Cryptic Zone Filtration

[chris wright]

Thanks for the info and honest opinion. Im all for the idea of trying to have as much diversity in the system as possible. I know that we cant create an exact environment, but why not enjoy what can be done.

 

[zoozimmy]

wow

 

[Pirate@40]

There are a lot of ways to balance a teter toter it seems. Both mangrove growers and cryptic guys claim you can eliminate skimming. Both would seem better if you got the room. One thing I don't get is the people who insist that you must export stuff from the system by harvesting algae. If you have plants, the nitrates and phosphates are built into the cellular structure. Unless the plant dies, it should stay there. And who is going to let a big dead mangrove or other plant stay in their system?

 

[mr.wilson]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9922068#post9922068 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Pirate@40
There are a lot of ways to balance a teter toter it seems. Both mangrove growers and cryptic guys claim you can eliminate skimming. Both would seem better if you got the room. One thing I don't get is the people who insist that you must export stuff from the system by harvesting algae. If you have plants, the nitrates and phosphates are built into the cellular structure. Unless the plant dies, it should stay there. And who is going to let a big dead mangrove or other plant stay in their system?

That's not entirely true. Macro algae "leaks" its' nutrient content back into the water at night during respiration. An eighteen hour photoperiod limits this, and assures more removal than return.

Macro algae also has a continual life cycle. As the upper layers of new growth flourish, the lower, old growth, slowly decays. As it decays, it releases it's nutrient catch. The die off is gradual so many don't even notice it.

It's best to grow macro algae in shallow colonies so new growth doesn't block illumination to lower, old growth, ceasing photosynthesis. I use caulerpa, rather than chaetomorpha, as it grows much faster. As long as you don't let it grow into a big ball, it won't crash/sexually reproduce and release its' nutrient load.

 

[Pirate@40]

OK Wilson, so you're essentially pruning your plants before parts of them die,to maintain a constant level of plant. If your plant was increasing in size over time, your argument doesn't hold. It sounds to me like mangroves may be a good answer. As they're net change is to get bigger, the net loss to the water column is less phosphates and nitrates. In this case you prune leaves to to keep photosynthesis in check. Since we're not doing anything nuclear in our aquariums, conversation of mass applies. No mass comes from light on the levels we're discussing.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Mangroves are not an efficient means of export.

 

[mr.wilson]

My comments were in regard to macro algae.

As Beananimal has suggested, mangroves rank poorly in the list of export methods. Water changes are likely to be of more value.

Mangrove trees grow very slowly in saltwater. They are saltwater tolerant, but excel in soil with freshwater or brackish salinity. The main concern is providing enough magnesium.

Most mangroves in sumps are poorly illuminated and grow one leaf a month. After a year they stand a couple inches taller, and require no trimming. Most of their energy is spent sending out runners.

I consider them to be valuable media for benthic invertebrates and an important part of a closed ecosystem, but they don't compare to macro algae growth and subsequent export.

 

[Pirate@40]

Most of their energy is spent sending out runners.

Are you suggesting that the runners aren't made up of some materials you don't want in the water column?

 

[mr.wilson]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9927610#post9927610 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Pirate@40
Are you suggesting that the runners aren't made up of some materials you don't want in the water column?

You kinda lost me with the double negative, but I feel the runners serve more purpose than the rest of the tree for captive systems.

Mangroves get full tropical sunlight in the wild. They grow out in the opening so they aren't shaded by the canopy of the Rainforest. In captive systems, they usually get only 27 watts of light. I think they would grow faster and export more if they received 400 watt lighting, but I don't know if it's worth the resources.

The other growth limiting factor is the constant water level. If you raise them up a few inches every two months, they will continue to send out new runners in search of water and a holdfast. The rhizome will then harden as it's exposed to atmospheric air. Not only does the plant grow faster, it also takes on the whimsical shape they are known for.

Mangroves in the wild usually grow at a lower salinity than sea water, so captive systems cause them to work overtime pumping out excess salts. This is complicated by the lack of daily rain to keep the leaves clean in our aquariums. As a result the stomata (pores on the undersides of the leaves) are restricted and Co2 take-up is limited. Even an eager hobbyist will have trouble keeping up with the daily task of wiping the leaves with freshwater. A misting system could be incorporated with Fogit nozzles, but few would make the effort.

I use mangroves in my refugium and allow the network of roots to act as a site and nutrient source for benthic invertebrates like worms, sponges, and tunicates. Thus far, my filters have been designed to do a lot in a small space, but I have a few I'm currently working on that can afford a large mangrove area with proper lighting. If they don't make much impact in the end, they at least look good and have no negative impact.

I posted some pictures of mangrove roots in a benthic zone in the thread linked below. The trees are doing poorly above the water line due to space and lighting constraints, but the roots are doing great. If I potted the trees, it would divert root growth to the upper regions of the tree, but I don't really have the room for them to grow up.

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=969713&perpage=25&pagenumber=4

 

[mrbncal]

I have been following the "teachings" of mr wilson and started my 75 rebuild with the modified duplex sump. Modified in that I dont have a screen on the fuge deck or floor and there is no baffle on the back of the eggcrate structure. So water enters the duplex area and flows, basically where it wants. (I think this will have to be changed). I did not have a uv lite so I have not added any aiptasia to the overflow yet but there are numerous sponges popping up in there. Chaeto growing under 1 twisted fl. lite bulb in a clamp on alum shop fixture. Flow thru the sump is matched to the ER skimmer Sedra pump rate. There is a small amount of overflow.

Heres some shots tell me what you think.....

 

[mr.wilson]

Looks good to me. I can see that the chaeto and eggcrate are trapping the stray bubbles from your drain and skimmer. This works better than any number of dams and weirs that only bring the bubbles to the surface.

It looks well illuminated, so you should get fast growth without die-off from dark areas (overgrowth & shadowing).

Start adding some non-reef safe inverts like (brown) hermit crabs and (green serpent) starfish. These "bad guys" are terrors in a display tank, but great detrivores in a sump/refugium. Bristle worms are another asset, if you can find a donor tank.

Now is a good time to suck up to your local LFS for some free benthic invert starters. Ask them to give you some hitchhikers attached to the bottom of their corals, and offer to bring them back twice as many in a few months.

A few pieces of good live rock will also help speed things along, as sponges and squirts etc. have a long ride, with a few barriers, from the display (where they currently reside) to their new home in the benthic zone.

Under the right conditions, xenia can grow faster than aiptasia, and at least you can sell what you harvest. The main benefit of aiptasia, is their ability to actively collect stray food from the display tank. They can be as effective as a filter sock, without the work.

 

[mrbncal]

Thanks for the encouragement Mr Wilson.

I have a cool red brittle star in the sump right now. I will move him when he grows his legs back. It was a freebie from the LFS. Came in a shipment all banged up so I asked if I could have him. They though I was crazy. Good news is hes got 5 new legs popping out!

Theres quite a few bristle worms in the sand layer down there. By the way the sand layer came from the display. The oolitic sand had a hard time staying put with the Koralia 4 pushing things around. The result is a veerrryy thin layer of sand on the bottom of the sump. i keep thinking I should vacum it out of there but the worms and pods seem to like it.

I have a huge flat rock full of glove polyps that I placed directly in front of the overflow. My thinking was that they might aid in some filtering. As far as the xenia goes, does the overflow area need to be lit if I keep it in there? Also do you think the aiptasia is a good idae if I dont have a UV light on teh return?

 

[mr.wilson]

Nice open rock-work. The sparse design leaves little in the way of a "cryptic" zone in the display tank, so you will benefit from a specialized benthic zone in the sump. The old school, "wall of rock" style offers lots of sites for benthic invertebrates, but has poor flow dynamics and traps detritus.

Xenia needs light to grow, no matter how much food is available. Aiptasia, on the other hand can get by with indirect light, as long as they have a constant supply of POC.

I would go ahead with the aiptasia, as long as you have a few physical barriers along the way. A 24 hour photo period or subdued lighting will stop them from reproducing. Just make sure they reproduce initially to establish a significant colony.

 

[kolokefalo]

Just my humble opinion in this matter is the nutrient poor water on coral reefs doesnt just arrive there that way accidentally. You could look at the deeper water areas surrounding coral reefs as a type of benthic zone.
I am by no means a marine biologist, however I did spend 7 summers as a sponge diver in the Gulf of Mexico. The best place to find Loofa, wool, sponges was usually surrounded by all sorts of barnacles and filter feeders and generally received very low light.

Is it not reasonable to assume this area of the gulf provided the means of export and biological filtration necessary to create the "nutrient poor" water which would then travel over to the shallower, more well lit reef area?

 

[mr.wilson]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10188393#post10188393 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by kolokefalo
Just my humble opinion in this matter is the nutrient poor water on coral reefs doesnt just arrive there that way accidentally. You could look at the deeper water areas surrounding coral reefs as a type of benthic zone.
I am by no means a marine biologist, however I did spend 7 summers as a sponge diver in the Gulf of Mexico. The best place to find Loofa, wool, sponges was usually surrounded by all sorts of barnacles and filter feeders and generally received very low light.

Is it not reasonable to assume this area of the gulf provided the means of export and biological filtration necessary to create the "nutrient poor" water which would then travel over to the shallower, more well lit reef area?

You are correct. Each zone is part of the food chain. Tidal areas are nutrient rich, while deep reefs are nutrient poor.

The sea is a single entity with many zones working in unison. We must strive to replicate as many of these biomes as possible for a "naturalized" aquarium.

It is foolish to think that this delicate process can be sufficiently replicated by mechanical means. It is now a matter of "how large does the benthic zone and refugium need to be to support a reef display"?

 

[greenbean36191]

The water over coral reefs is nutrient poor because it's primarily surface water that's come across the ocean from major upwelling areas. The nutrients have already been used up, mainly by phytoplankton, by the time they get to the reefs. Water coming from inland has its nutrients stripped by mangroves and seagrasses.

The deep water washing up onto coral reefs is only periodic and isn't nutrient poor. It also helps to accelerate coral growth.

So, yes in most cases the nutrients are being removed biologically before they get to the reefs, but it's not "filter feeders" that are the key players. The reason you find filter feeders where you do in nature is in large part because they're competing with the dominant shallow water organisms. Corals and algae have the advantage in shallow water and sponges have the advantage where light is harder to come by.

 

[Serioussnaps]

All due respect....you need to ditch that RIO!

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10162401#post10162401 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mrbncal
I have been following the "teachings" of mr wilson and started my 75 rebuild with the modified duplex sump. Modified in that I dont have a screen on the fuge deck or floor and there is no baffle on the back of the eggcrate structure. So water enters the duplex area and flows, basically where it wants. (I think this will have to be changed). I did not have a uv lite so I have not added any aiptasia to the overflow yet but there are numerous sponges popping up in there. Chaeto growing under 1 twisted fl. lite bulb in a clamp on alum shop fixture. Flow thru the sump is matched to the ER skimmer Sedra pump rate. There is a small amount of overflow.

Heres some shots tell me what you think.....

 

[kolokefalo]

Once again regarding this topic of how effective a "benthic" or "Cryptic" zone is I have to lean on mother nature. Nature always finds a balance to sustain life. If there were not enough food for the livestock which accumulate in this cryptic/benthic zone to form...they would not appear. Once they do appear we can rely on mother nature to allow them to multiply enough to sustain a balance between their reproduction and available foods to be consumed.

As far as the arguement goes towards these organisms being in competition for the same food sources as coral, it is a good topic for discussion. However, I am a firm believer in competetive exclusion. To put it simply someone with a well manicured and beautiful lawn devoid of weeds is providing the same food sources for the weeds as he is providing for the grass he wishes to grow. The grass essentially "chokes out" the weeds, even though a weed requires MUCH less of the same food in order to proliferate. They are being outcompeted for the available food. Thus the theory of competitive exclusion. Every refugium works through this very principle. The macroalgae in the refugium starves out the nuissance algae in our display tanks even though nuissance algae requires less "food" to proliferate.

It is not unreasonable then to assume the corals, etc we wish to have thrive in a reef tank will continue to do so with a "bethic"/"cryptic" sump installed in the aquarium as well. Remember, the benthic/cryptic zone is placed in the sump in which most of the water which provides this zone with nutrients have already been somewhat depleted by the corals and the skimmer. They are in essence receiving a lower amount of available food than the corals. The corals have the benefit of receiving these foodstuffs directly from the main tank as well as after the caulerpa/chaeto bed.

As to the discussion of the effectiveness of the benthic/cryptic zone. Well, I suppose as more people try these zones the more standard "baseline" there will be in order to measure its effectiveness.

Remember, nearly everything we hold true in life started out as heresy to someone.

Peace brothers.

 

[mr.wilson]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10196001#post10196001 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by kolokefalo
Once again regarding this topic of how effective a "benthic" or "Cryptic" zone is I have to lean on mother nature. Nature always finds a balance to sustain life. If there were not enough food for the livestock which accumulate in this cryptic/benthic zone to form...they would not appear. Once they do appear we can rely on mother nature to allow them to multiply enough to sustain a balance between their reproduction and available foods to be consumed.

As far as the arguement goes towards these organisms being in competition for the same food sources as coral, it is a good topic for discussion. However, I am a firm believer in competetive exclusion. To put it simply someone with a well manicured and beautiful lawn devoid of weeds is providing the same food sources for the weeds as he is providing for the grass he wishes to grow. The grass essentially "chokes out" the weeds, even though a weed requires MUCH less of the same food in order to proliferate. They are being outcompeted for the available food. Thus the theory of competitive exclusion. Every refugium works through this very principle. The macroalgae in the refugium starves out the nuissance algae in our display tanks even though nuissance algae requires less "food" to proliferate.

It is not unreasonable then to assume the corals, etc we wish to have thrive in a reef tank will continue to do so with a "bethic"/"cryptic" sump installed in the aquarium as well. Remember, the benthic/cryptic zone is placed in the sump in which most of the water which provides this zone with nutrients have already been somewhat depleted by the corals and the skimmer. They are in essence receiving a lower amount of available food than the corals. The corals have the benefit of receiving these foodstuffs directly from the main tank as well as after the caulerpa/chaeto bed.

As to the discussion of the effectiveness of the benthic/cryptic zone. Well, I suppose as more people try these zones the more standard "baseline" there will be in order to measure its effectiveness.

Remember, nearly everything we hold true in life started out as heresy to someone.

Peace brothers.

Very well said.

The nature of flow dynamics in reef tanks provides a remote refugium with just as much time at the feed trough as the display. Prepared foods quickly overflow to the sump before the display tank denizens get a chance at it, so they are not existing only on secondary food stuffs like nitrate, phosphate, and bacteria.

For this reason, some people employ the use of aiptasia and xenia colonies in the overflow to act as a biological/mechanical filter. This zone is in direct competition with the display inverts, but they utilize excess food that will not directly or indirectly benefit the display tank. They reduce nitrogenous compounds to less toxic forms, and eventually with help from localized bacteria, no residual is left.

Even in captive reefs, nature will populate the tank with organisms to do environmental clean-up. As with your weed analogy, nuisance algae and benthic invertebrates appear out of nowhere as opportunistic feeders. Their very presence in the sump indicates that there is an excess to be reduced and removed. If the corals in the display tank were capable of consuming the excess nutrients, then benthic inverts would never have the opportunity to appear.

The idea of benthic inverts competing and robbing corals of nutrients is silly, as there is no shortage of the food they consume. They are primarily detrivores and bacterivores. The only caveat to having them in your system is the potential allelopathy. Even the most elaborate, well established, benthic/cryptic zones have not proven to have measurable allelopathic conflicts.

It's possible to run a very efficient tank with little room for worms, squirts, sponges, algae and zooplankton, but not in a way that would resemble the aesthetics of a natural reef. This is accomplished through highly mechanized systems with frequent water changes, no substrate, and heavy chemical dependence. The naturalized systems we are talking about in this thread use little in the way of chemical filtration or supplementation, very infrequent water changes, and a basic feeding schedule.

Which system to choose is a matter of personal taste. One is clinical and cage-like, while the other offers an ecosystem environment. One is high maintenance and cost prohibitive, while the other is low maintenance and accessible to everyone.

 

[greenbean36191]

As far as the arguement goes towards these organisms being in competition for the same food sources as coral, it is a good topic for discussion. However, I am a firm believer in competetive exclusion.

Competitive exclusion only applies if the two organisms share a close enough niche and there is no disturbance. That's not the case here.

If the corals in the display tank were capable of consuming the excess nutrients, then benthic inverts would never have the opportunity to appear.

Not quite true. To go back to the weed analogy, does the presence of weeds in your lawn mean that the grass couldn't have used all of the water you sprayed on it? No. All it means is that one species has some competitive advantage in using a resource. Sponges and tunicates are better at collecting bacteria than corals.

The idea of benthic inverts competing and robbing corals of nutrients is silly, as there is no shortage of the food they consume. They are primarily detrivores and bacterivores.

Bacterioplankton isn't rare, but it's not dense and corals need a lot of it. Unlike sponges and tunicates which actively pump water through specialized filters to concentrate the stuff, corals sit and wait for it to bump into them and stick.

The only caveat to having them in your system is the potential allelopathy. Even the most elaborate, well established, benthic/cryptic zones have not proven to have measurable allelopathic conflicts.

And how do you measure this in an uncontrolled experiment? It's also far from the only drawback. They're also turning beneficial bacteria into soluble nutrients, concentrating and releasing heavy metals, directly competing for food, etc. Meanwhile they are providing little to no obvious benefit. The things they're removing aren't things that need to be removed.

It's possible to run a very efficient tank with little room for worms, squirts, sponges, algae and zooplankton, but not in a way that would resemble the aesthetics of a natural reef....
Which system to choose is a matter of personal taste. One is clinical and cage-like, while the other offers an ecosystem environment. One is high maintenance and cost prohibitive, while the other is low maintenance and accessible to everyone.

Clearly this is a false dichotomy. People have been running "natural" reefs for nearly 100 years without the help of fancy chemicals and mechanical filtration, and they never needed "benthic zones" to do it either. Plenty of people still run their tanks this way, including Eric Borneman, several locals I know of, and myself. Just because expensive, high tech reefs are what's been en vogue for the last 10 years or so doesn't mean it was ever the only other way.