Golden Carpet Anemone Dying?

[deehz]

I'm sorry for your loss. But this is some of the best reading and advice I have read in a long time. Very fortunate you had some very well experienced hobbyist in your thread. All of them gave great advice along with very helpful and useful knowledge. I couldn't have said it any better then the group did here.

If you can, find a reputable LFS in your area and see if they can order you one, hold it in their systems for health reasons, and watch it eat. You have to understand that the mortatility rates on any carpet nem are significantly very high: in captivity or shipping (they ship from the collector to wharehouse with very little water to reduce shipping weight). So by the time the wholesaler ships it to the LFS, it's already stressed and most likely dying of bacterial infection. Most reputable wholsealers will do everything they can to keep their livestock as healthy as possible this includes any LFS: it's money that they are losing with dead livestock. in this tough economy, every dollar lost hurts.

Nonetheless, finding a reputable LFS is key. If you can't find one in your area, then LiveAquaria is one of the best online retailers. They usually have in stock all kinds of carpets and they have a great acclimation/quarantine processes. Next would be VividAquariums or BlueZooAquatics. Good luck and if you find one, post pics of it.

 

[Conrad25]

I have to agree with EC on gig anemones. It seems that you can throw as much light at them and they will fair better than slowly shading them. I did not shade my gig at all when receiving it and blasted it with 250w pendants. Now its been over a year and looks amazing compared to what it did when I first got it and the wife said it was ugly, now she thinks its gorgeous.

 

[D-Nak]

Regarding choosing your next carpet anemone, I think you need to decide which carpet anemone you'd like to keep, as each have different care needs. In my experience, haddoni are by far the most hardy of the carpets (it doesn't seem to matter which color either) with gigantea being far most difficult, if not the most difficult of any anemone to keep. My understanding is that mertensii fare well, but are very difficult to find.

To make matters worse, most LFS can't tell the difference between haddoni and gigantea when they first come in since they often come in extremely stressed out (tentacles are small/short and/or specimen is bleached). I've been searching locally for a gigantea for months and haven't had luck. I've even reached out to wholesalers to determine which can get gigantea to send to my LFS. Even some wholesalers simply label the carpet anemone as Stichodactyla spp. so the LFS doesn't know what they're getting until they physically see it and ID it. BTW, looking at the verrucae is the easiest way to ID a carpet nem.

There is only one online source I recommend checking out if you're seriously interested in getting a gigantea, but you're going to have to be willing to pay for it since his prices are extremely high, but the trade-off is that he quarantines his anemones for at least a month before sending out. PM me if you want more details.

Again, if you're looking for an easier carpet, I recommend going with a haddoni. My LFS has had all of the colors of the rainbow, so you should be good in terms of color selection.

 

[elegance coral]

since anemones DO respond (favorably and unfavorably) to light - whether they have zooxanthellae or not.

Do you have a link that describes this behavior?

Even non-photosynthetic anemones can "detect" light in some fashion - scientists just don't know how.

Link???
Nature is loaded with examples of animal abilities that defy understanding, so I'm not about to say this is impossible. It's just not logical. We, even our top scientists, often misinterpret what we're seeing. The fact that an animal changes it's behavior when exposed to light, may not be evidence that it's reacting to the light itself. Especially in aquatic environments. If the animal lacks any light sensing cells, but it seems to react to light exposure, there must be some other changes taking place that causes the change in behavior. Light can cause other changes in an environment that such an animal may be able to detect and react to. Temperature, PH, even the activity of other organisms that are light sensitive, may be detected by such an animal.

So I would guess that anemones can't "see" light, but they can detect light via light's impact on their body (in some fashion) similar to the way that plants can't see, but they can detect sunlight and respond to it favorably or unfavorably.

Plants and animals are completely different organisms. Exposure to light brings on chemical changes (photosynthesis)within plants, that the plants can react to. This cause and effect is well understood. If an animal reacts to light, there must be a system in place for that animal to detect the light. There has to be some mechanism, some cause and effect, for this process to occur.

I don't know why, but I have also observed this initial unfavorable response that anemones have when being placed in bright lighting after a period of darkness.

I have too. This process is well understood. A healthy anemone exposed to a give PAR will maintain its zooxanthellae population based on that PAR. Within acceptable ranges, lower PAR will cause the anemone to maintain higher zooxanthellae populations. With lower PAR it simply requires more zooxanthellae to produce enough energy for the host animal. If the PAR is suddenly increased, this high population of zooxanthellae can begin producing oxidants faster than the host can tolerate. In extreme situations, the cell walls of the animal can begin to oxidize. The animal is basically dissolving from the inside out. Naturally, this can cause the host to react unfavorably. The anemone may deflate and gape its mouth, in an attempt to rid itself of excess oxidants and zooxanthellae. This whole process is zooxanthellae driven. In an anemone that lacks zooxanthellae, or has very very few zooxanthellae, what process would cause it to react negatively to typical aquarium light exposure?

It is probably better for us to try to figure out best acclimation practices instead of worrying too much (in this case) about why they behave this way.

I think it's important for us to understand what causes these animals to behave a given way in order for us to produce a reliable acclimation process. Especially in this case with gigantea. The vast majority of these animals, I see offered for sale, are bleached to some degree. Most of them quite severely. The question becomes, "Why are they bleaching?" Naturally, there could be multiple reasons for them to bleach, but the one obvious reason, at least to me, would be insufficient lighting. These are the most shallow water inhabiting host anemones, so in my logic, this tells me they're the most light demanding. This also corresponds with my experience with this species. The zooxanthellae within this animal will react just like the plants you spoke of. If they do not receive enough light, they will die, and the anemone will bleach. If this is indeed what's taking place, providing this animal and it's zooxanthellae with insufficient lighting, during the acclimation process, may compound the problem. In our best efforts, we may actually be killing these animals by shading them. I'm specifically talking about gigantea here. IME, other species seem to be much more sensitive to high PAR. Especially magnifica. I think shading anemones is a good practice, but it's not a cure all, and it's not appropriate in every situation.

 

[leslee5050]

anemone

anemone

I have looked at LiveAquaria, and Blue's Zoo. I will check Vivid. Blue's Zoo has a gorgeous one, but a little bit out of my price range at the most, with Christmas just being over. Deehz, you are correct. The people on this forum have been great with all their knowledge and help. When looking at the pix of carpets, that are for sale, they all look absolutely gorgeous in the pix. Especially like the incident that was on the forum with the purchase of the nem from Extreme Corals. But since these pix never actually look like the item you are getting, how can you tell? Even locally, looking at one. The golden I bought really looked very sharp, as in my fist pix. I guess I really didn't know what to look for. It would probably be better for me to get one straight from one of the lfs to me, instead of adding another step in between. RC Reefers, thanks again for all your time, help and info. You have been great.

 

[LesMartin]

Do you have a link that describes this behavior?




Link???
Nature is loaded with examples of animal abilities that defy understanding, so I'm not about to say this is impossible. It's just not logical. We, even our top scientists, often misinterpret what we're seeing. The fact that an animal changes it's behavior when exposed to light, may not be evidence that it's reacting to the light itself. Especially in aquatic environments. If the animal lacks any light sensing cells, but it seems to react to light exposure, there must be some other changes taking place that causes the change in behavior. Light can cause other changes in an environment that such an animal may be able to detect and react to. Temperature, PH, even the activity of other organisms that are light sensitive, may be detected by such an animal.





Plants and animals are completely different organisms. Exposure to light brings on chemical changes (photosynthesis)within plants, that the plants can react to. This cause and effect is well understood. If an animal reacts to light, there must be a system in place for that animal to detect the light. There has to be some mechanism, some cause and effect, for this process to occur.





I have too. This process is well understood. A healthy anemone exposed to a give PAR will maintain its zooxanthellae population based on that PAR. Within acceptable ranges, lower PAR will cause the anemone to maintain higher zooxanthellae populations. With lower PAR it simply requires more zooxanthellae to produce enough energy for the host animal. If the PAR is suddenly increased, this high population of zooxanthellae can begin producing oxidants faster than the host can tolerate. In extreme situations, the cell walls of the animal can begin to oxidize. The animal is basically dissolving from the inside out. Naturally, this can cause the host to react unfavorably. The anemone may deflate and gape its mouth, in an attempt to rid itself of excess oxidants and zooxanthellae. This whole process is zooxanthellae driven. In an anemone that lacks zooxanthellae, or has very very few zooxanthellae, what process would cause it to react negatively to typical aquarium light exposure?




I think it's important for us to understand what causes these animals to behave a given way in order for us to produce a reliable acclimation process. Especially in this case with gigantea. The vast majority of these animals, I see offered for sale, are bleached to some degree. Most of them quite severely. The question becomes, "Why are they bleaching?" Naturally, there could be multiple reasons for them to bleach, but the one obvious reason, at least to me, would be insufficient lighting. These are the most shallow water inhabiting host anemones, so in my logic, this tells me they're the most light demanding. This also corresponds with my experience with this species. The zooxanthellae within this animal will react just like the plants you spoke of. If they do not receive enough light, they will die, and the anemone will bleach. If this is indeed what's taking place, providing this animal and it's zooxanthellae with insufficient lighting, during the acclimation process, may compound the problem. In our best efforts, we may actually be killing these animals by shading them. I'm specifically talking about gigantea here. IME, other species seem to be much more sensitive to high PAR. Especially magnifica. I think shading anemones is a good practice, but it's not a cure all, and it's not appropriate in every situation.

I have seen this adverse reaction to light with bleached and partly bleached, haddoni, gigantea and magnifica. After a period of darkness ie overnight they look great, fully expanded and plump ( for want of a better expression). Shortly after lights on they then have started to deflate, gape etc. I've seen this often enough in my early attempts at keeping host anemones to come to the conclusion that it WAS excess light initially. I now slowly acclimatise all of my new animals using a dimmable light fixture and since adopting this practise I haven't observed the lights on and BAM! deflated anemone problem. I can't explain WHY light acclimatisation works and your hypothesis about oxidative stress sounds like a plausible theory but through my own experiences I do know that a badly or even partly bleached anemone can react very badly to typical reef tank lighting levels.

 

[syrinx]

Now don`t tie up any credibility I may or may not have with this comment- it is one of those out of a clear blue sky ideas. Could it be a bleached anemone feels more "heat" from the light when bleached? I go to Haiti fairly often- and when I go in the winter or spring- the sun really affects me badly- as I am bleached. When I go in the summer and fall- it is hotter- but the sun doesnt make me sick, since I am tanned. I think if you get a good anemone- fresh off the boat so to speak- you can throw any amount of light at it with no problem. But there are many cases of them doing better slowly acclimating to artificial light.

 

[elegance coral]

Now don`t tie up any credibility I may or may not have with this comment- it is one of those out of a clear blue sky ideas. Could it be a bleached anemone feels more "heat" from the light when bleached? I go to Haiti fairly often- and when I go in the winter or spring- the sun really affects me badly- as I am bleached. When I go in the summer and fall- it is hotter- but the sun doesnt make me sick, since I am tanned. I think if you get a good anemone- fresh off the boat so to speak- you can throw any amount of light at it with no problem. But there are many cases of them doing better slowly acclimating to artificial light.

What you're experiencing is UV exposure. UV is outside the visible spectrum, so we can't see it, but we can detect it as "heat" on our skin. Aquarium lighting should be very low in UV. Those lights that do produce a good amount of UV, like MH's, are equipped with UV blocking shields to protect us, and our pets, from that UV exposure. There shouldn't be enough UV in our systems to cause harm to the inhabitants.

 

[OrionN]

syrinx,
You are right in that when adapted corals and anemones tolerated light better and do well with light (with in reason) just light our tan protects us from UV.

EC,
We do not feel UV at all. You can get burn in a clear day and not fee the heat at all. The heat we feel is infrared radiation which is heat which is just lower frequency than the visible spectrum which is red. Ultraviolet on the other hand, is on the other end of the visible spectrum, just above violet.
You do feel hot when sunlight hit your arm because there is IR radiation with the visible spectrum.

 

[elegance coral]

You are right Minh. I shouldn't post until after I've had my coffee.

 

[BonsaiNut]

Hi Elegance; Here's the info to which I was referring. There are other follow-up papers on this as well:

J. Malcolm Schick, A Functional Biology of Sea Anemones, Section 1.4 Sensory Receptors. "Ironically, no photoreceptor structure or pigment has been identified in any sea anemone, despite the long-standing knowledge of the importance of light in their biology and their responsiveness to it." The section goes on to talk about spectral sensitivities and localization of sensitivity among the various membrane systems, and goes on to say: "The photoreceptors in anemones show several characteristics common to such systems in general. Dark adaptation... [and] protective reaction". It is a very interesting section but I will not type three pages of small text here

Additionally, there are other sections in the same book where it is covered again from a Photobiology perspective.

Section 2.7.1 Phototaxis "Condylactis gigantea and Anthropleura elegantissima show locomotory phototactic or photokinetic behaviour that is wholly dependent on the presence of zooxanthellae, which suggest that a chemical either consumeds or produced during photosynthesis regulates this behaviour (Zhal and McLaughlin, 1959; Pearse, 1974a).

Section 2.7.2 Expansion and Contraction Behaviour "In the first controlled, quantitative study of expansion and contraction behaviour in a zooxanthellate sea anemone, Anthopleura elegnatissima, Pearse (1974a) demonstrated that aposymbiotic individuals were indifferent to ambient light while zooxnathellate specimens invariably expanded under moderate illumination."

Section 2.7.3 The Dual Menace of High Irradiance (Especially Ultraviolet) and Hyperoxia “Both direct and alga-mediated effects of light are involved in the contraction of sea anemones under intense illumination.” (This is an interesting section because it deals with conditions under which oxygen becomes toxic for anemones)
Can’t type more now – gotta fly! But this is enough to get you started!

 

[syrinx]

I fully understand UV and the effects water has on it EC! As I was comming home today I wondered if there was a chemical signal the algae give off that the anemone senses when overilluminated. To me that would be the only way something without the ability to "see" light, would react to it. And it does go along with my previous post- of feeling light instead of seeing it.

 

[elegance coral]

Hi Elegance; Here's the info to which I was referring. There are other follow-up papers on this as well:

Thank you very much for taking the time to post this info.

J. Malcolm Schick, A Functional Biology of Sea Anemones, Section 1.4 Sensory Receptors. "Ironically, no photoreceptor structure or pigment has been identified in any sea anemone, despite the long-standing knowledge of the importance of light in their biology and their responsiveness to it." The section goes on to talk about spectral sensitivities and localization of sensitivity among the various membrane systems, and goes on to say: "The photoreceptors in anemones show several characteristics common to such systems in general. Dark adaptation... [and] protective reaction". It is a very interesting section but I will not type three pages of small text here

This simply makes no sense at all. Why are they talking about photoreceptors in anemones, when "no photoreceptor structure or pigment has been identified in any sea anemone"?

Section 2.7.1 Phototaxis "Condylactis gigantea and Anthropleura elegantissima show locomotory phototactic or photokinetic behaviour that is wholly dependent on the presence of zooxanthellae, which suggest that a chemical either consumeds or produced during photosynthesis regulates this behaviour (Zhal and McLaughlin, 1959; Pearse, 1974a).

This supports what I've been saying. It is the zooxanthellae that allow anemones to react to light.

Section 2.7.2 Expansion and Contraction Behaviour "In the first controlled, quantitative study of expansion and contraction behaviour in a zooxanthellate sea anemone, Anthopleura elegnatissima, Pearse (1974a) demonstrated that aposymbiotic individuals were indifferent to ambient light while zooxnathellate specimens invariably expanded under moderate illumination."

Again, this supports what I've been saying. Those anemones without zooxanthellae are "indifferent" to light. It is the anemones that do harbor zooxanthellae that react to light.

Section 2.7.3 The Dual Menace of High Irradiance (Especially Ultraviolet) and Hyperoxia "œBoth direct and alga-mediated effects of light are involved in the contraction of sea anemones under intense illumination." (This is an interesting section because it deals with conditions under which oxygen becomes toxic for anemones)

Yet again, this supports what I've been saying. Anemones react negatively to intense illumination due to the toxic effects of oxygen, produced through photosynthesis. In other words, it's the zooxanthellae that cause anemones to react negatively to excessive light.

The above paragraph also mentions UV. In the natural world, and in some lab experiments, UV could play a major roll in all of this. In our systems, UV should be insignificant. UV is below 400nm. Even our actinic bulbs start at around 420 to 430nm, and go up. We should have very little, if any, UV light in our systems.

So, if the anemone isn't being bombarded with UV, and it has no, or very few, zooxanthellae, what would cause it to react negatively towards light?

 

[BonsaiNut]

This simply makes no sense at all. Why are they talking about photoreceptors in anemones, when "no photoreceptor structure or pigment has been identified in any sea anemone"?

I'll address your other comments when I have time (because I only have 5 minutes now) but quickly this first one:

You have to read the entire section to reconcile these two statements. The fact is that scientists KNOW that anemones respond to light. However they have been unable to IDENTIFY how they do it:

"This is not surprising, for as anemones are some 10^4 - 10^5 times less sensitive to light in the 500nm range than are humans or even flatworms (North and Pantin, 1958), their photosensitive pigments and structures must be either correspondingly diffuse or extremely small and highly localized."

Additionally do not think of photosensitivity in anemones as the same thing as sight in humans. It is not. Photosensitivity is diffuse, with little indication of localization.

"Early clues concerning the nature of actinarian photoreception came from the work of Bohn (1906a), Fleure and Walton (1907) and Parker (1916), who showed that local illumination of the column of Metridium senile caused contraction of the parietal muscles in the illuminated area. Subsequently North and Pantin (1958) demonstrated that local contractions of illuminated parietal muscles occur even if the mesentery is anaesthetized with Mg^2+, which eliminates chemical synaptic transmission between neurons and at the myoneural junction."

"Thus it seems likely that the myoepithelial cells themselves are photosensitive... ...Detecting the location of photosensitive pigment will be exceedingly difficult, judging from North's (1957) interesting calculation that M. senile may have only 10^6 - 10^7 photopigment molecules per cm^2 of body surface!" (an extremely small number)

Sorry but again, I would HIGHLY recommend you read this section if you are lucky enough to buy a copy or else get it from a local technical library. This entire section is related to the anemones' nervous system, which is also very basic and unique.

 

[hypnoj]

I'll address your other comments when I have time (because I only have 5 minutes now) but quickly this first one:

You have to read the entire section to reconcile these two statements. The fact is that scientists KNOW that anemones respond to light. However they have been unable to IDENTIFY how they do it:

"This is not surprising, for as anemones are some 10^4 - 10^5 times less sensitive to light in the 500nm range than are humans or even flatworms (North and Pantin, 1958), their photosensitive pigments and structures must be either correspondingly diffuse or extremely small and highly localized."

Additionally do not think of photosensitivity in anemones as the same thing as sight in humans. It is not. Photosensitivity is diffuse, with little indication of localization.

"Early clues concerning the nature of actinarian photoreception came from the work of Bohn (1906a), Fleure and Walton (1907) and Parker (1916), who showed that local illumination of the column of Metridium senile caused contraction of the parietal muscles in the illuminated area. Subsequently North and Pantin (1958) demonstrated that local contractions of illuminated parietal muscles occur even if the mesentery is anaesthetized with Mg^2+, which eliminates chemical synaptic transmission between neurons and at the myoneural junction."

"Thus it seems likely that the myoepithelial cells themselves are photosensitive... ...Detecting the location of photosensitive pigment will be exceedingly difficult, judging from North's (1957) interesting calculation that M. senile may have only 10^6 - 10^7 photopigment molecules per cm^2 of body surface!" (an extremely small number)

Sorry but again, I would HIGHLY recommend you read this section if you are lucky enough to buy a copy or else get it from a local technical library. This entire section is related to the anemones' nervous system, which is also very basic and unique.

You had me at "Hello." <3 :fun2:

 

[bradleym]

You had me at "Hello." <3

:lol: LMAO!!! :lol:

And +1

That's a great resource you have there BonsaiNut.

 

[BonsaiNut]

:lol: LMAO!!! :lol:

And +1

That's a great resource you have there BonsaiNut.

Haha! Well I'm more interested in the biology sections and when it starts to get into the microbiology and chemistry it makes tough reading - in some cases I will skip sections and go back to them later But I remember some of the more interesting sections and will often find the reference papers and read them.

The sad thing is that this book is the ONLY major reference book on anemones in print - and it is now 20 years old. There are only a few marine biologists doing active research on anemones - and only one that I am aware of working on anemone reproduction.

 

[hypnoj]

ok.. So unless I misread something (entirely possible), if there is very little UV in the common reef tank; despite the fact that we know photo-sensitivity exists, why does bleaching from over exposure to High PAR (for lack of a better scale) occur? Is it purely damage from IR? Give me your thoughts/research.

 

[bradleym]

Bleaching from high PAR is exactly what EC was talking about earlier. Basically the zooxanthellae get rowdy so the nem spits them out. :lol:

 

[elegance coral]

Bleaching from high PAR is exactly what EC was talking about earlier. Basically the zooxanthellae get rowdy so the nem spits them out. :lol:

:lmao: Yep. I guess that's pretty much what I was trying to say. :beer:

The bottom line to what I'm trying to say here is simple. These are very shallow water creatures, that live in the tropics. People from the more northern latitudes may have a hard time imagining the power of the sun near the equator. Most aquarium lighting is not strong enough to mimic the light at the surface, near the equator, where these animals are from. Our lighting is typically designed to mimic the lighting several meters under the surface. If we reduce the light even further by shading them from typical aquarium lighting, we're taking them even further outside their natural habitat. Zooxanthellae are like terrestrial plants, in that different clades/strains/species have evolved to live with different levels of light exposure. The zooxanthellae within gigantea have evolved to flourish in the highest PAR values this planet has to offer. Depriving these zooxanthellae of adequate lighting would be like putting a southern pine in your living room. It's most likely going to die from insufficient lighting. When the zooxanthellae within an anemone dies, from insufficient lighting, the anemone is often not far behind.

I've brought three different giganteas back from different levels of bleaching. A brown one, green one, and the blue/purple one I have now. When working with a new species, I always do the same things. I make changes to the anemones environment, observe the anemones reactions, and make changes accordingly. In all three cases, the anemone improved as light levels increased. The recovery of the gigantea I have now, didn't really kick in until I placed it inches below a 10K, 250W, MH with T5's. It's so close that it actually touches the surface at times, and it's thriving. After it recovered I did change the MH to 20K though. Just for my personal viewing pleasure.:inlove:

My personal experience with this species, and the understanding of its natural habitat, tells me that shading this species from our typical aquarium lighting, especially when the anemone is partially bleached, is probably not a good idea.

Disclaimer.
It's very very very very very very important to understand that I'm only referring to gigantea with these statements. Other species can be, and typically are, completely different.