Host Anemone & lighting
- Thread starter Planoi
- Start date
Emmitt
New member
Dr. Shimek,
As others have noted, the general consensus in current reefkeeping literature on keeping clownfish host anemones almost always includes "intense lighting". (although I havn't read your book, yet.)
So just a couple questions, please.
Are there any studies published (by you or anyone) that led to the finding that host anemones will thrive in low light environments provided they are fed sufficiently? That is, have any studies been done or are your assertions based on physiological knowledge of the animal.
I'm curious as to how one determines the health of an anemone once the zoox. has been used up by the animal since color is no longer an indicator. Since it can take months for an anemone to die, what is the longest you've seen one thrive without intense lighting?
I think it's fascinating that after all the flames (and genuine concern) on this and other boards about people keeping anemones in low lighting, that, come to find out, all they need is food.
Tia,
As others have noted, the general consensus in current reefkeeping literature on keeping clownfish host anemones almost always includes "intense lighting". (although I havn't read your book, yet.)
So just a couple questions, please.Are there any studies published (by you or anyone) that led to the finding that host anemones will thrive in low light environments provided they are fed sufficiently? That is, have any studies been done or are your assertions based on physiological knowledge of the animal.
I'm curious as to how one determines the health of an anemone once the zoox. has been used up by the animal since color is no longer an indicator. Since it can take months for an anemone to die, what is the longest you've seen one thrive without intense lighting?
I think it's fascinating that after all the flames (and genuine concern) on this and other boards about people keeping anemones in low lighting, that, come to find out, all they need is food.
Tia,
Hi Tia,
Are there any studies published (by you or anyone) that led to the finding that host anemones will thrive in low light environments provided they are fed sufficiently? That is, have any studies been done or are your assertions based on physiological knowledge of the animal.
No specific studies with host anemones, however there are plenty of studies with other zooxanthellate anemones (including a very nice talk presented recently at MACNA). There is no reason to think that host anemones will react any differently to the lack of zoox than any other anemone.
There are plenty of anecodotal reports of bleached host anemones surviving for very long periods without ever getting any zooxanthellae back. Often one finds pure white "Sebae" anemones offered for sale. These animals will survive indefinitely and grow if fed well (I and others have kept them for well over a year - in my case I passed the anemone to another keeper when I left the firm where the anemone was in a display tank.). They do survive better in the average reefer's tanks if they "color up" with zoox, but survival in these situations still appears dependent upon feeding.
Along the same lines, I have an azooxanthellate Entacmaea quadricolor at the present time. I have it for six months and it is growing, and I expect that soon it will clone. It has not had zoox since I obtained it.
Finally, yes, some of this is based on my physiological knowledge of the animals as well as with discusssions with Dr. Daphne Fautin, who is probably the leading authority on these animals.
I'm curious as to how one determines the health of an anemone once the zoox. has been used up by the animal since color is no longer an indicator.
As with most invertebrates, I would suggest growth or reproduction is an effective indicator of health. An animal that is growing or periodically reproducing - either sexually or asexually - would be accepted by most researchers as being in good health.
Since it can take months for an anemone to die, what is the longest you've seen one thrive without intense lighting?
Personally about 18 months (but it was alive and well when I left the employ of the firm where it was).
I...come to find out, all they need is food.
All you have to do, is to think what the animal is getting from the zoox. As the presenter stated at MACNA, all the anemone gets is "candy bar nutrition." The animals cannot grow, or repair injury, or reproduce with such nutrition alone, as all of these processes require proteins made from some nitrogen source. All they can do is stay alive on their "candy bars."
To grow, to thrive, they need food.
One other point, and Tia, this is not directed specifically at you, so don't feel flamed.
Anemones are animals. All animals need to feed in some manner. Without appropriate food, [size=huge]EVERYTHING - EVERYTHING[/size] else is immaterial. Without appropriate food the animal dies, and all else is moot. It follows that the first rule when keeping animals is provide them with appropriate food. If they have some supplemental food source such as carbohydrates from zoox, that is all well and good, but it is only supplemental, and much more useful food must come from other sources.
Last edited:
Heath Man
New member
LOL!
Well, I have experienced a "paradigm shift" as Stephen Covey would call it!
Thanks for the info Dr. Shimek. I appreciate your taking time to help others understand. Everyone programs us that we're overfeeding and polluting our systems, and that you should err on the side of underfeeding for better water quality.
I think I'll go feed my fish!
Well, I have experienced a "paradigm shift" as Stephen Covey would call it!
Thanks for the info Dr. Shimek. I appreciate your taking time to help others understand. Everyone programs us that we're overfeeding and polluting our systems, and that you should err on the side of underfeeding for better water quality.
I think I'll go feed my fish!
Emmitt
New member
Thanks for the lengthy reply, Dr. Shimek. This is very interesting stuff!
All animals need to feed in some manner. Without appropriate food, EVERYTHING - EVERYTHING else is immaterial
Absolutely! I think that would be obvious to everyone. I never questioned that food was important. It was the lack of lighting I had the questions about.
I intend to keep feeding my s. Haddoni (under intense lighting)
Thanks again,
All animals need to feed in some manner. Without appropriate food, EVERYTHING - EVERYTHING else is immaterial
Absolutely! I think that would be obvious to everyone. I never questioned that food was important. It was the lack of lighting I had the questions about.
I intend to keep feeding my s. Haddoni (under intense lighting)
Thanks again,
Dr. Ron:
You've argued that we should try to recreate the optimum environmental conditions in which animals are found. You've also identified optimum conditions as those areas where the highest diversity or densities of animals are found. Furthermore you've noted that animals will spread to their environmental limits, but the animals living in these areas will not thrive.
Isn't it contradictory then to now condone and even endorse the idea of keeping anemones in marginal sub-optimum low light conditions? Daphne Fautin writes, "These anemones exist only in shallow water....these anemones live at depths of no more than 50 meters, generally in clear water." Her observations are consistent with mine. The majority of host anemones I've seen live in fairly shallow water and receive significantly more light than found in a typical reef tank. Below 40 feet densities dramatically decline and at about 100 feet, one can only find the occasional animal. The deepest anemones I've seen are spread flat as a pancake in an apparent attempt to gather as much light as possible.
If anemones don't need light, why aren't there host anemones in deep water? Why aren't there host anemones at 200 and 300 feet where there's plenty of food, but little light? Seems like the dark zone would be perfect for an animal that has the ability to capture and kill things as large as itself. Why are anemones shallow water animals if photosynthesis is providing no more than cotton candy?
You've argued that we should try to recreate the optimum environmental conditions in which animals are found. You've also identified optimum conditions as those areas where the highest diversity or densities of animals are found. Furthermore you've noted that animals will spread to their environmental limits, but the animals living in these areas will not thrive.
Isn't it contradictory then to now condone and even endorse the idea of keeping anemones in marginal sub-optimum low light conditions? Daphne Fautin writes, "These anemones exist only in shallow water....these anemones live at depths of no more than 50 meters, generally in clear water." Her observations are consistent with mine. The majority of host anemones I've seen live in fairly shallow water and receive significantly more light than found in a typical reef tank. Below 40 feet densities dramatically decline and at about 100 feet, one can only find the occasional animal. The deepest anemones I've seen are spread flat as a pancake in an apparent attempt to gather as much light as possible.
If anemones don't need light, why aren't there host anemones in deep water? Why aren't there host anemones at 200 and 300 feet where there's plenty of food, but little light? Seems like the dark zone would be perfect for an animal that has the ability to capture and kill things as large as itself. Why are anemones shallow water animals if photosynthesis is providing no more than cotton candy?
Hi,
Isn't it contradictory then to now condone and even endorse the idea of keeping anemones in marginal sub-optimum low light conditions?
I think that lighting is important to these animals in the real world for one reason. It allows them to get nutrition. If their nutrition needs are adequately met by feeding them, then I don't see any thing wrong with keeping them in an environment that has lower light intensity.
If anemones don't need light, why aren't there host anemones in deep water? Why aren't there host anemones at 200 and 300 feet where there's plenty of food, but little light?
In natural systems their nutrition needs are met by a combination of food, probably mostly fish, and light for the zoox. Both of these are less abundant in deeper water, smaller fish (anemone food )are more abundant in shallow water as that is where their foods are too. The lower limit to host anemone abundance is likely set by a number of factors, and food intake is likely only one. However, if there were sufficient food they would be likely be found deeper.
Additionally, there have not been sufficient quantitative surveys in what might be marginal habitats for us (Daphne's work included) to say what the limits of the anemone distributions are, or why those areas are marginal. When folks go to study anemones they go to those areas where they are most abundant - not the areas where their survival is marginal.
Seems like the dark zone would be perfect for an animal that has the ability to capture and kill things as large as itself. Why are anemones shallow water animals if photosynthesis is providing no more than cotton candy?
First, what else can photosynthesis provide?
Second, the dark zone is perfect for many anemones, the fact that these particular animals may not be found there could be many. I suggest that it is likely that that juvenile anemones probably can't find the foods they need at those depths, and that the adults are also food-limited in most of their situations. Hence, they stay in shallow water because in those areas the zoox provide them with supplemental nutrition. This supplement is basically sugar....to tide them over between real meals.
If they don't have the fish to eat, they certainly need bright lights. But if they have the food, light intensity is secondary.
Green Lantern
New member
Hi Ron, this thread has brought about some interesting discussion on another board. Some of the points made have already been raised here but I'd really like to hear your thoughts on Marting Moe's experiences. I hope I'm not breaking any rules here but I thought I'd paste his comments for you to look at and possibly respond.
Troy,
There is nothing in Martin's statements that are really at odds with mine.
If these animals are kept in low light, they may bleach. This is a problem if they are not fed well. I suspect Martin was neither feeding them enough nor the proper foods.
They need a lot of food. As far as calcium, if they are fed a lot of fish, they get a lot of calcium from the fish - bones and such are seldom excreted. I have kept my female haddoni for over 10 years now, and she is in a tank that I never add calcium to. She by all measures a healthy animal, so I presume she is getting what she needs from her diet.
Incidently, should the point be raised, while I firmly believe lighting is not the end all for these animals, I don't keep mine in the dark, or even poorly lit conditions. They are all kept under normal reef tank light - whatever that is - . However, they certainly could be kept healthy under low light.
There is nothing in Martin's statements that are really at odds with mine.
If these animals are kept in low light, they may bleach. This is a problem if they are not fed well. I suspect Martin was neither feeding them enough nor the proper foods.
They need a lot of food. As far as calcium, if they are fed a lot of fish, they get a lot of calcium from the fish - bones and such are seldom excreted. I have kept my female haddoni for over 10 years now, and she is in a tank that I never add calcium to. She by all measures a healthy animal, so I presume she is getting what she needs from her diet.
Incidently, should the point be raised, while I firmly believe lighting is not the end all for these animals, I don't keep mine in the dark, or even poorly lit conditions. They are all kept under normal reef tank light - whatever that is -
. However, they certainly could be kept healthy under low light.Green Lantern
New member
Ron, do you think that the feeding, or lack of, is what has made these animals so hard to keep alive?
I'm concerned that people may misinterpret what you are saying and conclude that they are easy to keep. (I know that is not what you are saying). Considering the impact their removal from the oceans has they hardly need to be collected any more than they already are.
I'm concerned that people may misinterpret what you are saying and conclude that they are easy to keep. (I know that is not what you are saying). Considering the impact their removal from the oceans has they hardly need to be collected any more than they already are.
Gene Brewer
New member
If they are feeding, you can keep all host anemones in absolute darkness until they are bleached whiter than sheets, and they will live just fine.
Slightly off topic, but I have always wanted to have an anemone and some clown anemonefish. That in itself is one of the main reasons I got into saltwater/reef vs the freshwater tanks I had.
I have been reading everything I can get hold of concerning keeping anemones and there seems to be a concensus among authors that keeping anemones are very difficult and should only be attempted by seasoned aquarists.
Do you think that this train of thought is based on the problems people are having with anemones based on their misunderstandings as well pointed out in this thread? Or are anemones that difficult to keep in a 'standard' reef aquarium.
Any guidance on this matter would be of great help to me (and others it seems).
Thanks Dr. Ron. Keep up the excellent work.
Gene
Slightly off topic, but I have always wanted to have an anemone and some clown anemonefish. That in itself is one of the main reasons I got into saltwater/reef vs the freshwater tanks I had.
I have been reading everything I can get hold of concerning keeping anemones and there seems to be a concensus among authors that keeping anemones are very difficult and should only be attempted by seasoned aquarists.
Do you think that this train of thought is based on the problems people are having with anemones based on their misunderstandings as well pointed out in this thread? Or are anemones that difficult to keep in a 'standard' reef aquarium.
Any guidance on this matter would be of great help to me (and others it seems).
Thanks Dr. Ron. Keep up the excellent work.
Gene
Hi Matthew, [thanks]
Hi Troy,
Ron, do you think that the feeding, or lack of, is what has made these animals so hard to keep alive?
Absolutlely. The animals have to have appropriate nutrition. It has to come from a combination of zoox and feeding. It is relatively easy to give the animals the bright light the zoox need, but then you still have to feed them some nitrogen source. IF the lighting is not as bright it is still possible to keep them thriving, but they need to be fed quite a bit.
I'm concerned that people may misinterpret what you are saying and conclude that they are easy to keep. (I know that is not what you are saying). Considering the impact their removal from the oceans has they hardly need to be collected any more than they already are.
Indeed, but additionally we need to make certain the ones that we do have live well, and asexually reproduce if possible. We also need to get breeding programs going.
Hi Troy,
Ron, do you think that the feeding, or lack of, is what has made these animals so hard to keep alive?
Absolutlely. The animals have to have appropriate nutrition. It has to come from a combination of zoox and feeding. It is relatively easy to give the animals the bright light the zoox need, but then you still have to feed them some nitrogen source. IF the lighting is not as bright it is still possible to keep them thriving, but they need to be fed quite a bit.
I'm concerned that people may misinterpret what you are saying and conclude that they are easy to keep. (I know that is not what you are saying). Considering the impact their removal from the oceans has they hardly need to be collected any more than they already are.
Indeed, but additionally we need to make certain the ones that we do have live well, and asexually reproduce if possible. We also need to get breeding programs going.
For what it's worth...
Growing up, I always learned and thought of sea anemones as being master predators with a powerful ability to paralyze unlucky passing animals. I even remember being afraid to be near one, thinking that it would stretch out, sting me, and digest me. Of course, this is all in the mind of a overdramatic 12-year old.
Since then, I've been on a roller coaster of information; however, I try to back everything I read or hear by some sort of biological fact of life that I have stored away in my brain somewhere.
Anyway, everything that Dr. Ron is saying makes complete sense. Remember that your anemone is an animal and not a plant -- light won't cut it alone!
Growing up, I always learned and thought of sea anemones as being master predators with a powerful ability to paralyze unlucky passing animals. I even remember being afraid to be near one, thinking that it would stretch out, sting me, and digest me. Of course, this is all in the mind of a overdramatic 12-year old.
Since then, I've been on a roller coaster of information; however, I try to back everything I read or hear by some sort of biological fact of life that I have stored away in my brain somewhere.
Anyway, everything that Dr. Ron is saying makes complete sense. Remember that your anemone is an animal and not a plant -- light won't cut it alone!
Host Anemone Feeding
Host Anemone Feeding
Your opinion is noted and wrong. These animals need a lot of food. A full grown ritteri to be growing and healty probably eats about the equivalent mass of a Big Mac every week or two.
I was curious Dr. Shimek, on what you are basing this recommendation? I note your use of qualifiers such as "probably" and "about" ... does this mean the Big Mac analogy is a guess or is it based on anything published in the scientific literature that I could read for myself?
Thanks!
BL
Host Anemone Feeding
Your opinion is noted and wrong. These animals need a lot of food. A full grown ritteri to be growing and healty probably eats about the equivalent mass of a Big Mac every week or two.
I was curious Dr. Shimek, on what you are basing this recommendation? I note your use of qualifiers such as "probably" and "about" ... does this mean the Big Mac analogy is a guess or is it based on anything published in the scientific literature that I could read for myself?
Thanks!
BL
Hi BL,
My value was a guesstimate based on 1) other inverts of about the same mass, and 2) scaled-up information from small zooxanthellate anemones.
There is zippo work done on either the physiology or the population biology of any host anemone, which is why, of course, we are debating these things. Lots of folks have looked at the clownfish part of the association, and Fautin has looked at the anemones taxonomically, but real information on the living animals is not there. A couple of good pH. D. topics, in my estimation.
Anyway, to scale up...
There has been a lot of work done on several species of zooxanthellate anemones - Anthopleura elegantissima, Anthopleura xanthogrammica, and (ya gotta love this one) Aiptasia pallida.
You can go to the literature - probably the best data base would Zoological Record online or on CD-ROM at a large library and do searches on these species. Most of this work has been done in the last decade, so it should show up. You should be able to find the metabolic rate estimates, and mean sizes. From Fautin's work, and maybe the work of some other folks, you can get mean sizes of host anemones, and you can apply across the board estimates - with appropriate fudge factors.
Some of the data are interesting. About 25 years ago, in his doctoral dissertation, Ken Sebens found that the temperate intertidal zooxanthellate Anthopleura elegantissima normally ate well only during one period of the year, during the settlement of barnacles into the intertidal zone. But during that short period it REALLY pigged out. After this it tended to divide, and bide its time until the next year or occasional small feedings on plankton. The algal symbionts basically helped it pass through the winter where there were not incidental plankton.
From these types of studies, one can get values for the relative contributions of food versus zoox, and of values for the total energy budget. Then you have to scale up, and adjust for the higher temperatures of the tropical anemones- which may be metabolizing at rates from 150 to 300 percent of the temperate ones simply due to the Q10 increase in metabolic rates in warmer areas.
From all of this I think you can get an estimate that a large anemone, say one with a mass of about 2.3 kg (=5 lbs) would require something one the order of 100 to 200 g (3-6 oz) of food per week.
Such a value is also consistent with the requirements of some other larger inverts such sea stars, and it is signficantly lower than other large but much more active inverts such as big snails or lobsters, so I think it is a good ball park estimate.
So... that was the basis of my guess.
My value was a guesstimate based on 1) other inverts of about the same mass, and 2) scaled-up information from small zooxanthellate anemones.
There is zippo work done on either the physiology or the population biology of any host anemone, which is why, of course, we are debating these things. Lots of folks have looked at the clownfish part of the association, and Fautin has looked at the anemones taxonomically, but real information on the living animals is not there. A couple of good pH. D. topics, in my estimation.
Anyway, to scale up...
There has been a lot of work done on several species of zooxanthellate anemones - Anthopleura elegantissima, Anthopleura xanthogrammica, and (ya gotta love this one) Aiptasia pallida.
You can go to the literature - probably the best data base would Zoological Record online or on CD-ROM at a large library and do searches on these species. Most of this work has been done in the last decade, so it should show up. You should be able to find the metabolic rate estimates, and mean sizes. From Fautin's work, and maybe the work of some other folks, you can get mean sizes of host anemones, and you can apply across the board estimates - with appropriate fudge factors.
Some of the data are interesting. About 25 years ago, in his doctoral dissertation, Ken Sebens found that the temperate intertidal zooxanthellate Anthopleura elegantissima normally ate well only during one period of the year, during the settlement of barnacles into the intertidal zone. But during that short period it REALLY pigged out. After this it tended to divide, and bide its time until the next year or occasional small feedings on plankton. The algal symbionts basically helped it pass through the winter where there were not incidental plankton.
From these types of studies, one can get values for the relative contributions of food versus zoox, and of values for the total energy budget. Then you have to scale up, and adjust for the higher temperatures of the tropical anemones- which may be metabolizing at rates from 150 to 300 percent of the temperate ones simply due to the Q10 increase in metabolic rates in warmer areas.
From all of this I think you can get an estimate that a large anemone, say one with a mass of about 2.3 kg (=5 lbs) would require something one the order of 100 to 200 g (3-6 oz) of food per week.
Such a value is also consistent with the requirements of some other larger inverts such sea stars, and it is signficantly lower than other large but much more active inverts such as big snails or lobsters, so I think it is a good ball park estimate.
So... that was the basis of my guess.
rshimek said:
Dr. Ron:
I understand that this is a "back of the envelope" estimate, but I'd like to understand how you reached this estimate. You say a mass of 2.3 kg, but we're not talking about the animal itself are we? It must be the weight of an anemone as one carries it home in a plastic bag. If that's correct, most of the weight is saltwater, isn't it?
It that's the case, this is a rather large anemone. Assuming most of the weight is saltwater, it must be something like 16-18 inches across. Is that what you based your assumptions on?
If most of the weight is saltwater, the weight of the tissue is going to be a small fraction of this. What would you say? Maybe 5%? Using some of the few scientific articles on anemone nutrition I've been able to find, your proposed 100-200g seems very high. It seems like it ought to be something like 10% of this or less.
Any more you can share about your assumptions would be appreciated.
Similar threads
