Just was reading and discussing this with some people in the aquarium community. This article is rather interesting about corals in our closed systems, and some misconceptions about our husbandry and techniques. Could be a game changer.....
New Coral study
- Thread starter sea atlanta
- Start date
Sure. Synopsis and TL: DR renderings are $5 each.
LOL Just kidding!What is interesting is that this paper shows that it is the combination of low <u>or</em></u> high levels of N and P that are of importance in determining susceptibility to bleaching and thermal stress, not so much that levels are high. So, in trying to create these ULNS, we arent necessarily doing what we want to.
Footnote- I feel like such a coral dork for getting so excited about this stuff.
- Messages
- 6,671
- Reaction score
- 15
Natural Ocean water levels of nutrients at coral reefs, of course, Randy has stated that phosphates are 0.005 ppm and ntrates at 0.1.
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-05/rhf/">http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-05/rhf/</a>
ULNS are trying to come closer to these levels, and are still typically higher.
I try to keep my phosphate at or lower than 0.03 (0.028) which is still 6 times higher than 0.005!
Again, with Nitrates, I try to keep around 0.5 (less than 1.00), which is still 5 times higher than 0.1 of a natural reef level.
Great read though, but disappointed there were no "numbers" or ranges of nutrient levels (or I missed them).
Yes, there should be a balance, as with almost anything.
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-05/rhf/">http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-05/rhf/</a>
ULNS are trying to come closer to these levels, and are still typically higher.
I try to keep my phosphate at or lower than 0.03 (0.028) which is still 6 times higher than 0.005!
Again, with Nitrates, I try to keep around 0.5 (less than 1.00), which is still 5 times higher than 0.1 of a natural reef level.
Great read though, but disappointed there were no "numbers" or ranges of nutrient levels (or I missed them).
Yes, there should be a balance, as with almost anything.
Someones getting a Christmas kick to the ear this year!
The coral picture of the monti in the replete nutrient state looks the deepest, maybe the best from an aesthetic POV.
But a nutrient replete state has serious ramifications for a volume limited reef aquarium, more so than a natural reef, I would think, in that a high N/P state in a reef tank will also encourage algae growth. The article mentions indirect affects of nutrient enrichment being high macroalgae growth in natural reefs, and gave an example of a reef that was smothered by filamentious algae growth. In our our reef tanks, that could be macroalgae, hair algae, bryopsis, cyano or any other pest algae that high N or P could encourage.
Given the three scenarios, the Low N/Low P would seem the best for a volume limited reef tank, since per the article that state encourages high photosynthetic efficiency and high heat/light stress resilience. And it would also help limit algae growth, which IMO is a key advantage in an enclosed reef system vs the almost unlimited water in the seas of the world.
The tradeoff of a Low N/Low P scenario may be some color and some growth rate, but IMO these are not too bad a tradeoff given the alternatives. As an SPS keeper, I prefer slower growing corals to fast growing corals anyways because you don't have to mess with pruning or removal as often, and IME you can still have very colorful SPS in a Low N/Low P reef system.
If it weren't for the possible algae issue associated with a High N/High P scenario, it might be worthwhile experimenting with letting levels climb, but I see the volume limitation of our reef systems vs the almost limitless volume of a natural reef system as the major differentiator in what we take from this article and apply to our home systems.
I also found it interesting that they did not address a fourth scenario. They addressed Low N/Low P, High N/High P, High N/Low P, but they did not address Low N/High P. Maybe this state would not occur on a natural reef system?
If I have missed something from the article, anyone please feel free to correct me.
But a nutrient replete state has serious ramifications for a volume limited reef aquarium, more so than a natural reef, I would think, in that a high N/P state in a reef tank will also encourage algae growth. The article mentions indirect affects of nutrient enrichment being high macroalgae growth in natural reefs, and gave an example of a reef that was smothered by filamentious algae growth. In our our reef tanks, that could be macroalgae, hair algae, bryopsis, cyano or any other pest algae that high N or P could encourage.
Given the three scenarios, the Low N/Low P would seem the best for a volume limited reef tank, since per the article that state encourages high photosynthetic efficiency and high heat/light stress resilience. And it would also help limit algae growth, which IMO is a key advantage in an enclosed reef system vs the almost unlimited water in the seas of the world.
The tradeoff of a Low N/Low P scenario may be some color and some growth rate, but IMO these are not too bad a tradeoff given the alternatives. As an SPS keeper, I prefer slower growing corals to fast growing corals anyways because you don't have to mess with pruning or removal as often, and IME you can still have very colorful SPS in a Low N/Low P reef system.
If it weren't for the possible algae issue associated with a High N/High P scenario, it might be worthwhile experimenting with letting levels climb, but I see the volume limitation of our reef systems vs the almost limitless volume of a natural reef system as the major differentiator in what we take from this article and apply to our home systems.
I also found it interesting that they did not address a fourth scenario. They addressed Low N/Low P, High N/High P, High N/Low P, but they did not address Low N/High P. Maybe this state would not occur on a natural reef system?
If I have missed something from the article, anyone please feel free to correct me.
Similar threads
