depresed34
Premium Member
are all mangrove tree safe for reef tank?
mangrove tree question
- Thread starter depresed34
- Start date
pjf
Premium Member
I've no idea but here are some articles on the subject that I was able to find on Google:
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-12/ac/feature/index.php
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/apr2002/feature.htm
This author thinks mangroves are inferior to macroalgae in terms of nutrient uptake:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/3/lines/view?searchterm=mangrove
You can buy them here: http://www.liveaquaria.com/product/prod_display.cfm?c=490+1477&pcatid=1477
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-12/ac/feature/index.php
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/apr2002/feature.htm
This author thinks mangroves are inferior to macroalgae in terms of nutrient uptake:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/3/lines/view?searchterm=mangrove
You can buy them here: http://www.liveaquaria.com/product/prod_display.cfm?c=490+1477&pcatid=1477
that article about mangroves vrs algae is silly they dont referance nutrient export just growth
what exactly was the study trying to prove that macro grows faster or at a higher volume then a True plant wow thats awesome
simply put mangroves have thier places in an aquarium imo
what exactly was the study trying to prove that macro grows faster or at a higher volume then a True plant wow thats awesome
simply put mangroves have thier places in an aquarium imo
If a home aquarist were able to grow one handful of macroalgae in their sump each month, this would equal 34.2 grams (for Chaetomorpha sp.) and 15.54 grams (Caulerpa serrulata). This would correlate to growing 3 entire mangrove plants and 1.5 mangrove plants during that time in that aquarium!!! That kind of algal growth is common, but that kind of mangrove growth is unprecedented. Therefore our hypothesis was wrong and disproved in this study. The author's viewpoint following this study is that mangrove plants may be useful to aquariums but in terms of nutrient uptake they are far inferior to macroalgae growth.
in response to this statement where are nutrient levels measured and compared?
this author somehow(stupidly) correlates growth with nutrient export. no where in the entire study were measurements taken simply end product weighed and then compared. if this was truly from a scientist id like to ask them to determine which is a more valuable bill a 50$ or a 100$ well they weigh the same approx so they must be equal.that logic is silly
in response to this statement where are nutrient levels measured and compared?
this author somehow(stupidly) correlates growth with nutrient export. no where in the entire study were measurements taken simply end product weighed and then compared. if this was truly from a scientist id like to ask them to determine which is a more valuable bill a 50$ or a 100$ well they weigh the same approx so they must be equal.that logic is silly
greenbean36191
Premium Member
The logic isn't silly at all. This is in fact how you estimate primary productivity.
If you grow .38 grams of mangrove per month (2 leaves, which would be exceptional growth) vs. 5.7 grams of algae, the mangrove would have to contain 15 times the nutrients per gram to be competitive with the algae. That's an unrealistically high number given what we know about nutrient concentrations in algae vs. vascular plants. Algae are almost universially higher. Compared to algae, vascular plants are extremely high in cellulose, which makes up their bulk. That cellulose is primarily a product of atmospheric carbon, not dissolved nutrients.
The entire premise of mangroves as natural filters is flawed anyway. Mangroves in tropical areas function as mechanical filters, not chemical. They do little to take up nutrients from the water, and being true plants they take up soil nutrients preferentially.
If you grow .38 grams of mangrove per month (2 leaves, which would be exceptional growth) vs. 5.7 grams of algae, the mangrove would have to contain 15 times the nutrients per gram to be competitive with the algae. That's an unrealistically high number given what we know about nutrient concentrations in algae vs. vascular plants. Algae are almost universially higher. Compared to algae, vascular plants are extremely high in cellulose, which makes up their bulk. That cellulose is primarily a product of atmospheric carbon, not dissolved nutrients.
The entire premise of mangroves as natural filters is flawed anyway. Mangroves in tropical areas function as mechanical filters, not chemical. They do little to take up nutrients from the water, and being true plants they take up soil nutrients preferentially.
greenbean i never stated a contradiction to the conclusion i simply stated that growth shouldnt be how it is measured. obviously nutrient concentrations are going to be higher in algae as opposed to a true plant however there are benefits to mangroves. root structures will provide deeper penetration with out actually disturbing the anaerobic zone no? yes i understand that there are rooting varieties of macro but if the goal is to absorb as many nutrients as possible why not super saturate? i routinely prune ~1 sandwich baggie of cheato per month but my 1 mangroves plant has been growing remarkably well. anyhow isnt the problem in most tanks the eventual build-up of nutrients with in the tank not necessarily the water. im suggesting that a complicated deep penetrating root structure will offer benefits. more importantly it will offer benefits where most tanks especially with deep sand beds can fail. also i would agree that macro would use more nutrients however i would make this statement, you have to export the nutrients from macro. this is not quite as true with a true plant, im suggesting that the true plant will use the nutrients up in a more effective manner than the algae would. as always id appreciate some enlightenment.
Opsanus tau
In Memoriam
I have a refugium with Mangroves lit 24/7, but very little light; (13 watts)..and they have been doing fine( since Nov.2007)-O.tau
SoFloReefer
New member
I think the root structure of a developed Mangrove would provide a place for organisms to seek refuge and reproduce like in the wild. I am going to use both mangroves and chaetomorpha in my newest tank (in the sump)
RedAnt78
Likes fish
I have 21 mangroves and chaeto in my 10gal fuge. I like having the mangroves and the macro.
I got all 21 off of ebay with roots already growing for like $20 including shipping from a place in Hawaii and they were all still alive and healthy when they got to me in Florida.
This pic is after about 9 months up and running.
I got all 21 off of ebay with roots already growing for like $20 including shipping from a place in Hawaii and they were all still alive and healthy when they got to me in Florida.
This pic is after about 9 months up and running.
Aquarist007
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13359472#post13359472 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RedAnt78
I have 21 mangroves and chaeto in my 10gal fuge. I like having the mangroves and the macro.
I got all 21 off of ebay with roots already growing for like $20 including shipping from a place in Hawaii and they were all still alive and healthy when they got to me in Florida.
This pic is after about 9 months up and running.
that is a great mangrove setup--could you possibly repost on this thread:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1349443
LockeOak
New member
One benefit of mangroves in a refugium might be the root system as substrate for other organisms. Submerged mangrove roots in Florida are completely covered in macroalgae (including Caulerpa and Chaetomorpha), small-medium anemones (inc. Aiptasia) and sponges. Don't expect them to take up much in the way of nutrients compared to macroalgae, but they might provide an additional microhabitat for invert populations to grow. I don't have any evidence to back that up, however, if nothing else they do look cool 
Aquarist007
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13383321#post13383321 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by LockeOak
One benefit of mangroves in a refugium might be the root system as substrate for other organisms. Submerged mangrove roots in Florida are completely covered in macroalgae (including Caulerpa and Chaetomorpha), small-medium anemones (inc. Aiptasia) and sponges. Don't expect them to take up much in the way of nutrients compared to macroalgae, but they might provide an additional microhabitat for invert populations to grow. I don't have any evidence to back that up, however, if nothing else they do look cool
I imagine they would be great sites for harbouring bacteria also---even if only aerobic and some anerobic.
At least with the case of the roots you have instant assimulation of the nitrates produced unlike in a similar situation with bio balls
Similar threads
