Evidence-Based Reef Keeping

[AndyReef]

Is there any database of evidence-based reef keeping? There seems to be a great paucity of information available that is evidence based. Also, those articles that I do occasionally come across tend to be very small studies with small sample sizes.

I am a physician, and we often consider medicine being an art based on science, but we are trying more and more to make decisions based on evidence-based prospective studies rather than on anecdotal information. Reef keeping is also quite obviously an art based on science, but it seems that there is a much stronger tendency to go with anecdotal information when it comes to decision-making in the reef aquarium.

I certainly realize that reef keepers do not have near the funding of medical researchers, nor the incentive. But I would very much like to know if there is any database in which one might find evidence-based studies about reef keeping. I would guess that there are some practices that we engage in with our reefs that have clear benefits, but I would also venture to guess that there are many practices that are harmful, or just plain useless.

 

[mr. bojangsjang]

Reef keeping should be an art based on nature, not science.

 

[AndyReef]

Science = Nature!

 

[Sk8r]

Best imho is to develop some 'bellwether' species and run frequent tests, logging the results. That way you can both see quick-reaction corals [mushrooms are good at this, likewise candycane] that protest a problem in alk or ph, and the tests enable you to project a trend into the future and predict when to add more dkh buffer or change your rate of calcium supplement. Your log book is your friend and first line of defense.

Tanks vary enormously by so many variables, such as type and depth of substrate, temp flux during the day, starting water chemistry, brand of salt, type of corals, feeding time, etc, that it is hard to establish hard and fast rules; we are each our own slice of ocean, in that regard.

But that log book is absolute. You're a medical person: you know how to run tests [and how to fudge creatively to save a little time vs the literal instructions: I can run my basic series inside 5 min and be pretty accurate] and you know how to spot a trend. For your individual tank, you can establish the rate of supplementation, plus rate of change/need for water change of what size; plus bioload, plus coral calcium consumption, etc.

 

[AndyReef]

The problem isn't maintaining my own system. Or following the trend on one tank. Logging my own system and knowing what is going on with my water chemistry and my inverts goes without saying. What I am looking to find, or work to create is a resource in which evidence-based studies, and experiments can be found that can definitively say x technique is benefitial or y-technique is not benefitial by looking at a larger number of tanks. In medicine, we don't just blindly try some treatment and then track it in a patient, we generally try to use the treatment in which we have solid evidence-based reviews from a large sample population supporting our treatment methods.

For example; seems there is always a lot of debate on here about BB v. DSB. To my knowledge (which may be wrong, please correct me if so) there hasn't been an experiment reported in which several systems have been set up with proper controls, and a measurable outcome that can say what the benefits of either are one way or the other. There is a vast amount of anecdotal discussion as to which is best, but I haven't seen any raw data supporting either.

This is just one example. Other evidence that I would be interested in seeing would compare levels of waterflow, frequency and volume of water changes, etc.

Understandably, our reefs are complex systems that are trying to simulate to a sufficient degree the conditions of the natural environments in which our inhabitants are found. But is that the best method for best growth and least problem? I know that many reefkeepers have excellent results with some very unnatural conditions, for example outrageously high levels of calcium.

 

[Sk8r]

Ah! Now I get you. This place is of course [by its very nature] full of anecdotal accounts, but little systematic.
One of the reasons of course is that while some of us have had a little lab training [raises hand] and some background in science, the greater majority are what the 17th and 18th century produced---gentlemen [and lady] scientists, who do and record and report in these pages, intermittent with the high school student and younger who is in the process of dealing with a first tank.
There are several 'authorities' with texts on reefkeeping, designed for the general public and first time user; but I think where you will find the equivalent of the science article is in our own Reefkeeping magazine, where there are findable cites, and where people have actually run experiments.
The majority of us are 1-2 tank operators, which doesn't give much chance to set up experiments, except in our heads, where we have tried A or B or C, but we don't have documentation except in old photos, and nothing runs in exactly the same environment. Complicating matters---these tanks work best in macro, so if you get more space, you tend to get not another tank, but a bigger tank, which changes many of the stats.
I think this is why polls are so popular on this site, people trying to plumb not only the extent of current set up, but past history via the recollection of users, or to figure out what the 'silent' reefers are doing---those who do successfully, but don't tend to post as often.
Each item you name would make a great article for Reefkeeping Magazine, and I'd be glad to see it. Reefkeeping as it's practiced now is more religion, for most: pick a guru, among those who have published, and follow his recommendations, and pass them on to the new converts. Discard what doesn't work and take a bit of this system and a bit of another---if the users are even aware that they're mixing methods.
It's an interesting question you raise, and one of the things I wish we had in RC is a more permanent searchable archive for certain notable threads: the stickies are good on their topics, but they're mostly procedural. I'd like to see the long-range outcome of some methodology posts continued over years: edit out the chit-chat and keep the meat-and-potatoes bits as resource---I'm thinking of the long thread, say, on the use of vodka. So much useful information sunsets overnight due to the nature of the forum. Wish we had a larger library [more servers, etc.,etc., which probably sends the techs groaning.]

 

[billsreef]

A lot of good usable scientific info can be gathered from reading various scientific articles on reefs, aquaculture and even looking up info on specific species. What a given organism requires in captivity can easily be figured based on it's needs in nature. Things such as ich (Cryptocaryon irritans) have been well studied, yet many folk don't like to rely on the science as it doesn't provide the quick and easy answers they desire. There also many things involved in our reef tanks that haven't been studied yet, mostly due to lack of funding. The DSB vs BB debate for instance doesn't have any real application nature or aquaculture, only our aquariums, so no grant money likely to be found there. Even mainstream Marine Sciences have difficulty getting funding, never mind aquarium science. Hence, some things we do need to relay on a measure of anectodal evidence and common sense.

 

[Ninong]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9442107#post9442107 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by AndyReef
For example; seems there is always a lot of debate on here about BB v. DSB. To my knowledge (which may be wrong, please correct me if so) there hasn't been an experiment reported in which several systems have been set up with proper controls, and a measurable outcome that can say what the benefits of either are one way or the other. There is a vast amount of anecdotal discussion as to which is best, but I haven't seen any raw data supporting either.

Have you seen this and this and this and this and this and this?

 

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9442309#post9442309 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Sk8r
except in our heads, where we have tried A or B or C, but we don't
It's an interesting question you raise, and one of the things I wish we had in RC is a more permanent searchable archive for certain notable threads: the stickies are good on their topics, but they're mostly procedural. I'd like to see the long-range outcome of some methodology posts continued over years: edit out the chit-chat and keep the meat-and-potatoes bits as resource---I'm thinking of the long thread, say, on the use of vodka. So much useful information sunsets overnight due to the nature of the forum. Wish we had a larger library [more servers, etc.,etc., which probably sends the techs groaning.]

Granted the search engine in this version of VB can be a bit troublesome, but we don't delete threads so there is a ton of searchable info BTW there are some major upgrades in the plans

 

[Sk8r]

interesting, ninong.

 

[AndyReef]

Do you think reefcentral users would be interested in participating in a blind study. Perhaps several users with a hypothesis about x could come up with a protocol for reefcentral users to set up a tank in addition to their existing tank. All setups would be of very similar if not identical equipment and materials, except for those who are given the experimental variable. After a sufficient time, users could report their data and the investigaors could compile the results to make conclusions.

Sort of using reefcentral as a grassroots research institute. Then maybe we could move from just sharing anecdotes to sharing evidence based techniques that are proven to do what they are supposed to do.

 

[reefkeeper2]

It sounds plausible but I think the biggest obstacle here are the many variables that are encountered in our closed system tanks. I think it is the main reason why anecdotal evidence is so prevalent. It is very difficult to keep all the parameters of water chemistry, temperature, feeding, fish and invertebrate populations ,etc. etc. at a controlled constant while you are trying to compare or study just one variable like the sand bed. Thats why you often see comments like "it worked for me" or "it crashed my tank!". Just look at the threads about nitrate control or cyanobacteria. Every single tank is unique, an ecosystem with all the complexities of one in the wild. Your suggestion is great , but I think it would be extremely hard to do.
I am a med tech and work in a lab so I know what your saying about science and conjecture. I would be happy if someone would market a standard control for our test kits so when I run a calcium test or a nitrate test, I know my results are accurate and the reagents are good.

 

[AndyReef]

I think it is the main reason why anecdotal evidence is so prevalent. It is very difficult to keep all the parameters of water chemistry, temperature, feeding, fish and invertebrate populations ,etc. etc. at a controlled constant while you are trying to compare or study just one variable like the sand bed. Thats why you often see comments like "it worked for me" or "it crashed my tank!". Just look at the threads about nitrate control or cyanobacteria. Every single tank is unique, an ecosystem with all the complexities of one in the wild.

This is precisely why employing multiple members to participate in the project would be important. The more members you have engaging in the same experiment foloowing the same protocol, the greater chance you have to see a trend that is dependent on the variable that is manipulated. Surely not every tank will have the same results, but enough of them may have results to see the trend. I haven't worked through any statistics yet to see just how many tanks would be needed to get a significant result, but just for discussion's sake:

Say we had 20 people following the same protocol setting up a simple system, nothing fancy, all using the same size tank, salt, r/o, live rock, skimer type, lighting, etc. but 10 are assigned to use x and 10 are assigned to use y. Now obviously there is going to be enough variablility to see that not everyone is going to have the expected result, but it more of those using technique x have the hypothesized result than those using technique y, it would be resonable to state that there is a correlation between using technique x and outcome z.

And to make it even more statistically significant, if each participant is given their protocol individually and no one but the investigator knows which is the experimental variable, then each participant would be less likely to report false results based on bias.

 

[BlakDuc]

Also remember though, in regards to the BB and DSB, it would take a couple of years to find the true results. Most want to know what the benefits/disadvantages are long term, not just short term.

 

[Ninong]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9448870#post9448870 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by GrandeGixxer
Also remember though, in regards to the BB and DSB, it would take a couple of years to find the true results. Most want to know what the benefits/disadvantages are long term, not just short term.

An excellent point! Even tests that are conducted over a period of two to three years don't tell us much about the long-term benefits or risks of the various methods.

Since I am retired and have a lot of time on my hands, I have browsed the various reefkeeping bulletin boards and personal web pages over the past five years looking for accounts of individual hobbyists who have had long-term success with reef tanks. In particular, I was looking for those who employed deep sand beds. I found plenty of them! I also found plenty who had long-term success with no sand beds at all.

Thanks to online translation programs, such as AltaVista's babelfish, it is possible to translate many of the foreign websites. And even the ones that can't be translated using babelfish are still valuable resources as far as photographs are concerned. And foreign hobbyists are much more likely than Americans to use scientific names to describe their livestock.

I have browsed through reefkeeping bulletin boards in Hong Kong, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Norway, Belgium, Japan, etc., looking for links to individual hobbyists' home pages. Some of these hobbyists' home pages have links to a dozen or more friends' home pages. It's always fun to see how other people do things in other parts of the world.

I came across one Japanese hobbyist who drives hundreds of miles in a converted bus to collect his own natural seawater for his reeftank. His tank is rather large, more than 600 gallons. He's been keeping marine tanks for more than 30 years and has been keeping reef tanks with "powder coral sand" substrates for more than 20 years. His latest tank (630 gallons) has a sand bed that ranges from 10-25cm (4"-10") deep. He collects his own sand and much of the livestock for his tank. His previous reef tank was set up for 15 years before he transferred everything to his newer, larger tank about seven or eight years ago.

 

[Ninong]

Duplicate post.

 

[Ninong]

If anyone is interested, here's a link to that Japanese hobbyist's web page. It's fascinating reading. He's a hobbyist-diver-environmentalist with decades of experience.



P.S. -- You can use AltaVista's babelfish to translate the Japanese into English but the program is phonetically based and the translations are often hilarious. For example, reef tank comes out as leaf tank and live rock comes out as live lock. Soft coral comes out as software coral, etc. His substrate translated as "powder coral sand" and I think that's pretty clear.

 

[dendro982]

Re: Evidence-Based Reef Keeping

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9438938#post9438938 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by AndyReef
Is there any database of evidence-based reef keeping? There seems to be a great paucity of information available that is evidence based. ... Reef keeping is also quite obviously an art based on science, but it seems that there is a much stronger tendency to go with anecdotal information when it comes to decision-making in the reef aquarium. ... But I would very much like to know if there is any database in which one might find evidence-based studies about reef keeping. ...

I searched the web very thoroughly the last year, had never seen anything like that.

The closest approximation was searching forums for the particular information and making own free-form database, on the variety of the topics of interest. Ask by PM the most successful keepers.

Pity, that a lot of posts are without mentioning tanks specifics and what could contribute to success, just something like "It's easy, they grow fast in my tank".

And almost impossible to collect experiences on the keeping of particular animal in one thread, adding to the sum of knowledge. Tried several time, it didn't worked. The one of a few successful attempts - the Dendronephthya study group . Still, hard to find particular information in the very long thread.

 

[Hobster]

The best source for evidence based articles is by Dr Randy. No matter how a tank is set up (BB, DSB, Lighting etc) it all comes down to the water chemistry and related factors.

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=102605

 

[AndyReef]

I agree that Randy has excellent information available, but it is mostly in the form of basic science. Now I haven't read everything he has done, so don't jump on my yet, but it isn't exactly what I am talking about.

Knowing the specific scientific principles is absolutely necessary in the successful maintanence of a reef aquarium. However, I am looking to further that one step beyond with data either supporting one method or another when clearly both work to some degree. For example, a long term look at the DSBs and BB tanks. Perhaps showing how many algae blooms each type had on average per 5 year period, or what levels of nitrates, and phospates each type had on average, etc.

Basic science articles are great, but I am looking for practice oriented evidence-based studies.

Even a test of the validity of some anecdotal piece of information would be excellent. Like people saying that emerald crabs eat bubble algae. Do they? Maybe, some say they do, some say they don't. The fact that each crab is different makes that black and white answer unacceptable. I would rather know something to the effect of how much does the introduction of an emerald crab reduce bubble algae. So that I can make a more educated move when deciding on something.

I am truly not looking to find any specific information at the moment, just a more definitive evidence-based resource.