right? Just like if I want SPS type A then it will need different flow, lighting, and water quality. One thing I've noticed over the years is that we just throw whatever looks good in the tank regardless if it has similar requires as to the coral(s) next to it. Hence my tool and tool box comment. We just throw stuff in there because it looks good and before you know it we have a tank full of skittles Not saying this is bad - just saying that if you plan for the biotype and stick to it then yes, you can go without a skimmer, reduce water changes, or any number of things and have a successful tank. __________________ -saf1 Current Tank Info: 210 gallon mixed reef

08/12/2008, 10:53 PM	#26
alpha0r Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Salem, MA Posts: 297	I am glad to hear your opinion on Tyree's book. As I said I haven't read it but I was intrigued by the idea. He claims that sponges and sea squirts eat waste from the "reef flat zone" but you say the opposite. I see that you are a marine biologist so I will take this information seriously. Thanks.

08/25/2008, 10:42 AM	#28
sly fox Premium Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: im a brit in Tx Posts: 504	wow, thats interesting, so how are the nitrates then being removed from the water via the live rock and sand? as sponges need quite a bit of food i believe, do they produce a lot of nitrate?

08/25/2008, 02:48 PM	#30
sly fox Premium Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: im a brit in Tx Posts: 504	wow, thats a lot.... what i dont get then is how mr. tyree gets by with them in a skimmerless tank... anyone know what his water change schedule is like? with those figures you have to figure it would be better off just having the front zone and packing the rest out with live rock haha seriously tho those figures dont make tri-zonal filtration at all viable... has anyone tried to replicate mr. tyrees method to see if it works or not?

08/26/2008, 09:21 AM	#32
sly fox Premium Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: im a brit in Tx Posts: 504	out of interest how do you think hes keeping his tanks stable then?