Natural enemy to those liitle worms in the sand bed that have those nasty tentacles!

[Opcn]

You were right about one thing. We could have no Amazon without a huge amount of rotting organic matter, and the organisms that live in it. Why is that? Why does the Amazon need rotting matter? Because the trees and other plant life needs the fertilizer that's produced by decomposition, and the organisms that make that decomposition possible. Most plant life, outside of carnivorous plants, can not utilize nutrients that are held in solid particles of organic matter. They rely on other organisms to break down those solid particles and free the nutrients they contain. Only then can plants utilize these nutrients and grow. The Amazon forest simply would not exist without the nitrate, phosphate, and other nutrients from decomposition. This is the same in virtually every environment around the globe. Even in our oceans. Our oceans hold a DSB of its own. Scientists refer to it as the great abyssal plain. It's job in nature is the same as the rotting leaf litter on the floor of the Amazon forest. It breaks down organic matter, and fuels plant life. ( Mostly algae in marine environments. ) This DSB is to far below the waves, to receive enough light, to power photosynthesis, so algae/plants don't grow here. In areas where the currents bring, the waters from this DSB, to the surface (where it's exposed to light) it creates algae blooms. This is essential and a very good thing in nature. Not so good in our tiny little glass boxes. We don't want algae blooms. Algae is the largest problem hobbyists face. Just check GRD and this becomes clear. Everywhere we look in nature, rotting organic matter fuels plant/algae growth. It is no different in our little glass boxes. If hobbyists understood that it's okay to remove that rotting filth from their sand bed, and doing so would rob nutrients from those problem causing algae blooms, most of the algae threads in GRD would disappear. This whole DSB thing has convinced people to leave the rotting organic matter on the bottom of their tank, and it does just as it does in nature. It fuels algae blooms. We can pick this apart, and view it form many different perspectives, but we can't get past this fact. Ignoring this fact will simply lead to more, "Why do I have algae" threads in GRD.

I think that's just what you are missing about his point, and mine. Worms are moving it out. With out worms those particles are broken down by sedentary bacteria (a little by pods, but pod populations cannot handle them like worm populations can, if only because pods get eaten so readily). Either those food particles in the sand bed become 1st bacteria and then part of the water column or some inorganic nutrient sink or they become part of worms then part of the water column as plankton or part of the fish food chain or inorganics in the water column or in a sink. It is impractical to say the least for a hobbiest to wash their sand daily, or weekly, or even monthly. The worms will constantly keep the nutrient rolling, like they are in nature. Your position looks to me a lot like the hobby standard that I see in articles from back in the 90's.

The skimmer, the biopelletes, the ATS, the GFO, none of them can remove a particle of uneaten food from the sand bed, and that food will rot and release all its nutrients over time, the only think that can mobilize that nutrient load in an organic form (and that the skimmer can remove from the tank) is the humble reef worm. With the possible exception of the ATS no matter what you want to do with your tank in terms of filtration having worms in any sand bed will help it work better and take care of nutrients before they hit the algae that you don't want.

 

[mhaith]

OK 'EC', you are correct. It appears your position is that 100% of input of unconsumed nutrients for our desired animals be removed from the system prior to decomposition. That would be great but it is also unrealistic.

I believe you may be overlooking the value detrivores have in a closed system aside and in addition to, the further breakdown of nutrients: Spawn as a food source for the desirable fauna we DO want in our tanks, stirring of the sand bed and interesting diversity are just a start.

Maybe I am oversimplifying the entire discussion?

 

[Agu]

What I'm seeing as this thread has evolved is a debate regarding a DSB with NNR (natural nitrate reduction) vs a "live" sandbed where a clean up crew cleans the sand vs a sterile sandbed where the aquarist cleans the sand with a gravel vac exporting nutrients.

Just trying to define the discussion ............

 

[Aqua_DHMO_Tech]

For the record, this thread caused me to crack open a beer :beer:

Lets say you did remove all particles of organic matter (which seems it would be impossible). While implementing that method, one also had a very sterile setup, with no worms, no copepods, no amphipods, no CUC, etc. What would happen to a piece of mysis that went unnoticed inside the rockwork? Would it just decompose at an extremely slow rate being consumed by heterotropic (sp?) bacteria? Lets say in the said system a few days later the current moved the decaying piece out into the water column and was consumed. Would there be any negative effects on the organism that consumed it? I've heard in a seahorse system, you would not want a decaying mysis shrimp to be consumed.. So in this situation, organisms to breakdown the uneaten and unseen mysis shrimp would thus be beneficial, no?
Sorry for the random scenario, I was just curious.

EDIT
Kingfisher- fascinating and alien looking creature! I would be interested in purchasing some, I have never seen them before- what are they called? Also, how appropriate that Jurassic Park 1 is playing in the background of the video..

 

[Opcn]

For me this debate falls down to a tank of a given ornamental livestock level with filtration & maintenance methods X,Y, and Z and no/few worms versus the same tank of a given ornamental livestock level with filtration & maintenance methods X,Y, and Z with an equilibrium population of worms.

 

[elegance coral]

You are asking me to put BLIND FAITH in your opinion and do so without ANY evidence other than your opinion.

I most certainly am not. I told you to crack a book. I said, you needed to study. I, at no point, asked you to put blind faith in what I am saying. It is your blind faith that has put you in the state of confusion you're in now. You don't stand a chance of understanding how nature works without studying. Reading articles for the marine aquarium hobby will simply lead to more confusion.

At the same time I am to believe that every other voice on the subject is misleading me,

Have you talked to any of the countless hobbyists that have gone bare bottom because their DSB was fueling algae, and killing their pets? "Every other voice" in the hobby does not support the claims that are being made in this thread. If that's all you're hearing, then you're being very selective in what you hear.

including two who have provided well articulated evidence in this very thread?

Can you quote one piece of "evidence", by on of the "two", that shows a DSB crawling with worms performs as claimed?

I have not ignored anything. Of course particles can be removed. So can sand, so can worms, so can fish. You debate with a moving target. Each time somebody responds you slightly change the parameters of the debate.

The blue writing below is from my first post in this thread. It's what I've been saying throughout this whole thread. I'm confused as to how you can see this as me changing the parameters of the debate????? You insinuated that we could no longer remove solid particles after they settle. Which is absurd. I explain that they can still be removed, and you accuse me of changing the parameters of the debate???????

I like the analogy made earlier to earth worms in a garden. It is an analogy that shows how worms are not beneficial in reef tanks though. We strive to keep nutrients like nitrate and phosphate at very low levels. Worms, both in our gardens and our reefs, help to break down solid particles, releasing the nutrients they contain into the environment. This is a good thing in a garden, because we want nitrates and phosphates to fertilize our plants. In our reef tanks, nitrate and phosphate fertilizer algae growth, and cause problems for stony corals. It's better to remove these particles before they have a chance to break down and effect the health of our systems. Worms, especially spaghetti worms, simply help to retain nitrate and phosphate in the system.

Now you have rolled in a completely different eco-system, filtration methodology and set of water parameters that are simply not relevant to this discussion.

You, me, dogs, cats, snakes, birds, goldfish, worms, fungus, trees, algae, microbes, and all life on this planet must abide by the same laws of nature.

They are part of a SYSTEM that helps to maintain a healthy environment, as numerous authors and several well informed posters to this thread have pointed out.

Ya, I've read those remarks. Like, "I'm suggesting the same thing, but suggesting a natural approach to clean-up that lets the system develop some of its innate characteristics. And part of that is the inclusion of worms....." Posted by A. ocellaris. This statement has no meaning. It and the mythological "SYSTEM" you speak of has no foundation. If the parts that make up the system don't function as the system claims, then the system does not function as claimed. When told, "No, worms don't remove nitrate and phosphate by locking them up in biomass." and "Decomposition is not a good thing, because it fuels algae growth and stunts stony coral growth.", the response is, "Well....... It's part of the "innate characteristics", or a bigger system." No one can explain this "system", or "innate characteristics" in a way that will hold up to known science.

 

[elegance coral]

Sir, if we are all wrong, ignorant and/or being misled, it is up to you to show the evidence and prove so. That is, you (in your own words) are not just attempting to discredit me, but the entire body or work thus far that disproves your opinion. It is up to YOU to provide evidence and proof

simply show evidence to prove your position. I offer the two contributors to this thread, and all of those published authors as my evidence.

You have spent considerable energy telling all of us that we are wrong, but have yet to provide any proof and I think that is what many of us are waiting for.

Maybe this will help. The pic's below came from this site. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...a=X&ei=PUkrTv-DGImjtgfl6d3XAg&ved=0CC8Q9QEwBw


Lets check out the phosphate cycle first. If you look on the right, you'll see that plants, animals, and their waste becomes detritus. If you fallow the arrow down, it leads to detritivores(in our systems this would be worms, pods, and other tiny critters in the sand.). From there the phosphate moves through the soil, the continues up to............ wait for it............ plant life. This is what I've been saying from the beginning of this thread. The phosphate released from decomposing detritus fuels plant life. In our systems, that's algae. This is fact and can not be disputed. There is an arrow off to the left leading out of the soil and into solution, then on to precipitated solid phosphate and plate tectonics. We don't have plate tectonics in our systems, so what little phosphate that does precipitate out of solution, doesn't leave the system. It simply settles back into the sand, like the picture shows, where it can be returned to solution again, to fuel more algae growth.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I most certainly am not. I told you to crack a book. I said, you needed to study. I, at no point, asked you to put blind faith in what I am saying.

As it is, I am well studied and can not recall reading any information that supports your overall position in this thread. The books, studies and learning materials that I have read are what have formed (and appear to support) my opinion and that of the other informed parties in this thread, including two contributors who research this very subject.

It is your blind faith that has put you in the state of confusion you're in now. You don't stand a chance of understanding how nature works without studying. Reading articles for the marine aquarium hobby will simply lead to more confusion.

It is rather condescending of you to keep referring to me as confused or uninformed with regard to this subject matter, simply because I do not agree with your opinion, which I will remind you, is in the minority.

So to be clear: I don't agree with you because nothing I have read, studied or experienced, including contributions posted by "experts" to this thread, has given me reason to agree with you. There is no blind faith here, just well formed understanding and opinion.

Can you quote one piece of "evidence", by on of the "two", that shows a DSB crawling with worms performs as claimed?

All that has been claimed is that the worms play a useful role in the big picture and can be of benefit to the system as a whole. Quotes? I would refer you to several posts in this thread, those by LeslieH, Ron Shimek, and numerous other well educated and well studied experts, authors and reef keepers.

I will remind you that your opinion is the one that requires burden of "proof", as part of your supporting logic is that the current body of wisdom and published data on this subject is wrong.


Happy reefing

 

[BeanAnimal]

Maybe this will help.

No, it does not help, it only shows something that nobody is debating and changes (again) the basic context. Nobody is attempting to discredit the nitrogen or phosphate cycle or the components that make it work.

The point here is that the "worms" can play a beneficial role in a captive reef system. Depending on the other aspects of that system, the worms may be repalced by other mechanical or chemical means to achieve a similar effect or no effect at all.

To be blatantly honest, at this point, I am not sure most folks here are even able to follow what your argument really is. You have traveled the path between biodiversity being useless and worms being bad to authors being misleading and 100% efficient mechanical filtration being achievable.

You win (honestly) ! I cede to you that worms do more harm than good, the bulk of published material in this hobby is misleading, and most of us are too misinformed, or poorly read to wander out of our states of confusion to understand enough about advanced topics to participate in the advanced forum.

 

[BeanAnimal]

What I'm seeing as this thread has evolved is a debate regarding a DSB with NNR (natural nitrate reduction) vs a "live" sandbed where a clean up crew cleans the sand vs a sterile sandbed where the aquarist cleans the sand with a gravel vac exporting nutrients.

Just trying to define the discussion ............

Interesting, but (at least from my understanding) both tend to serve a somewhat different purpose (if you subscribe to the notion that either serve a useful purpose).

A remote DSB in a dark bucket with a mechanical filter to prevent detritus from laying on the bed, would not likely support worms and/or various macro fauna. This would be the DSB with NNR.

We can compare that to a DSB on the bottom of the display (or sump) that does accumulate detritus and will therefore likely not support worms and (large) quantities of macro fauna that thrives on the detritus.

It would be interesting to see how the NNR properties and/or sequestering of N and P differ in each system. Do both become "sinks" instead of "scrubbers" or do they greatly differ in their ability to sequester N and P and/or transform or diffuse it back into the water column.

In general, it would appear that the remote DSB would in fact work well for NNR but may become a sink for P if the water column does in fact contain P in any significant level. On the other hand, the live DSB may not be as efficient at NNR (due to the constnat turnover) but at the same time may not be able to sequester significant P, as it is continually returned to the the water column due to the mechanical turnover.

 

[elegance coral]

Now on to my favorite. The nitrogen cycle. This is the great benefit people speak of because of the denitrification process. Unfortunately, this doesn't work as claimed either.

If you start in the center, you'll see that nitrogen goes through detritus, detritivores, and decomposition to produce ammonium. Ammonium can take one of two paths. It can go on to fuel algae growth, or continue through to nitrate. It still has two paths it can take. It can go on to fuel algae growth, or become N2 through denitrification. The supporters of the DSB ignore all the plant fertilizer produced prior to denitrification, and simply hang their hat on what little nitrate survives to become N2.

Lets take a closer look at the denitrification process. As A. ocellaris pointed out, it takes a great deal of rotting detritus to fuel denitrification. As with worms, there are other organisms in our systems that have their numbers controlled by the amount of food (rotting organic matter) available to them. One of these organisms is referred to as cyanobacteria. The cool thing about cyanobacteria is that they can fix N2 from the atmosphere and add it back to the nitrogen in our system. You can see this on the right side of the picture below. So, the very engine that fuels denitrification, is also the engine that fuels nitrogen fixing. Doesn't sound like a very efficient system to remove nitrate from our systems, right?

Many people refer to Ron Shemik as the Father of the modern DSB. Lets take a look at his article on DSB's. http://www.ronshimek.com/deep_sand_beds.html
If you scroll down about half way, you'll see three small pics of his sand bed. You can click on them and they'll enlarge. The first pic, appears to be lit pretty good. What does it show growing on the surface of the sand???? That's right. It's green algae. The other two seem to be very dark, with little green algae. What the other two do have, is cyanobacteria. We all have cyanobacteria in our systems. In a system that is relatively clean, you won't see them though. After all, they're microbes. In Shemik's photos there are so many cyanobacteria they create colonies large enough to be pointed out clearly. So....... What benefit is denitrification deep in the sand bed, if you have huge colonies of cyanobacteria moving nitrogen gas back into the system to create more nitrate?

 

[Opcn]

I don't remember this being a conversation about whether a DSB is a good thing or not...

However Cyano does not live in much of a DSB it lives mostly on the surfaces, like against the glass where there was light, neither do Rhizobium spp. which are the nitrogen fixing bacteria in the soil in the diagram. There are also Chemoautotrophs that fix N[sub]2[/sub] but if you have these in significant numbers in your tank for the N[sub]2[/sub] they fix to matter then everything that you want in your tank is long dead. These are different bacteria that live under different conditions than those doing the denitrification, so no it's not really the very engine that fuels N-removal that is fueling N fixation; it is in fact a very different engine, and unrelated engine, one that has nothing what so ever to do with worms.

 

[Opcn]

I told you to crack a book. I said, you needed to study. I, at no point, asked you to put blind faith in what I am saying. It is your blind faith that has put you in the state of confusion you're in now. You don't stand a chance of understanding how nature works without studying. Reading articles for the marine aquarium hobby will simply lead to more confusion.

Just now saw this, I think it's a big assumption to make that none of us have been reading science. I myself clip through about 5 journal articles a day in biology and biochemistry (mostly biochemistry), AO clearly reads quite a bit as well.

I'm pretty generous in a debate, I just think that you aren't making a case as to why worms would lead to a higher level of free NO[sub]3[/sub][sup]-[/sup] & PO[sub]4[/sub][sup]-[/sup]. If there is science behind it you'll have to point us to it because it's a pretty specific claim and likely not covered in the introductory level material that I know I haven't had cause to read since highschool and you seem to be urging us towards.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I don't remember this being a conversation about whether a DSB is a good thing or not...

I think that is the basic problem here, the responses from EC present a moving target and I am not sure (respectfully) anybody is able to follow exactly what the argument is.

It would appear that we are now presented with (among others) the idea that having worms in the system will somehow create uncontrollable cyanobacteria blooms that would otherwise not be present without the worms, and the evidence is photos of Dr. Shimek's tank. I am not sure how to respond, other than nothing that I have read or understand about the nitrogen cycle and cyanobacteria would lead me to give this argument merit simply based on the scale of the worms contribution as compared to the rest of the living material in the tank.

I don't have a DSB, but I have worms (though, sadly no spaghetti worms) and sometimes I have cyano. I did have a huge P problem but have reigned it in without killing all of the worms

 

[Opcn]

I just had a thought!

EC, if the big problem with a DSB is the cyano, take a look at that picture again, why is it that the cyano starts more than an inch down from the sand surface? Do you think perhaps the worms stirring the sand had something to do with that?

 

[elegance coral]

. My position has remained the same throughout this thread. Large populations of worms are not beneficial to our systems. They are part of the load on the system. Statements have been made to suggest that worms are removing nutrients by locking them up in biomass. I've shown that this is false. Statements have been made that decomposition, caused in large part by large populations of worms, is a good thing. I've shown that it is not. It releases nitrate and phosphate that fuels algae growth and inhibits calcification. I've asked two people in this thread to back up the statements they made, and both were unable to do so. I could beat my head against a wall all day showing that worms in our systems do the same thing they do in every other environment throughout nature. They help to break down solid particles to fertilize plant growth. That would not be beneficial either though. Some people just want to believe what they've been told despite what the facts are, and what common sense tells us. It wouldn't matter how much proof I posted in this thread. People are still going to believe what they want. The sad part is that these unsubstantiated beliefs will continue to be spread. New hobbyists will continue to hear, and believe, these statements. Then they'll end up posting a thread in GRD wanting to know why their corals won't grow, their nitrate and phosphate are off the chart, and algae is growing everywhere. They'll receive advice that ignores the six inch pile of rot and decay, that's crawling with worms, on the bottom of their tank. The blame will be placed on the hobbyists for not replacing "infauna" quick enough, or the flow was wrong, or.......... Anything to divert blame from the method to the hobbyist.

 

[BeanAnimal]

. My position has remained the same throughout this thread. Large populations of worms are not beneficial to our systems. They are part of the load on the system.

Large populations: At what point does a population of worms become "large"? (rhetorical question, don't anwer)

I don't think anybody here is going to argue that ANY living organism in excess can be detrimintal, just as any educated person is not going to argue that the nitrogen cycle does not exist.

Back to the building maintenance analogy: Just becuase something places a "load" on a system does not mean that it is a net harm to that system. When the load is weighed against its benefit, the net result can be positive. You have yet to show the imbalance that makes worms more harm than good

Statements have been made to suggest that worms are removing nutrients by locking them up in biomass. I've shown that this is false.

Actually, you have not shown this to be false in context of the system. Nobody is going to argue that a population in decline will release more than it consumes. The point is that the worms aid in several processes that allow the system to manage waste and/or provide other beneficial functions.

Statements have been made that decomposition, caused in large part by large populations of worms, is a good thing. I've shown that it is not. It releases nitrate and phosphate that fuels algae growth and inhibits calcification.

Your have relied on the simple premise that a given flake of wasted food can be mechanicaly filtered instead of eaten and processed by a worm. Your premise relies on 100% efficient mechanical filtration of wastes, and as such, does not hold up within the context of the systems we are discussing. Nobody is going to argue that worms would be needed if you had a system setup that removed the waste in another fashion.

I've asked two people in this thread to back up the statements they made, and both were unable to do so.

Respectfully, you must be reading a different thread, as the key points here have been articulated several times .

They'll receive advice that ignores the six inch pile of rot and decay, that's crawling with worms, on the bottom of their tank. The blame will be placed on the hobbyists for not replacing "infauna" quick enough, or the flow was wrong, or.......... Anything to divert blame from the method to the hobbyist.

As AGU pointed out, it appears that your real position is actually about denouncing DSBs as a viable filtration method as they relate to NNR and interaction with Phosphate. That debate is somewhat beyond the scope of this discussion and (no pun), its own can of worms.

 

[Amphiprionocellaris]

I'm just going to add a number of things without bothering with quotes.

1) It has been claimed that a certain point has been ignored: that sand beds will lead to rot and decay, and that decomposition will lead to algae growth. Furthermore, it's been stated that systems with DSB's tend to have algae problems and phosphate problems by virtue of the sand bed. I have claimed the opposite, given mechanistic support for my claims, and I can offer the successful tanks to show that the idea works. If, then, someone still wishes to claim that DSB's with infauna don't offer viable methods, then he needs to offer mechanistic explanations for why those systems work in contradiction of his claim. Analogy, anecdote, and rhetoric are not valid ways to support an argument in this context, because we're talking about scientific claims that must be supported with scientific evidence.

2) Now, as far as the scientific claims, it has been asserted that worms in the aquarium do the exact same things as worms in the environment. I would agree, so let's look at what worms do in the environment (some of these may be behind a pay wall, so I summarized):

Gilbert, F., G. Stora, and F. Bonin. 1998. Influence of bioturbation on denitrification activity in Mediterranean sediments: an in situ experimental approach. Marine Ecology Progress Series (MEPS) 163: 99-107
The authors experimentally removed infauna from control plots, while assessing the denitrification of experimental plots. The result was that bioturbation increases denitrification by 1.6-2.8 times.
http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/163/m163p099.pdf

Hansen, K. and E. Kristensen. 1996. Impact of recolonization of benthic metabolism and nutrient fluxes in a shallow marine sediment previously overgrown with macroalgal mats. Coastal, Estuarine, and Shelf Science 45: 613-628
In this study, the authors simulated the addition of bioturbators to a previously unpopulated system covered with algae (perhaps relevant to the claim that worms are necessary...). The addition dramatically increased rates of mineralization, showing that recolonization can flush out stored nutrient pools, thus restoring system health.

Kristensen, E. and T.H. Blackburn. The fate of organic carbon and nitrogen in experimental marine sediment systems: influence of bioturbation and anoxia. 1987. Journal of Marine Research 45: 231-257
This is another experimental work where the authors showed that inclusion of worms increased denitrification by a factor of 2+ over non-wormed sediments. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/jmr/jmr/1987/00000045/00000001/art00009

That's only three papers of literally hundreds. I don't think, then, it can be considered contentious to claim that worms and bioturbation increases the rates of nitrate removal from sediments. We have very, very strong evidence of this. So do the worms do in our tanks exactly what they do in nature, as has been claimed? Exactly, and I would say that's a very good thing.

3) One can rail about the "tragedy" of unsubstatiated beliefs all one wants, but it is very clear that my claim (not belief) that infauna increases the health of a system is very much supported and substantiated. Counter claims that sand beds are only nutrient pools, always lead to algae, and that direct mechanical filtration is better are unsupported. I consider it a tragedy when people accuse others of ignoring evidence when offering none of their own.

4) This is not a discussion of whether sand beds work as NNR; that's not really up for discussion, because we already know that they do. What is up for discussion is that the inclusion of worms in a sand bed is a good thing; I've shown that it is, and I've offered a handful of studies (of many) supporting that claim. Many more can be found simply by searching "bioturbation nitrogen" on google scholar. Sadly, many of those articles are behind university pay walls, but many are also open for the public.

5) Claiming that sand beds with worms are a viable filtration is not to suggest that they are the only viable filtration. It seems there is a false "it must be this or that" dichotomy that is motivating some sort of effort to show that sand beds are nothing but trouble. I am not claiming that sand beds are the single best filtration methodology. I am claiming only that sand beds can work, and that the inclusion of benthic fauna is necessary for them to work. I've offered the evidence for this, and I'm not extending my argument beyond that specific claim.

 

[Opcn]

. My position has remained the same throughout this thread. Large populations of worms are not beneficial to our systems. They are part of the load on the system. Statements have been made to suggest that worms are removing nutrients by locking them up in biomass.

By far the VAST majority of what you have presented in this thread is entirely irrelevant to this claim, and entirely irrelevant to the counterclaims made.

My initial claim that converting detritus to biomass could reasonably have been misconstrued to mean that I thought nutrients were permanently locked up in the worms, but I immediately clarified that that was not my point, merely that nutrients could move through the worm bioload and be temporarily sequestered and ultimately dealt with other ways.

 

[elegance coral]

I'm just going to add a number of things without bothering with quotes.

1) It has been claimed that a certain point has been ignored: that sand beds will lead to rot and decay, and that decomposition will lead to algae growth. Furthermore, it's been stated that systems with DSB's tend to have algae problems and phosphate problems by virtue of the sand bed. I have claimed the opposite, given mechanistic support for my claims,

You have given no support for your claims. You ignore the truth when it does not fit in with the claims you're making. Your DSB, crawling with worms, is constantly releasing phosphate and nitrate into the water. You know this to be true but refuse to admit it. You won't come right out and deny it either. You simply dance around the subject by stating that phosphate can be removed by other means, and that a fraction of the nitrate can be converted into N2. Why can't you just openly admit the truth? Sand beds collect rotting organic matter. Rotting organic matter releases phosphate and nitrate into the environment. This is the truth, and you know it to be true.

and I can offer the successful tanks to show that the idea works.

No you can't. I can make all kinds of wild claims as the the magical powers of rubber duckies to "filter" my water. Then take pic's of my tank with a rubber ducky floating in it. If all the animals aren't visibly in the process of dieing, does it prove that rubber duckies have great magical filtering capabilities? Of course not. Taking pic's that don't show animals in the obvious state of dieing, does not show that any particular aspect of the system works as claimed. Science will tell us how the systems work. Science tells us that the system you speak of is a fertilizer factory.

2) Now, as far as the scientific claims, it has been asserted that worms in the aquarium do the exact same things as worms in the environment. I would agree, so let's look at what worms do in the environment (some of these may be behind a pay wall, so I summarized):

Gilbert, F., G. Stora, and F. Bonin. 1998. Influence of bioturbation on denitrification activity in Mediterranean sediments: an in situ experimental approach. Marine Ecology Progress Series (MEPS) 163: 99-107
The authors experimentally removed infauna from control plots, while assessing the denitrification of experimental plots. The result was that bioturbation increases denitrification by 1.6-2.8 times.
http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/163/m163p099.pdf

From your link. "The increase of denitrification, occurring at different depths in the sediment with respect to time, was
directly dependent on the macrofaunal activity."

Isn't that what I said earlier in this thread?

Posted by me.
The only thing accomplished by worms stirring stuff, is that the rate of decomposition can increase

When the rate of decomposition increases, due to the presence of worms, the rate of everything associated with that decomposition also goes up. The rate at which phosphate is released into the environment goes up, the rate at which nitrate is released into the environment goes up, and yes........ the rate of denitrification goes up. That does not mean that all the nitrate released by decomposition, with the aid of worms, gets converted into N2.

Here's another quote that you seem to be ignoring from your link.
"Results from these studies have
provided evidence for the quantitative role of bioturbation
in various processes, e.g. enhanced nitrate supply"