Cyano Scrubber Experiment
- Thread starter dg3147
- Start date
Originally Posted by tmz
Do you have data or studies to support your assertion that cyano species capable of fixing nitrogen are in our tanks
Given the ubiquity of cyano in both aquatic and terrestrial environments -- not to mention the atmosphere, where sampling has turned up dozens of species of cyano, some adrift at altitudes as high as 10km -- I think the onus is clearly on the skeptics to demonstrate that cyano capable of fixing N is absent. However, as this is obviously impossible, I would be willing to accept a plausible theoretical mechanism for the exclusion of these species, but not others, from marine and FW aquariums.
I am serenely confident that no such mechanism exists on paper, let alone IRL, but I'd love to be proven wrong... My understanding advances most rapidly when I'm confronted with my own errors and forced to rethink or refine my position. That's why I haven't been shy about making myself a target -- I was hoping somebody around here would be able to keep me on my toes, but so far, I'm not having much luck.
So had to read all that to get to the answer which is no for those with less patience and time.
Do you have data or studies to support your assertion that cyano species capable of fixing nitrogen are in our tanks
Given the ubiquity of cyano in both aquatic and terrestrial environments -- not to mention the atmosphere, where sampling has turned up dozens of species of cyano, some adrift at altitudes as high as 10km -- I think the onus is clearly on the skeptics to demonstrate that cyano capable of fixing N is absent. However, as this is obviously impossible, I would be willing to accept a plausible theoretical mechanism for the exclusion of these species, but not others, from marine and FW aquariums.
I am serenely confident that no such mechanism exists on paper, let alone IRL, but I'd love to be proven wrong... My understanding advances most rapidly when I'm confronted with my own errors and forced to rethink or refine my position. That's why I haven't been shy about making myself a target -- I was hoping somebody around here would be able to keep me on my toes, but so far, I'm not having much luck.
So had to read all that to get to the answer which is no for those with less patience and time.
Next time, Google before you rant
Too much , nothing in my post vaguely resembles a rant. Simply questions. I wouldn't waste the energy on a rant in a discussion with you . There's nothing to gain by dropping to the level of personal attack . That's seems to be your strongest suit and you should stop it.
Too much , nothing in my post vaguely resembles a rant. Simply questions. I wouldn't waste the energy on a rant in a discussion with you . There's nothing to gain by dropping to the level of personal attack . That's seems to be your strongest suit and you should stop it.
The point was to see if u can remove the bulk of your cyano problem by exporting it in a way may more efficient than siphoning.
I'm skeptical that a cyano scrubber will get the results you are hoping for. It's invasive and ime when it's in one place it's elsewhere in the closed system. It may have some application though and I wouldn't discourage you from trying it if you favor it over other ways to deal with it.
I haven't seen it in my system for years except rarely over a patch of unattended detritus accumulation or where two corals are bumping and damaging each other. I don't dose ammonium,nitrate or any other form of nitrogen but do feed heavily including organic carbon.
Ammonia in the system is undetectable as is nitrite and nitrate with Po4 constantly testing at .03ppm or less.
For those who advocate some form of nitrogen dosing to control cyano and maintain some "optimal" proportion of nitrogen and phosphorous , I'd suggest they show us or tell us what they're reef aquariums look like rather than making gallactic leaps into black holes by extroplating they're favorite notions from water treatment applications and fresh water systems or other forms of pedantry about the redfield ratio .
I'm skeptical that a cyano scrubber will get the results you are hoping for. It's invasive and ime when it's in one place it's elsewhere in the closed system. It may have some application though and I wouldn't discourage you from trying it if you favor it over other ways to deal with it.
I haven't seen it in my system for years except rarely over a patch of unattended detritus accumulation or where two corals are bumping and damaging each other. I don't dose ammonium,nitrate or any other form of nitrogen but do feed heavily including organic carbon.
Ammonia in the system is undetectable as is nitrite and nitrate with Po4 constantly testing at .03ppm or less.
For those who advocate some form of nitrogen dosing to control cyano and maintain some "optimal" proportion of nitrogen and phosphorous , I'd suggest they show us or tell us what they're reef aquariums look like rather than making gallactic leaps into black holes by extroplating they're favorite notions from water treatment applications and fresh water systems or other forms of pedantry about the redfield ratio .
tmz said:
You picked poor ground to make a stand: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And speaking of evidence...
An excellent FW aquarium micrograph with heterocysts clearly visible.
Saltwater aquarium micrographs. Note that lyngbya spp. are nonheterocystous N fixers known to grow on coral reefs in the wild. As part of the coral holobiont and one of the most common types of cyano found in the marine environment, it's probably in every reef tank in the world.
tmz said:
The whole "you can't control where the algae is going to grow" argument was leveled against algae scrubbers long ago and proven false, and dg3147's successful "migration" of cyano off the substrate -- which is where it should want to grow -- is cause for optimism.
Besides, you don't have to eliminate cyano from other areas of the tank -- I agree with you, that would be impossible -- just provide a better environment for it so it grows there instead of in the DT.
tmz said:
As I noted in the phosphate thread, carbon dosing promotes the growth of photoheterotrophic bacteria, which I know will outcompete other substrate bacteria for organic carbon, and I strongly suspect but have not yet found evidence that they will also outcompete cyano if supplied with sufficient DOC.
tmz said:
34cygni in post #32 in this very thread said:
I believe any further remarks on my part would just be gilding the lily.
Well, it should be no surprise that my position/quote "stand "is misrepresented given the ongoing plethora of quotes from google stuff without context or relevance.
I indicated a tendency to think N fixation by cyano bacteria occurred in reef tanks but noted I had no evidence to support that thinking and asked if you did since you presented it as a fact.
You chose to call my post "rant", nonsensically and derisively. You went on about an argument ad ignoratum , which I never made.
I responded to the longwinded response in an effort to summarize what you said which is you had no evidence.
Now , that position shifts with weak cites from a fresh water planted tank forum offering spirulina algae ,a fresh water species with heterocysts as evidence . It also includes a reference to the lyngbya species which is absolutely nothing like the red slime algae most salt water aquarist experience. I've actually seen it in a reef tank .
I think the op shoud try the cyano scrubber it if he wants. I question why one would set up any enviroment attached to a reef system that provides favorable conditions for cyano bacteria when low PO4 will cause it to wane. Further it's not the same as turf algae or macroalge so that comparison is useless.
Then there is this; you said all of these things:
"It's not simply low N but a low N
ratio (less than 16:1) that is advantageous to cyano. There are two ways to drop the N ratio: either reduce N or raise P."
the magic N ratio of 16:1 that's the break point between cyano and green algae. Get down below 10:1 and cyano has the edge; get much above 20:1 and green algae has a competitive advantage. But if you stay close to 16:1, neither group of algaes can get ahead of the other. Of course, allowable nutrient concentrations are much lower in a reef tank, but the magic ratio should be the same, as FW algaes are all descended from species that evolved in SW. And note that 16:1 is part of the Redfield ratio of C:N -- 106:16:1.
Magic really?
But then this disclaimer
Just to be clear, I do NOT advocate dosing N to fix a cyano bloom in a reef tank, as messing with macronutrients is way too risky IMHO. To err is human, after all...
That's not clear at all. If it's a magic number how do you get to it. The whole argument is nonsense wihout a point or clear position.
I believe any further remarks on my part would just be gilding the lily.
You may believe that but to me it's more like spreading cow manure on the crabgrass.
I indicated a tendency to think N fixation by cyano bacteria occurred in reef tanks but noted I had no evidence to support that thinking and asked if you did since you presented it as a fact.
You chose to call my post "rant", nonsensically and derisively. You went on about an argument ad ignoratum , which I never made.
I responded to the longwinded response in an effort to summarize what you said which is you had no evidence.
Now , that position shifts with weak cites from a fresh water planted tank forum offering spirulina algae ,a fresh water species with heterocysts as evidence . It also includes a reference to the lyngbya species which is absolutely nothing like the red slime algae most salt water aquarist experience. I've actually seen it in a reef tank .
I think the op shoud try the cyano scrubber it if he wants. I question why one would set up any enviroment attached to a reef system that provides favorable conditions for cyano bacteria when low PO4 will cause it to wane. Further it's not the same as turf algae or macroalge so that comparison is useless.
Then there is this; you said all of these things:
"It's not simply low N but a low N
ratio (less than 16:1) that is advantageous to cyano. There are two ways to drop the N ratio: either reduce N or raise P."the magic N
ratio of 16:1 that's the break point between cyano and green algae. Get down below 10:1 and cyano has the edge; get much above 20:1 and green algae has a competitive advantage. But if you stay close to 16:1, neither group of algaes can get ahead of the other. Of course, allowable nutrient concentrations are much lower in a reef tank, but the magic ratio should be the same, as FW algaes are all descended from species that evolved in SW. And note that 16:1 is part of the Redfield ratio of C:N -- 106:16:1.Magic really?
But then this disclaimer
Just to be clear, I do NOT advocate dosing N to fix a cyano bloom in a reef tank, as messing with macronutrients is way too risky IMHO. To err is human, after all...
That's not clear at all. If it's a magic number how do you get to it. The whole argument is nonsense wihout a point or clear position.
I believe any further remarks on my part would just be gilding the lily.
You may believe that but to me it's more like spreading cow manure on the crabgrass.
tmz said:
You refuse to let go of the idea that I've been making an argument in favor of some specific aquarium management regime when, in fact, I'm trying to describe the way things work so that other hobbyists can make their own decisions about how they run their own tanks. What I said was, "Cyano blooms are all about PO4 -- and looky here, some FW guys caught on to this years ago, and their tactic of N-dosing is consistent with the model I've just presented." ...but you insist on reducing that to, "You should dose N if you have cyano."
The way things work is complex. [Mod Edit: Personal attacks not welcome] I mean, I haven't even brought up the fact that a mature cyanobacterial mat is a phosphorus pump that puts P into the substrate rather than pulling it out...
And in any event, I'm into bioremediation -- hence my interest in cyano scrubbers and DSBs -- and do not like to mess with water chemistry beyond two-part homebrew dosing and some supplementary Fe to keep my algae scrubber in good working order. However, I recognize that there are multiple successful strategies for running a marine aquarium, and I assume that hobbyists who do like to mess with water chemistry neither need nor want an amateur to hold their hands.
tmz said:
Oh, so now I have to explain the red plague, do I?
No problem. Took me about 20 minutes on a quiet Saturday to find the answer that has apparently been eluding hobbyists for years.
Red slime isn't a specific species of cyano -- rather, it's a common response by cyano to ambient light conditions known as chromatic acclimation. When this phenomenon was discovered over 100 years ago, it was called "complementary chromatic acclimation" because it was observed that cyano shifts its color towards the complement of whatever color of light it's growing in. It was originally observed in red/green lighting conditions but in recent years has been documented with other colors -- including the blue hobbyists favor in our high-color-temperature DT lighting.
That is, blue (and also green) light makes cyano turn to reddish photopigments to get more energy from photosynthesis: "In blue light, these cells have a relatively high ratio of the blue-light-absorbing chromophore phycourobilin [PUB] to the green-light-absorbing chromophore phycoerythrobilin [PEB]... These changes in the the PUB
EB ratio change the color phenotype of these cells between orange and pink."Further, "The ability to carry out CA [color or chromatic acclimation] is not restricted to a single branch of the cyanobacterial lineage. It occurs in all major groups of cyanobacteria and is not strongly correlated with any particular environment, but rather is a geographically widespread process... The capacity to undergo CA is present in a wide range of species and environments and is likely to make a significant contribution globally to maximizing the efficiency of photon capture for photosynthesis."
Thus, it doesn't matter what species of cyano is involved -- blue light = red slime
Last edited by a moderator:
coralreefdoc
New member
Coming out, firing ...
:uzi:
:uzi:
I'm trying to describe the way things work so that other hobbyists can make their own decisions about how they run their own tanks.
That is my goal and I've stated it often.
so now I have to explain the red plague
Please don't; there is plenty out there on it
"Cyano blooms are all about PO4
I believe that to be true but can't prove it.
Red slime isn't a specific species of cyano
I agree but I don't think it's spirulina or lyngbya.
That is my goal and I've stated it often.
so now I have to explain the red plague
Please don't; there is plenty out there on it
"Cyano blooms are all about PO4
I believe that to be true but can't prove it.
Red slime isn't a specific species of cyano
I agree but I don't think it's spirulina or lyngbya.
As I noted in the phosphate thread, carbon dosing promotes the growth of photoheterotrophic bacteria,
Why do you think they are exclusively photoheterotrophic vs. chemoautotrophic or chemolithorophic?I think non photoheterotrophs play significantly as there is plenty of bacterial growth the evident in dark areas of my system. Much more than before organic carbon dosing.
Why do you think they are exclusively photoheterotrophic vs. chemoautotrophic or chemolithorophic?I think non photoheterotrophs play significantly as there is plenty of bacterial growth the evident in dark areas of my system. Much more than before organic carbon dosing.
Gary Majchrzak
Team RC
this is great, EC!
I would liken this to using an algal turf scrubber ATS.
Don't provide a better habitat... get rid of the ROOT PROBLEM :beer:
Gary Majchrzak
Team RC
I've grown "slimes" under 20k thru 5500K
PE Mysis shrimp overdose with no skimmer seems to grow it best :spin3:
PE Mysis shrimp overdose with no skimmer seems to grow it best :spin3:
Gary Majchrzak
Team RC
don't know the answer to your question
don't know the answer to your question
but looking back on this thread.....the OP's "experiment" was done in a new aquarium.
As previously mentioned, Cyano outbreaks are common/ to be expected in newly set up aquariums. Cyano often grows in a lit 'fuge or sump area- no netting necessary. Cyano in a new system usually burns out... unless you fuel it's (continued) proliferation.
Thinking is good- but no netting necessary here.
don't know the answer to your question
but looking back on this thread.....the OP's "experiment" was done in a new aquarium.
As previously mentioned, Cyano outbreaks are common/ to be expected in newly set up aquariums. Cyano often grows in a lit 'fuge or sump area- no netting necessary. Cyano in a new system usually burns out... unless you fuel it's (continued) proliferation.
Thinking is good- but no netting necessary here.
I think that's an interesting question and approach to nps. I didn't know cyano bacteria was in their diet.
Don't know the answer to the light question but looked around a little . A search under cyanobacteria light spectrum revealed a bunch of studies and papers . Here are 2 that may be of interest:
http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_37/issue_2/0434.pdf
That one involves a study of 9 species of cyano bacteria.It is more about cyano's ability to gather light as a colony and avoid shading itself out rather than as individual cells, which seems to give it an edge over other eurcaryotic bacteria.
This one is more to your the point of your question ; I think. In addition to overall growth rates, it also also compares protein and chlorophyll content at variable light levels and growth rates:
http://books.google.com/books?id=4o...nepage&q=cyanobacteria light spectrum&f=false
My oversimplified skinny on it for the 8 strains tested:
Red is faster but less chlorophyll and protein is developed than at slower growth rates in white light.
Blue and green are closer to white growth rates but significantly slower for high protein strains.
Nothing on yellow.
Very interested in how this works out for the nps. Please keep us posted.
Don't know the answer to the light question but looked around a little . A search under cyanobacteria light spectrum revealed a bunch of studies and papers . Here are 2 that may be of interest:
http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_37/issue_2/0434.pdf
That one involves a study of 9 species of cyano bacteria.It is more about cyano's ability to gather light as a colony and avoid shading itself out rather than as individual cells, which seems to give it an edge over other eurcaryotic bacteria.
This one is more to your the point of your question ; I think. In addition to overall growth rates, it also also compares protein and chlorophyll content at variable light levels and growth rates:
http://books.google.com/books?id=4o...nepage&q=cyanobacteria light spectrum&f=false
My oversimplified skinny on it for the 8 strains tested:
Red is faster but less chlorophyll and protein is developed than at slower growth rates in white light.
Blue and green are closer to white growth rates but significantly slower for high protein strains.
Nothing on yellow.
Very interested in how this works out for the nps. Please keep us posted.
elegance coral
They call me EC
Yep...... I totally agree. :beer:
The longest running ATS, I know of, is at the Smithsonian Institute, and it has recently crashed the display, for about the one hundredth time. You would think they would have figured out what the problem is by now..... But no...... They just keep doing the same thing over and over and over and over again, killing more animals, andexpecting different results.
:deadhorse1:peace
EC
Gary Majchrzak
Team RC
isn't that some famous person's definition of insanity?
Squidmotron
New member
It's often attributed to Albert Einsten, but of course he didn't really say it.
Similar threads
