"Natural" closed biotope?
- Thread starter chef.lewis
- Start date
happyclam
New member
I would try an EcoSystem filter. It's the system that Leng Sy created. According to Mike Palleta, the system is very succesful at keeping SPS corals, as well as sponges and sea rods. It is exactly like a regular refugium, except it uses the Miracle Mud. Also, another thing to take into a ccount when setting up a refugium, is that Caulpera is normally more efficient as a nutrient removal system than cheato. I would assume that of course you know this, but remember that it can take a skimmerless system longer to establish, and that cyano blooms might last longer in the beggining because the algae mass hasn't caught up to the amount of live rock there is. And I'm sorry if this info is flawed, as I am still a beginner.
If you can find a copy of "The Environmental Gradient - Cryptic Sponge and Sea Squirt Filtration Models" by Steve Tyree, you should read it.
I have not read it because it is difficult to find but he basically advocates using different zones to mimic the natural reef. He does all these systems without skimmers. You can find some basic info on his website.
http://www.dynamicecomorphology.com/
I have not read it because it is difficult to find but he basically advocates using different zones to mimic the natural reef. He does all these systems without skimmers. You can find some basic info on his website.
http://www.dynamicecomorphology.com/
greenbean36191
Premium Member
I think it's pretty typical for nanos to be run without skimmer or mechanical filtration. I had success with a 2.5, 5, and 29 for several years with nothing but LR and macroalgae. It gets harder when you increase the size of the tank though since people tend to add bigger, messier fish and it becomes less practical to do large water changes. If you carefully plan your stocking and filtration beforehand though, it's doable. I know a guy that had a 340 that had a macroalgae refugium and a LR refugium with a DSB and that's all it took to keep his tank running.
I think one of the big keys is to have a clear definition of the problems you want to solve and work from there. Also, it's important to understand what each method you plan to employ can and can't do towards solving that problem. I see way too many hobbyists just adding a little of this and a little of that without even understanding how much their solution really addresses an existing problem or how it might contribute to other problems.
I think one of the big keys is to have a clear definition of the problems you want to solve and work from there. Also, it's important to understand what each method you plan to employ can and can't do towards solving that problem. I see way too many hobbyists just adding a little of this and a little of that without even understanding how much their solution really addresses an existing problem or how it might contribute to other problems.
greenbean36191
Premium Member
That last point brings up one of my main objection to "cryptic filters." I've yet to meet a proponent for them that has a realistic understanding of the limitations and drawbacks of such a system or even what kind of benefit they provide. For the most part it's a solution looking for a problem. Sponges and tunicates are competitors with corals. Corals are already eating the same things the sponges and tunicates are filtering out. You have a filter that's competing with what you want to grow, not some novel filtration solution that's filling in some methodological gap. They also tend to be some of the most toxic animals on the reef. You would be better off just adding more corals, which remove particulates without excreting so much nitrogen and tend to be much less toxic and often faster growing. The only cases I would recommend a "cryptic" filter is if someone has a FO and doesn't want the requisite lighting for corals or if it's simply for the sake of aesthetics or biodiversity.
Obviously I'm not a fan of Tyree's pseudoscientific writing. IMO his pamphlet is poorly written and researched and has very little basis in real biology. He also uses a lot of jargon and misuses a lot of scientific terms ("cryptic" being the biggest one) in an effort to sound like he's an authority on the subject. I certainly wouldn't recommend his book, especially if you're attempting to understand the trophic and chemical roles of sponges and tunicates on the reef.
Obviously I'm not a fan of Tyree's pseudoscientific writing. IMO his pamphlet is poorly written and researched and has very little basis in real biology. He also uses a lot of jargon and misuses a lot of scientific terms ("cryptic" being the biggest one) in an effort to sound like he's an authority on the subject. I certainly wouldn't recommend his book, especially if you're attempting to understand the trophic and chemical roles of sponges and tunicates on the reef.
I am glad to hear your opinion on Tyree's book. As I said I haven't read it but I was intrigued by the idea. He claims that sponges and sea squirts eat waste from the "reef flat zone" but you say the opposite.
I see that you are a marine biologist so I will take this information seriously. Thanks.
I see that you are a marine biologist so I will take this information seriously. Thanks.
greenbean36191
Premium Member
No, I'm not really saying the opposite. It is true that sponges and tunicates do eat waste from other parts of the reef. However, what he doesn't mention is that that waste is also one of the primary food sources for many corals. He's only telling half of the story.
Most sponges and tunicates are primarily feeding on bacterioplankton and bacteria coated bits of particulate matter. This is exactly the same thing many corals such as Acropora make a living on. Also, both release waste from these food sources in the form of DIN (ammonia, which ends up as nitrate), but the big difference is that corals kept in the light cycle that DIN with their zooxanthellae rather than just dumping it into the water. Sponges and tunicates kept in the dark don't have any photosymbionts, so all of it goes back into the water. Ironically, there are sponges that keep photosymbionts and release less of their N into the water, but these are the ones being selected against by keeping these filters in the dark.
With them removing coral food and acting as sources of nitrogen, I'm left scratching my head as to what problem they're supposed to be solving.
Most sponges and tunicates are primarily feeding on bacterioplankton and bacteria coated bits of particulate matter. This is exactly the same thing many corals such as Acropora make a living on. Also, both release waste from these food sources in the form of DIN (ammonia, which ends up as nitrate), but the big difference is that corals kept in the light cycle that DIN with their zooxanthellae rather than just dumping it into the water. Sponges and tunicates kept in the dark don't have any photosymbionts, so all of it goes back into the water. Ironically, there are sponges that keep photosymbionts and release less of their N into the water, but these are the ones being selected against by keeping these filters in the dark.
With them removing coral food and acting as sources of nitrogen, I'm left scratching my head as to what problem they're supposed to be solving.
greenbean36191
Premium Member
LR and sand house anaerobic bacteria that break nitrate down into nitrogen gas.
Yes, these sponges produce ammonia at a rate comparable to or even greater than fish. For comparison, a large adult clownfish will produce a maximum of about 1.8 umol/g/hr. Compare that to sponges which have been measured at rates from .5- 2.7 umol/g/hr.
Yes, these sponges produce ammonia at a rate comparable to or even greater than fish. For comparison, a large adult clownfish will produce a maximum of about 1.8 umol/g/hr. Compare that to sponges which have been measured at rates from .5- 2.7 umol/g/hr.
sly fox
Premium Member
wow, thats a lot.... what i dont get then is how mr. tyree gets by with them in a skimmerless tank... anyone know what his water change schedule is like?
with those figures you have to figure it would be better off just having the front zone and packing the rest out with live rock haha seriously tho those figures dont make tri-zonal filtration at all viable...
has anyone tried to replicate mr. tyrees method to see if it works or not?
with those figures you have to figure it would be better off just having the front zone and packing the rest out with live rock haha seriously tho those figures dont make tri-zonal filtration at all viable...
has anyone tried to replicate mr. tyrees method to see if it works or not?
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
Pretty fitting for MANY fads, accepted methods and ideas in this hobby. There are plenty of bright pioneers out there, but also a boat load of those who just plain full of it.
If a guy has nice looking coral and attributes it throwing two boogers and a toenail in the tank, AND can get himself noticed by saying the right things at the right place...
...then he stands to be an icon in the hobby, no matter what the reality of his methods or ideas are.
greenbean36191
Premium Member
I don't know Tyree's maintenance schedule, but many people run skimmerless tanks without issue. There are several examples in this thread.
Comparing a skimmer to sponges is apples to oranges though. There's not much overlap between what they can remove from the water. Neither one removes dissolved inorganic nitrogen like ammonia or nitrate either.
Comparing a skimmer to sponges is apples to oranges though. There's not much overlap between what they can remove from the water. Neither one removes dissolved inorganic nitrogen like ammonia or nitrate either.
jeffkeith_us
New member
Steve Tyree's Cryptic Methods
Steve Tyree's Cryptic Methods
Hi Everyone
I know Steve's method and operation quite well; no I'm not going to tell you, you go ask him. What I will tell you guys is that he truly runs a skimmerless system that grows beautiful SPS coral without feeding either coral or sponges. They feed each other!
Steve Tyree's Cryptic Methods
Hi Everyone
I know Steve's method and operation quite well; no I'm not going to tell you, you go ask him. What I will tell you guys is that he truly runs a skimmerless system that grows beautiful SPS coral without feeding either coral or sponges. They feed each other!
Think of a reef tank like a tool box. Odd I know but it sort of goes like this. Some people will reach in and grab a tool they want and when done with the job just put it in any drawer. Could be with a drawer with a jig saw, socket, allen wrench, or any other number or random tools in the tool box. Then you have other people whom group similar tools together. A drawer by screw driver type, hammers, saws, wrench type a, b, etc. You get the idea.
Now with reef tanks one of the first things I was taught was to think about the bio type you are keeping. Corals, substrate, fish, geographic location, etc. This was said because getting back to the tool box. If I have low light, sandy bottom, coral and fish type then I really don't want high intensity lights, bare bottom, and SPS type corals, right? Just like if I want SPS type A then it will need different flow, lighting, and water quality.
One thing I've noticed over the years is that we just throw whatever looks good in the tank regardless if it has similar requires as to the coral(s) next to it. Hence my tool and tool box comment. We just throw stuff in there because it looks good and before you know it we have a tank full of skittles
Not saying this is bad - just saying that if you plan for the biotype and stick to it then yes, you can go without a skimmer, reduce water changes, or any number of things and have a successful tank.
Now with reef tanks one of the first things I was taught was to think about the bio type you are keeping. Corals, substrate, fish, geographic location, etc. This was said because getting back to the tool box. If I have low light, sandy bottom, coral and fish type then I really don't want high intensity lights, bare bottom, and SPS type corals, right? Just like if I want SPS type A then it will need different flow, lighting, and water quality.
One thing I've noticed over the years is that we just throw whatever looks good in the tank regardless if it has similar requires as to the coral(s) next to it. Hence my tool and tool box comment. We just throw stuff in there because it looks good and before you know it we have a tank full of skittles
Not saying this is bad - just saying that if you plan for the biotype and stick to it then yes, you can go without a skimmer, reduce water changes, or any number of things and have a successful tank.
Nano sapiens
New member
I agree that 'sticking to a particular biotope' makes it easier to succeed. But, for some aquarists (like me) the challenge of a 'mixed reef' using just live rock and live sand is an interesting challenge. And having a mixed reef in just 10g of total water volume for seven years...well, that's even more interesting!
I agree that 'sticking to a particular biotope' makes it easier to succeed. But, for some aquarists (like me) the challenge of a 'mixed reef' using just live rock and live sand is an interesting challenge. And having a mixed reef in just 10g of total water volume for seven years...well, that's even more interesting!
Agreed, for sure. There is a lot more going on with this hobby in regards to how people do things and their success than most others. I struggle with a 40 gallon not by failure but by being an active scuba diver and viewing something on a larger scale yet trying to replicate something similar in such a small space.
I don't think I could do it regardless of tank size yet some on these forums manage pretty well.
Similar threads
