High phosphate and nitrate but sps seems to be happy

b408e8e51e961ec36e49e3d572e950dd.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
google the skeptical reef keeper.. lots of tanks do very well with high nitrates and phosphates. we tend to chase numbers rather then observe the health of our tanks.. lets not get into all the ulns that have one form factor go a little out of wack and the tank completely crashes
 
I would like to see the tank that does well at 50 nitrates and .25 phosphates long term Maybe if it's a tank of softies


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
.22ppm PO4 and 50ppm NO3 might ok for some sps if those levels are not spurring too much nuisance algae and the corals are healthy and pleasing to your eye. Two weeks is small window to conclude anything though.

The higher PO4 coupled with high nitrogen will a enhance zooxanthelae growth providing increased energy and might also increase energy to move calcium and carbonate to the skeletal matrix via a larger supply of ATP ( andenosine triphospahte).

On the down side :

at some point ,probably over .25ppm, it will alter growth of the skeletal mass as the PO4 can "poison" some carbonate crystal growth providing less dense skeletons;

increased zooxanthelae growth will brown/darken corals( zooxanthelae is brown) and may overproduce oxygen beyond what the coral needs leading to bleaching in some cases.

FWIW, I prefer to keep PO4 around 0.02 to 0.05ppm,never zero with NO3 under 1ppm; however, others do run tanks quite a bit higher. PO4 levels on reefs vary with depth and are around .1ppm or more with NO3 at the surface around 0.2ppm, FYI.
 
Last edited:
The concentration of PO4 in the ocean varies from 2 mg/l below 1000' to surface levels as high as .7 mg/l away from reefs to an average of .13 mg/l on reefs. (only a tiny, tiny fraction of reefs are below .05 mg/l.) It seems pretty obvious the reason PO4 is so low on reefs is the corals are sucking it up. What we cannot test for is daily production of nitrogen and phosphate. We can run systems with levels that test below what's found on reefs and be successful because either directly feeding the corals or the heterotrophic life in the tank, fish and non photosynthetic inverts, is able to supply most of the needs of the corals on a daily basis. But starve a system and you end up with an unfortunately very common scenario where the system tests very low for nutrients but has nuisance algae problems and poor coral growth or coral death. And let a corals internal PO4 level drop below .07 mg/l and it becomes very sensitive to even slight changes in temperature and/or lighting conditions and fades or bleaches

Quotes by two of the formost researchers on reefs are very telling:
"Our crystal clear aquaria do not come close to the nutrient loads that swirl around natural reefs. And so when we create low-nutrient water conditions, we still have to deal with the rest of a much more complex puzzle. Much like those who run their aquarium water temperature close to the thermal maximums of corals walk a narrow tight rope, I can't help but think that low-nutrient aquariums may be headed down a similar path." Charles Delbeck, Coral Nov/Dec 2010, pg 127

"Imported nutrients are usually transported to reefs from rivers; but if there are no rivers, as with reefs remote from land masses, nutrients can only come from surface ocean circulation. Often this supply is poor, and thus the vast ocean expanses have been refered to as "nutrient deserts". The Indo-Pacific has many huge atolls in these supposed deserts which testify to the resilience of reefs, but the corals themselves may lack the lush appearance of those of more fertile waters. Many reefs have another major supply of inorganic nutrients as, under certain conditions, surface currents moving against a reef face may cause deep ocean water to be drawn to the surface. This "upwelled" water is often rich in phosphorus [2.0 mg/l] and other essential chemicals." J. E. N. Veron "Corals of Austrailia and the Indo-Pacific" pg 30


When I help local aquarists deal with their algae problems what is striking is nutrients do not decrease with the disappearance of the nuisance algae and may actually increase. I do not see any causality between having nutrients and having nuisance algae. Dr. Forest Rohwer discusses the research showing how it's an reef ecosystems equilibrium that determines what lifeforms will flourish and not the nutrients per se, in his book "Coral Reefs in the Microbial Seas".

As far as PO4 and calcification, as PO4 increases calcification decreases. What is contradictory is at reef normal levels, .05 - .5 mg/l, coral growth increases as PO4 increases. As far as what levels are required to kill corals it needs to be at least 10X higher than reef normal or above 5.0 mg/l (species and genotype is a factor). I have seen birdsnest and poccilopora growing at even higher levels but growth was understandably stunted.
 
As far as PO4 and calcification, as PO4 increases calcification decreases. What is contradictory is at reef normal levels, .05 - .5 mg/l, coral growth increases as PO4 increases. As far as what levels are required to kill corals it needs to be at least 10X higher than reef normal or above 5.0 mg/l (species and genotype is a factor). I have seen birdsnest and poccilopora growing at even higher levels but growth was understandably stunted.[/QUOTE]

I don't think you can say calcification decreases or increases in inverse proportion to PO4 levels. The calcification is altered in form but may actually be equal in total aragonite crystal growth.

Where does the lethality level of 5.0 mg/l come from?
 
Last edited:
tmz said:
"As far as PO4 and calcification, as PO4 increases calcification decreases. What is contradictory is at reef normal levels, .05 - .5 mg/l, coral growth increases as PO4 increases. As far as what levels are required to kill corals it needs to be at least 10X higher than reef normal or above 5.0 mg/l (species and genotype is a factor). I have seen birdsnest and poccilopora growing at even higher levels but growth was understandably stunted."

I don't think you can say calcification decreases or increases in inversely proportion to PO4 levels. The calcification is altered in form but may actually be equal in total aragonite crystal growth.

Where does the lethality level of 5.0 mg/l come from?
Click to expand...

This study showed increased l growth with increased PO4 but also reduced skeletal density:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022098111004588

As far as the lethal level of PO4 being at least 5.0 mg/l, depending on species and genotype, is based on my own observations. I see acros, montis, birdsnests, Pocillopora and stylos apparently happy at levels up to 5 mg/l. At 8 mg/l I've seen Pocillopora damicornis and Seratopra histrex and put on new growth but are clearly very stunted. The same level slowly killed a green birdsnest (S. guttatis?) and a Surf and Turf acro showed now growth but maintained color.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Timfish said:
This study showed increased growth with increased PO4 but also reduced skeletal density:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022098111004588

I've read that paper at least once before . It says linear growth increases with less density. It doesn't say calcification is reduced.

As far as the lethal level of PO4 being at least 5.0 mg/l, depending on species and genotype, is based on my own observations. I see acros, montis, birdsnests, Pocillopora and stylos apparently happy at levels up to 5 mg/l. At 8 mg/l I've seen Pocillopora damicornis and Seratopra histrex and put on new growth but are clearly very stunted. The same level slowly killed a green birdsnest (S. guttatis?) and a Surf and Turf acro showed now growth but maintained color.

Thanks for clarifying the anecdotal observation. It originally sounded like there was some data being asserted as originally stated in your earlier post :

"As far as what levels are required to kill corals it needs to be at least 10X higher than reef normal or above 5.0 mg/l (species and genotype is a factor).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Also George burns lived to 98 and smoke and drank every day. So I am going to do it too


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Not saying your wrong. Actually set up my tank 3 months ago. I had 250 lbs of dry rock from someone else tank. They got rid of tank because of gha all over tank. I kept those rocks for 18 months in my garage. I simple rinsed them and used. Well first test of nitrates and phosphates about 6 weeks into tank revealed 75 ppm nitrates and 2.06 phosphates. I was shocked I had no algae no diatoms no cryno. I did use 200 lbs of live rock and did have a 57 gallon remote dsb. Well after 6 more weeks nitrates where down to 5 ppm and phosphates with Gfo are down to .39 or .29. I have acro , anemones , lps. Everything is growing and doing fine even 2 avelpora. Only 2 pieces are doing bad both of my tracyoliia So I am now thinking nitrates and phosphates aren't the devil. But I won't be so quick to tell newbies to run there tanks at those levels either. There are so many factors involved Also I ran ny alk at 12 when I had those levels. Used reef crystal salt to start tank. Now I run at 8.6. So maybe the high alk helped when I had early nutrients. I am now going to feed my tank heavily for 3 months. Since my nitrates are low and phosphates or ok. I have 100 gallon fuge. So want to see what happens. But even the guy in video says he isn't telling people to go out and run high nutrients tanks. Just said we have more learning to do


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Calcium very elevated
Replies
3
Views
198
jcarlilesiu
J
S
Phosphate flow out of live rock
Replies
0
Views
147
SantaMonica
S
griss
High pH / Low Alk
Replies
6
Views
189
griss
griss
H
High ammonia in 24 year old tank
Replies
15
Views
220
brandon429
brandon429
DjPhato
90gal reef cycling
Replies
8
Views
620
griss
griss
Back
Top