best filtering coral
- Thread starter rick12
- Start date
rick12
New member
Scott-CapeCoral
New member
Thank you very much my friend. Very well put. I like my Xenia/Cuapera fuge
I don't know why the only person in here that is in my reef club would go against my Xenia! Cough..Jeff..Cough..
Oh and My other idea before them was a side full of kenya tree coral.. They are either non-photo, or low photo, I'm not sure anymore.. So they would be perfect in a fuge as they feed from the water more so than some others.
greenbean36191
Premium Member
If you want them to filter nutrients, non-photosynthetic corals aren't going to get the job done. The key is the zooxanthellae, which non-photosynthetic corals obviously don't have.
Corals simply eat and turn the protein in their food into nitrogenous waste just like a fish or any other animal. Sponges are no different. They are NOT nutrient filters and will NOT improve water quality.
The only way they can reduce nutrients is if they host symbionts like zoox or cyanobacteria which take up nitrogen faster than it's excreted by the animal, be it a coral or a sponge.
The confusion comes from the term "filter feeder" that's often attached to sponges, tunicates, clams, and non-photosynthetic corals. That term does not tell you anything about their effect on water quality- only that their food is some sort of particulate in the water column. Those particulates could be anything from bacteria to shrimp. In the case of sponges and tunicates, those particles are mostly bacteria and dead POM with some species eating phytoplankton as well. Although we don't usually call corals "filter feeders", they are, and in fact their diets overlap with those of sponges and tunicates. The main differences are that most corals do not eat phytoplankton and most sponges and tunicates don't eat zooplankton.
Adding more sponges and tunicates to a coral-dominated tank doesn't add novel particulate filtering ability. It only adds competition for coral food. Unless you're adding sponges with photosymbionts, they don't add any nutrient filtering ability either. Sponges are "filter feeders", but they are not filters in any sense that hobbyists normally use the word.
Corals simply eat and turn the protein in their food into nitrogenous waste just like a fish or any other animal. Sponges are no different. They are NOT nutrient filters and will NOT improve water quality.
The only way they can reduce nutrients is if they host symbionts like zoox or cyanobacteria which take up nitrogen faster than it's excreted by the animal, be it a coral or a sponge.
The confusion comes from the term "filter feeder" that's often attached to sponges, tunicates, clams, and non-photosynthetic corals. That term does not tell you anything about their effect on water quality- only that their food is some sort of particulate in the water column. Those particulates could be anything from bacteria to shrimp. In the case of sponges and tunicates, those particles are mostly bacteria and dead POM with some species eating phytoplankton as well. Although we don't usually call corals "filter feeders", they are, and in fact their diets overlap with those of sponges and tunicates. The main differences are that most corals do not eat phytoplankton and most sponges and tunicates don't eat zooplankton.
Adding more sponges and tunicates to a coral-dominated tank doesn't add novel particulate filtering ability. It only adds competition for coral food. Unless you're adding sponges with photosymbionts, they don't add any nutrient filtering ability either. Sponges are "filter feeders", but they are not filters in any sense that hobbyists normally use the word.
listen2bob
- David
uuuhhhh ok so then can somebody please explain to Tyree how his Cryptic Fuge and Tri-zonal system is a waste of space? They use sponges and seem to have pretty good results
Always good to hear from one of our resident experts. Thanks for all the great info, Greenbean. As always, very informative!
greenbean36191
Premium Member
Tyree has had it explained to him numerous times by numerous people including myself, Eric Borneman, and Ron Shimek. He even used to have a section of his website dedicated to trying to explain away many of the criticisms he got from biologists. He's got books and sponges to sell though, so he really has no interest in clearing up the pseudoscientific nonsense on his website and booklet.
His systems are great, but there is no way to attribute their greatness to his "cryptic fuge" and tri-zonal filter. The claims he makes go against basic biology.
His systems are great, but there is no way to attribute their greatness to his "cryptic fuge" and tri-zonal filter. The claims he makes go against basic biology.
BennyFrank
New member
It is my understanding that sponges and tunicates are beneficial as they function as "water polishers" in that they filter out larger particles, as opposed to being a source of nutrient export like zenia/chaeto. Does this sound correct?
