Cryptic Zone Filtration
- Thread starter mr. bojangsjang
- Start date
More links: Mr. Wilson (Canada) with his Duplex refugium with benthic zone in the sump, the video is here: http://www.reefvideos.com/reefshowcase_03_content.html
Description is here: http://www.aquariumpros.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=18017
http://www.aquariumpros.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=20129
Looks similar to the eggcrate photo above.
Efficiency of filtration: can't say about turnicates, but I have a big white shapeless sponge (looks like crooked tree roots) that helped a lot with tank, fed by fine particles, with very basic filtration.
The other 5g tank, with filter feeding cucumber and a big Christmas tree rock, cleared water from finest mysis water particles very efficiently. Fine edge - not to overfeed, though.
Description is here: http://www.aquariumpros.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=18017
http://www.aquariumpros.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=20129
Looks similar to the eggcrate photo above.
Efficiency of filtration: can't say about turnicates, but I have a big white shapeless sponge (looks like crooked tree roots) that helped a lot with tank, fed by fine particles, with very basic filtration.
The other 5g tank, with filter feeding cucumber and a big Christmas tree rock, cleared water from finest mysis water particles very efficiently. Fine edge - not to overfeed, though.
mr.wilson
.Registered Member
The problem with anything "new" is it has little scientific support to back it up. Anecdotal reports must be qualified and weighed carefully; however, we aren't talking about anything new here.
Every captive reef system has an area that "magically" develops sponges, tunicates, worms and other weird critters that seem to appear out of thin air...well, I guess water. They populate our overflows, protein skimmers, sumps, the undersides of rocks, and wherever else there's no competition. It's natures solution to an excess of something. In our case that excess is nitrate, phosphate, silicate and heavy metals (residual "bad stuff" from biological processes and nutrient import). Nuisance algae serves the same purpose, but with an ugly face and an overly competitive nature.
If these benthic invertebrates are thriving without a concentrated effort on our part, then they are clearly opportunistic feeders. We can only assume that the opportunity (nutrient source) that they have found is "bad stuff". They aren't photosynthetic, they don't consume large meaty foods, and they don't appear to compete with corals for filter foods. The only nutrient source that leaves, is nitrate, phosphate, silicate and other heavy metals.
This is well supported by the vast body of knowledge collected in the scientific study of tunicates, sponges and worms. The problem is, these studies aren't from aquarium-specific conditions, and we don't know how many of these critters you need to make a dent in excess nutrients. It may also take a few years to grow a sufficient colony of them.
Here are some links to tunicate (sea squirt) web sites. In addition to their water polishing ability, they rival the color and pattern of any coral on the market, and they don't require pristine water or a $2000.00 lighting system.
http://www.ascidians.com/
http://www.edge-of-reef.com/tunicati/htmen/TUNtunicates.htm
Another issue is that they may produce harmful allelopathic agents that limit their growth as well as the fish and corals in the display tank. Sponges in particular, generate significant amounts of toxins. For this reason, I exclude the addition of sponges to the benthic zone, with the exception of "naturally occurring" specimens.
From my observations, if you provide enough surface area, and give it enough time, a significant biomass of these water-polishers will develop. They don't crash, or require target feeding, and seem to allow for great biodiversity within the colony. There's really no measurable down side to them. A higher order ecosystem with great biodiversity is what we're trying to do here, so I welcome the idea. The fact that nature sees a need for them in our systems, and they don't cost a penny to acquire or maintain, certainly helps with their case.
Perhaps nay-sayers like Dr. Ron Shimek are not considering a properly executed benthic zone when he dismisses the idea. I find surface area to be their limiting factor. A network of egg-crate can be used as a lattice to increase suitable sites exponentially. A passive system using live rock is a completely different animal.
Some of the critics of Steve Tyrees' system don't like the loss of aesthetics due to unconventional, mushroom-shaped rock-work. The high price tag attached to his information and livestock also leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths. I know Steve Tyree feels that he has been censored here on RC, but he's running a business, and as such, is subject to the guidelines that apply to all of us who have aquarium businesses.
The methodology is there for everybody to utilize. Once you attach a price tag, brand name, or patent to something, you lose credibility and should expect to have some critics. You just hope that the negativity doesn't drown a good idea. I'm glad to see discussions like this one. They're far more productive than the hype threads that shadow "new" skimmers or pumps on the market.
Every captive reef system has an area that "magically" develops sponges, tunicates, worms and other weird critters that seem to appear out of thin air...well, I guess water. They populate our overflows, protein skimmers, sumps, the undersides of rocks, and wherever else there's no competition. It's natures solution to an excess of something. In our case that excess is nitrate, phosphate, silicate and heavy metals (residual "bad stuff" from biological processes and nutrient import). Nuisance algae serves the same purpose, but with an ugly face and an overly competitive nature.
If these benthic invertebrates are thriving without a concentrated effort on our part, then they are clearly opportunistic feeders. We can only assume that the opportunity (nutrient source) that they have found is "bad stuff". They aren't photosynthetic, they don't consume large meaty foods, and they don't appear to compete with corals for filter foods. The only nutrient source that leaves, is nitrate, phosphate, silicate and other heavy metals.
This is well supported by the vast body of knowledge collected in the scientific study of tunicates, sponges and worms. The problem is, these studies aren't from aquarium-specific conditions, and we don't know how many of these critters you need to make a dent in excess nutrients. It may also take a few years to grow a sufficient colony of them.
Here are some links to tunicate (sea squirt) web sites. In addition to their water polishing ability, they rival the color and pattern of any coral on the market, and they don't require pristine water or a $2000.00 lighting system.
http://www.ascidians.com/
http://www.edge-of-reef.com/tunicati/htmen/TUNtunicates.htm
Another issue is that they may produce harmful allelopathic agents that limit their growth as well as the fish and corals in the display tank. Sponges in particular, generate significant amounts of toxins. For this reason, I exclude the addition of sponges to the benthic zone, with the exception of "naturally occurring" specimens.
From my observations, if you provide enough surface area, and give it enough time, a significant biomass of these water-polishers will develop. They don't crash, or require target feeding, and seem to allow for great biodiversity within the colony. There's really no measurable down side to them. A higher order ecosystem with great biodiversity is what we're trying to do here, so I welcome the idea. The fact that nature sees a need for them in our systems, and they don't cost a penny to acquire or maintain, certainly helps with their case.
Perhaps nay-sayers like Dr. Ron Shimek are not considering a properly executed benthic zone when he dismisses the idea. I find surface area to be their limiting factor. A network of egg-crate can be used as a lattice to increase suitable sites exponentially. A passive system using live rock is a completely different animal.
Some of the critics of Steve Tyrees' system don't like the loss of aesthetics due to unconventional, mushroom-shaped rock-work. The high price tag attached to his information and livestock also leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths. I know Steve Tyree feels that he has been censored here on RC, but he's running a business, and as such, is subject to the guidelines that apply to all of us who have aquarium businesses.
The methodology is there for everybody to utilize. Once you attach a price tag, brand name, or patent to something, you lose credibility and should expect to have some critics. You just hope that the negativity doesn't drown a good idea. I'm glad to see discussions like this one. They're far more productive than the hype threads that shadow "new" skimmers or pumps on the market.
im using this method on a customers 110 FO tank. I put a 37g tank under the stand that flows to the 15g sump(with skimmer and return pump) the 37g has about 150 lbs of live rock in it as well as a carbon reactor. All of it us totaly dark. Its only been up for about 4 months now but the number of small sponges growing in both tanks under the stand are amazing.
Nitrates are currently hovering around 30, so we shall see how it goes.
Nitrates are currently hovering around 30, so we shall see how it goes.
Driftwood
New member
I have a book from 1997 that raves about trickle filters and submersed foam sponges! Not that long ago...
The theory is actually pretty simple. We know what these creatures consume and where they grow in our current systems. All we are doing here is providing a large space with ideal conditions for them to colonize. I don't think there are going to be any scientific results that quantify exactly how effective this is, but are there any for any of the techniques we use today? Many of us are pioneers and the success or failure of our systems is what will determine if our theories are worth practicing or not.
Dave
The theory is actually pretty simple. We know what these creatures consume and where they grow in our current systems. All we are doing here is providing a large space with ideal conditions for them to colonize. I don't think there are going to be any scientific results that quantify exactly how effective this is, but are there any for any of the techniques we use today? Many of us are pioneers and the success or failure of our systems is what will determine if our theories are worth practicing or not.
Dave
On the same website, where videos are, is the forum, where are even more details on setting Duplex refugium. Only the last question was unanswered, and it still mystery for me too - should be detritus removed regularly from under the eggcrate during first months, when there are not too much cryptic inhabitants?
Will the sand under eggcrate become eventually nutrient sink for a tanks with heavy bioload? My skimmer don't skim water clean so far, now trying to use Calfo's approach. Or place micron sock where water enters refugium, just in case? 100, 50 or less microns - what will be better?
Any thoughts?
Will the sand under eggcrate become eventually nutrient sink for a tanks with heavy bioload? My skimmer don't skim water clean so far, now trying to use Calfo's approach. Or place micron sock where water enters refugium, just in case? 100, 50 or less microns - what will be better?
Any thoughts?
I think it is great you are playing around with cryptic zones. I understand why you would want to have more biodiversity and that is good.
If the sponges and truncates and stuff are growing and taking "bad" stuff out the water. When the sponges and stuff have expanded how do you "prune" them and remove them from your cryptic zone? I think every "filter sytem" has to have an export. What do you end up exporting from you cyptic filters?
Thanks,
Chris
If the sponges and truncates and stuff are growing and taking "bad" stuff out the water. When the sponges and stuff have expanded how do you "prune" them and remove them from your cryptic zone? I think every "filter sytem" has to have an export. What do you end up exporting from you cyptic filters?
Thanks,
Chris
Redstratplayer
New member
I think that if you sponges ever hot that big you could just cut some out and sell them.
Redstratplayer
New member
Look at jacksok's pics. after 2.5 years they are still not to big for the tank.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
If I get a chance I will take some photos of my sump. It only gets ambient light when the room lights are on. It is similar to the photos above. There is 20-30 pounds of rock and no substrate. The sump flows 1500 GPH or so and is full of fan worms, tunicates, spirobids, sponges and all sorts of pods.
mr.wilson
.Registered Member
Not every form of filtration requires an export. Biological filtration, including denitrification via bacteria as well as invertebrates, is a method of reducing and removing DOC (dissolved organic carbon) and POC (particulate organic carbon).
Biological filtration encompasses many forms of assimilation and dissimilation other than nitrate reduction, such as the removal of phosphates, silicates, bacteria, algae, and heavy metals.
Sponges reduce excess nutrients without residual nitrate as experienced with the bacteria in the nitrogen cycle. They don't need to be harvested because they are part of an active ecosystem.
Biological filtration encompasses many forms of assimilation and dissimilation other than nitrate reduction, such as the removal of phosphates, silicates, bacteria, algae, and heavy metals.
Sponges reduce excess nutrients without residual nitrate as experienced with the bacteria in the nitrogen cycle. They don't need to be harvested because they are part of an active ecosystem.
Similar threads
