Cryptic Zone Filtration

[Redstratplayer]

My thinking is that since i am using a sump any way and that because algae grows better in shallow water.That it most likely wont harm my tank to have a benithic zone................ so Why not.. i am giving it a shot.

 

[greenbean36191]

Sponges do not produce nitrate as a byproduct. They primarily consume bacteria, and zooplankton. They are able to reduce compounds before they enter the nitrogen cycle, which would otherwise leave a residual of nitrate.

Any animal, including sponges, that metabolizes protein produces nitrogenous waste. Sponges are sources of DIN, not filters for it.

 

[mr.wilson]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9197777#post9197777 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
Any animal, including sponges, that metabolizes protein produces nitrogenous waste. Sponges are sources of DIN, not filters for it.

I said sponges do not produce "nitrate", not "nitrogenous waste". Sponges are sources of organic nitrogen, not inorganic nitrogen. Heterotrophic bacteria are required to convert organic nitrogen into inorganic nitrogen, fueling the dreaded nitrogen cycle.

Higher order ecosystems don't need to rely so much of autotrophic bacteria to break down organics, and subsequently, don't have to rely on heterotrophic bacteria to reduce residual nitrate (denitrification in DSB's).

Deep sand beds produce nitrogenous waste (nitrite), but that's their purpose. Heterotrophic bacteria convert nitrate into nitrite through dissimilation. DSB filtration is a widely accepted means of improving water quality. To exclude any method due to the production of nitrogenous waste is superficial.

The waste produced by sponges is a lesser amount than what enters the sponge. This is the crux of a naturalized reef system. The reduction of organic material to less toxic compounds through assimilation.

I stated that sponges circumvent the nitrogen cycle, thus limiting the amount of nitrate produced. Sponges utilize organics that would otherwise be converted into ammonia by heterotrophic bacteria. As a result, autotrophic have less ammonia to convert to nitrite and nitrate.

Sponges and ascidians are implemented in these systems as a vital part of the ecosystem. We are merely filling in the gaps of the food chain. Conventional, Berlin systems, leave voids that nature fills with nuisance algae and bacteria.

This is just one study of one species of sponge, but they found no significant difference in the nitrate content of water after it passed through a (living) sponge.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...ponges+diet&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=18&client=safari

Here's an article in Sea Scope written by Steve Tyree on the subject.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...cope+article&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&client=safari

 

[greenbean36191]

I said sponges do not produce "nitrate", not "nitrogenous waste". Sponges are sources of organic nitrogen, not inorganic nitrogen. Heterotrophic bacteria are required to convert organic nitrogen into inorganic nitrogen, fueling the dreaded nitrogen cycle.

DIN is ammonium, nitrite, and nitrate. Sponges and tunicates take in bound organic N from their food, break it down into ammonium (DIN) and excrete it. The fate of that ammonium is no different than if it came from a fish or any other animal in your tank. Bacteria oxidize it to nitrite and nitrate.

This is just one study of one species of sponge, but they found no significant difference in the nitrate content of water after it passed through a (living) sponge.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...8&client=safari

You wouldn't expect it to be. The N is excreted as ammonium, which they found was significantly increased in exhaled water. They measured for a change in nitrate only because in sponges that harbor cyanobacteria, a large part of the N is already oxidized to nitrate by the time it's exhaled.

To exclude any method due to the production of nitrogenous waste is superficial.

The method is being dismissed by people like Dr. Ron, Eric Borneman, and myself not because it produces nitrogenous waste, but because it makes claims that ignore or completely go against basic biology. I've read most of Steve Tyree's work on the subject, and I've been less than impressed by all of it. He makes unsubstantiated and often ridiculous claims about these animals and their potential benefit to a reef tank.

 

[mr.wilson]

I stand corrected. It appears that sponges produce inorganic ammonia, not organic ammonia as I had thought.

I'm not defending Steve Tyrees work. As a matter of fact, I've only read the public domain stuff he's written, so I'm not even well versed in his methodology. His books & DVD's haven't garnered my interest enough to fork over any cash.

My interest in the subject falls more on a naturalized, higher order ecosystem approach. It appears that you are of the belief that any additional biodiversity is a simple bio-load increase.

My position is that we already have an existing nutrient import required to sustain the fish and inverts showcased in the display tank. The addition of benthic suspension feeders will help consume and assimilate the excess nutrients that would otherwise feed the nitrification process or nuisance algae.

I don't believe that benthic invertebrate culture has the same impact as chemical filtration, but I do see it on par with good coraline growth or a collection of clams. Perhaps you dismiss these filtration methods as well.

The tangent we have drifted into here is a question of export. Many accepted forms of filtration do not include export, so I don't see why benthic invertebrate culture should be held to that standard.

 

[salty joe]

[i

The method is being dismissed by people like Dr. Ron, Eric Borneman, and myself not because it produces nitrogenous waste, but because it makes claims that ignore or completely go against basic biology. I've read most of Steve Tyree's work on the subject, and I've been less than impressed by all of it. He makes unsubstantiated and often ridiculous claims about these animals and their potential benefit to a reef tank. [/B]

Hey Greenbean, I've also read some of Tyree's work and found it interesting, but I am not a biologist.

Could you specifically quote and rebut the unsubstantiated and often ridiculous claims about these animals and their potential benefit to a reef tank that you mentioned?

Joe

 

[greenbean36191]

My interest in the subject falls more on a naturalized, higher order ecosystem approach. It appears that you are of the belief that any additional biodiversity is a simple bio-load increase.

Not necessarily. I'm a big fan of biology over technology, but I think the key is that you have to have a clearly defined problem and then pick animals that specifically address that problem. This system, at least how I've seen it portrayed doesn't really seem to do that. To me it seems more like a solution searching for a problem.

I certainly enjoy sponges and tunicates that appear in my system, but I don't really expect them to have any real benefit to the system and I don't try to create areas "ideal" for them.

Could you specifically quote and rebut the unsubstantiated and often ridiculous claims about these animals and their potential benefit to a reef tank that you mentioned?

I only skimmed through his book a few years ago, so I can't directly quote him from that, but I'll list a few things he either implies or states as I recall. I'll also try to quote from his website where I can. If you have his book handy, and I misrepresent his claims, correct me.

1) You find most of the sponges on a coral reef in a cryptic zone with low light and flow. "I am not referring to sections of the typical captive reef sump. These sumps have traditionally been very harsh environments with strong currents....The cryptic habitats I am referring too are special no light weak current habitats that are setup specifically for promoting sponge growth from live rocks."

There are two problems with that. First, one study estimated that roughly 50% of sponges on the GBR housed photosymbionts. At least half of the sponges on the reef obviously don't live in some dark zone. Second, is an issue he tries to defend on his webpage. There is no low light, low flow cryptic zone on the reef. There are cryptic habitats, but all that means is that they're not immediately obvious. They can occur in high flow and high light areas like in coral branches or under coral heads. The cryptic habitats are intermingled amongst everything else on the reef, not in a zone, and being cryptic doesn't imply anything about the flow or light regime.

2) "This filtration concept utilizes the cryptofauna located within the cryptic zones of the tropical reef platform. These animals are naturally suited to consume dissolved organics and bacteria."

Yes, they're well suited to eat lots of bacteria, but tunicates and nonphotosynthetic sponges aren't significant consumers of dissolved organics. Like I mentioned above, they're net producers.

3) "The present sponge and sea squirt concept is centered on the idea that a major component of the natural reef habitat has been under emphasized or has been completely lacking in many captive reef methodologies. The missing component has been the cryptic no light and very weak current habitat." "The utilization of cryptic animal organisms to process the wastes created by the shallow water bright light organisms broadens the understanding of tropical reef food webs."

How does it do that? Although he uses the term "food web," the implication is that there is more of a chain with a missing link that sponges and tunicate fill. To see how valid that claim is all you really have to do is compare the trophic role of these animals to other animals that already exsist in most tanks. They're feeding primarily on bacteria, protists, and phytoplankton. The first two are also major components of the diets of most corals, so no gap there. Phytoplankton blooms generally aren't an issue in most tanks, and there are many animals such as clams, some serpent stars, and "pods" of various sorts that are facultative feeders on the stuff. Again, no missing link. Even if we accept his claim that they feed significantly on dissolved nutrients, again they're also taken up largely by corals, anemones, clams, and various types of algae.

4) "The snorkler and scuba divers vision of a tropical reef may be somewhat limited in scope simply due to the fact that the majority of inhabitable reef structure is not easily accessable to casual observation." "In fact the majority of inhabitable surface structure within a reef platform occur within cryptic habitats."

The claim that sponges are everywhere on the natural reef, but you just don't see them also brings up two questions: 1) If they're found in habitats you can't see then how can you tell they aren't already prolific in most reef tanks? 2) Why isn't the coral and LR structure of a reef tank already a suitable habitat for sponges and tunicates if most of the inhabitable structure of the reef is cryptic?

5) I can't actually attribute this one to Tyree since I don't remember if he addressed it or not, but someone who was writing on the system talked a little bit about toxicity, and decided it wasn't really an issue.

Tunicates and sponges both have to contend with predators and crowding, and both do it chemically. Both use allelopathy to preserve their real estate, so they have the same issues as coral allelopathy. To protect themselves from predation, sponges also make some nasty metabolites. While they shouldn't be an issue as long as the sponge stays intact, if it gets damaged somehow you could have some nasty toxins released. The tank-nuking toxins people worry about from dead nudibranchs are actually toxins from their food sponges. Tunicates take a slightly different route and mostly just accumulate chemicals in their bodies, including the heavy metal vanadium. Again, it's not much of a problem as long as they're intact. The thing with them is that many of them, primarily colonial forms have programmed senescense, meaning there is a fairly regular cycle where large parts, if not all of the colony die off at once. At that point, everything accumulated goes back into the water at once. With some species the cycle can be as short as a year, but obvioulsy it can also be longer.

Basically, my main contentions with the system are that you're adding animals that are direct competitors with the animals you're trying to grow, without providing any unique benefit. You're also adding another issue of potential toxicity rather than solving anything. I think if your main concern is removing dissolved and particulate organics, a sump full of Aiptasia would be a lot more efficient. They're net consumers of dissolved organics and assimilate much more due to their growth rate.

 

[mr.wilson]

I disagree that it's "a solution searching for a problem". The problem is we aren't replicating nature effectively. The answer is to follow natures recipe closer. It's simple inductive reasoning, as nature has provided us with the answer.

It looks like neither have us have read the book in question, much less "most of his work". I don't see anything "ridiculous or unsubstantiated" quoted here. Criticism would be better focused on the execution of his system, rather than a vague conceptual outline.

The quotes you offered, appear to be a summary of his concept, and not representative of the body of work. It's easy to pick apart extremities and generalizations, taken out of context. Yes, he claimed that "You find most of the sponges on a coral reef in a cryptic zone with low light and flow", but if we accept your reference that, "one study estimated that roughly 50% of sponges on the GBR housed photosymbionts ", that doesn't put him too far off the mark. That's without considering that this was just one study, in one geographical area.

I don't think these discussions in the advanced forum benefit from over-scrutiny, to the point of losing the concept. Some latitude must be given in order to preserve the creative process. Spelling and semantics shouldn't be allowed to derail progress. Of course, at the other end of the spectrum, you get wild claims in one line posts, but they're usually quite transparent, and carry little influence (unless backed by a well financed marketing program).

Our discussion is about what transpires in a cryptic or benthic zone. Your contributions on sponge and ascidian biology are welcomed, but in your efforts, I think you missed the direction of this thread. By picking out a fragment of thought about sponges or tunicates, you overlooked the whole ecosystemic picture. We're not talking about building a sponge farm. We're talking about filling the voids in our systems with greater biodiversity, to create a more complete hierarchy.

Our captive reefs are built with rock that has had most of the life stripped from it, and random corals that have been groomed. We can restore some of these missing constituents by fostering the growth of benthic invertebrates. Sponges and tunicates are just two members of this menagerie, both of which are physically removed from harvested live rock and corals. A greater part of the benthic zone, is comprised of surpulid polychaete worms, gastropods, echinoderms, bivalves and zooplankton. These are all model detrivorous citizens. Sponges and tunicates are complimentary members of the food chain, not super-organisms. Their beauty, rarity, and conspicuous size puts them at the forefront of conversation.

The idea is appealing from the standpoint of technology and methodology, as well as the natural fascination with sea life. If the benthic zone offers no significant contribution to the water quality, nutrition, and health of the display animals, then it still has value as a secondary display. One that is likely to be more representative of a mirror to nature, than our often contrived "reef" tanks are.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I disagree that answer is to always follow natures recipe closer. Our captive reefs are at best marginally representative of the ocean. It is a nice idea to try and mimic nature, but there are just too many missing links that could never be mended. The logic therefore follows that we have to do things much differently to keep a thriving ecosystem.

It is a nice idea to try and put as many missing links back into the system, but the realization must be made that sometimes adding complexity to achieve a goal gets you no closer to the goal.

I think greenbean makes some very valid points with regards to the "work" that these cryptic zones do with respect to what they "consume" in the process. The net product is either marginally positive or marginally negative but I do not see any great benefit that is being offered other than the ability to say "wow look I have a bit more biodiversity than you do".

I am firmly in the camp that "they are nice but don't do much". Unless somebody shows me that my dark sponge and tubeworm filled sump is horrible for my overall system health, then I will continue to enjoy the stuff that thrives there.

mr.wilson and greenbean, thank you for a very information biology related thread.

 

[mr.wilson]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9218556#post9218556 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
I disagree that answer is to always follow natures recipe closer. Our captive reefs are at best marginally representative of the ocean. It is a nice idea to try and mimic nature, but there are just too many missing links that could never be mended. The logic therefore follows that we have to do things much differently to keep a thriving ecosystem.

It is a nice idea to try and put as many missing links back into the system, but the realization must be made that sometimes adding complexity to achieve a goal gets you no closer to the goal.

I think greenbean makes some very valid points with regards to the "work" that these cryptic zones do with respect to what they "consume" in the process. The net product is either marginally positive or marginally negative but I do not see any great benefit that is being offered other than the ability to say "wow look I have a bit more biodiversity than you do".

I am firmly in the camp that "they are nice but don't do much". Unless somebody shows me that my dark sponge and tubeworm filled sump is horrible for my overall system health, then I will continue to enjoy the stuff that thrives there.

mr.wilson and greenbean, thank you for a very information biology related thread.

Well, I can't say that I entirely disagree with your opinion. It may sound like I'm preaching an "all natural system", but in reality, I practice a hybridized system that includes (almost) all that modern technology has to offer. As the saying goes, "tread softly and carry a big stick". I include many naturalized zones in the mix, but I'm not prepared to put down my stick and go off the grid (with the exception of a few small tanks I have).

Unfortunately, most of the equipment available to us in the hobby falls into your "they are nice but don't do much" category. Part of the problem, is it's a lot easier to measure your failure than your success. If I unplug my ozonizer, protein skimmer or UV sterilizer, the fish probably won't get sick, and algae won't proliferate overnight, but my faith in them is founded in fact, tempered with personal experience, so I will continue their use.

My attraction to cryptic zone filtration was the fact that benthic invertebrates appear on their own, as they are needed, like the weeds that grow between the cracks of the sidewalk. Some people would spray these weeds with Roundup, while I would replace them with a "friendly" weed like creeping thyme. The Roundup user and the herb grower are both satisfied with their results (but one of them lives longer ).

It really comes down to how you personally measure success. Some hobbyists have bare bottom tanks, obsess over detritus removal, perch corals on egg-crate pedestals, use eerie blue lighting, and practice a daily ritual of chemical dosing. Many of these tanks have remarkable coral growth rates, with more color than a christmas tree; while others measure success according to how much their tank resembles a reef. I prefer the latter, but that's just my personal taste.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Thank you... well said (though I tend to be the roundup guy once in a while )

 

[Redstratplayer]

I am no expert infact i am just a high school freshman but....................... our text books say that a more diverse ecosystem is more stable.

Is this true and if so dosent it mean that adding a cryptic zone or any other natrual zone ( mangrove etc...) makes the system more stable?

 

[BeanAnimal]

Sounds like the textbook is full of it

More complex does not always mean more stable. Very simply put, the demise of a species in an ecostystem can destroy the balance of the system or fuel a chain reaction that damages the system.

To be fair your textbook should have stated that in many cases, diversity can cause destabilization

 

[Redstratplayer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9233521#post9233521 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
Sounds like the textbook is full of it

More complex does not always mean more stable. Very simply put, the demise of a species in an ecostystem can destroy the balance of the system or fuel a chain reaction that damages the system.

To be fair your textbook should have stated that in many cases, diversity can cause destabilization

almost every thing my text book says is BS.
It was writen in 1984 :eek1: :eek1: :eek1:

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[BeanAnimal]

The point is that EITHER could be true depending on MANY things My guess is that the authors of the text book (like so many text book authors) have a rosy picture of diversity of ANY kind, be it plant, animal or emotional. In the real world many of us find that text books are often drivel when it comes to anything other than regurgitation of hard science or fact I.E. the conclusions drawn are usually in line with the personal feelings or politics of the author or publisher and not necessarily the logical conclusion of the science. You will find references in almost any modern educational text to "global warming" and see many conclusions drawn from the references. In most cases, not based on science but the rather the opinions of the authors. Mind you, the same authors were the ones talking about the coming ICE AGE in the second or third printing of the text (as that was what was a popular doomsday topic then).

Opps sorry... back to gloomy sumps.

 

[mr.wilson]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9234642#post9234642 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
The point is that EITHER could be true depending on MANY things My guess is that the authors of the text book (like so many text book authors) have a rosy picture of diversity of ANY kind, be it plant, animal or emotional. In the real world many of us find that text books are often drivel when it comes to anything other than regurgitation of hard science or fact I.E. the conclusions drawn are usually in line with the personal feelings or politics of the author or publisher and not necessarily the logical conclusion of the science. You will find references in almost any modern educational text to "global warming" and see many conclusions drawn from the references. In most cases, not based on science but the rather the opinions of the authors. Mind you, the same authors were the ones talking about the coming ICE AGE in the second or third printing of the text (as that was what was a popular doomsday topic then).

Opps sorry... back to gloomy sumps.

I had suspected that you didn't believe in the concept of global warming.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Nah I believe in global warming... just not the man is the cause To much hard science points the other way. Take geo politics and feel good science away and your left with mother nature. The mighty Sahara was recently a lush tropical land. Global warming turned it into sand just slightly before the first internal combustion engine or can of hairspray

Anyway, did I say I get a LOT of enjoyment out of my cryptic zone I will be installing a mirror behind the sump (I can not see a lot of it because I can not get my head in my stand) and red lights at some point to see what goes on in the dark.

 

[marsh]

overflow cryptic zone

overflow cryptic zone

I have wondered if a "cryptic zone" may be created in an overflow. Overflows are often as deep as the aquarium but the outflow somewhat near the surface. Current is minimal and light could be made "less than 1%". The depths of overflows are often covered with sponges and amphipods/copepods. Perhaps, increasing the surface area on which cryptic organisms can grow might do the trick....i.e. add some branch live rock.

Obviously, Tyree's stuff has worked for him.

 

[mano1192]

Re: overflow cryptic zone

Re: overflow cryptic zone

I have seen other people use their overflows for DSB's and I think it would be a good area for a cryptic as well. I think I may have to try that.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9237055#post9237055 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by marsh
I have wondered if a "cryptic zone" may be created in an overflow. Overflows are often as deep as the aquarium but the outflow somewhat near the surface. Current is minimal and light could be made "less than 1%". The depths of overflows are often covered with sponges and amphipods/copepods. Perhaps, increasing the surface area on which cryptic organisms can grow might do the trick....i.e. add some branch live rock.

Obviously, Tyree's stuff has worked for him.

 

[mr.wilson]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9235373#post9235373 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
Nah I believe in global warming... just not the man is the cause To much hard science points the other way. Take geo politics and feel good science away and your left with mother nature. The mighty Sahara was recently a lush tropical land. Global warming turned it into sand just slightly before the first internal combustion engine or can of hairspray

Anyway, did I say I get a LOT of enjoyment out of my cryptic zone I will be installing a mirror behind the sump (I can not see a lot of it because I can not get my head in my stand) and red lights at some point to see what goes on in the dark.

Alright. I guess your not so crazy after all.