New Deodronephthya sp. study group?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8020644#post8020644 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by "Umm, fish?"
Have you thought about trying to grow one of these inside a recirculating skimmer (no bubbles, of course)? That would certainly keep food suspended, hopefully to be eaten.
kinda like a kreisel tank (for jellyfish) then?

btw charles, have you been meaning to type "Witting" when you type "Wittig"? i've found very few papers with "Wittig" but a plethora of papers under "Witting", el guapo. ;) i've been slowly reading those and others i've found since last we "spoke".
 
Tinyreef- my sincere apologies, the paper is by Widdig. If you can't find it on Google please let me know. I'm about ready to walk a copy over to you!

I have been reviewing the papaers by Fabricious and by Widdig the last few nights. They are very interesting, but come to no conclusion. Some points I take home: Fabricious established that they take up phyto, but I don't think she established that the phyto was not inside a zooplankton below 100 microns. She had one feeding experiment in which she used filtered seawater with phyto additions determined microscopically to not have zooplankton contaminants- but showed no data about pheopigment digestive changes or polyp counts(I THINK- there's a lot of data here in the method section and I'm going over it again tonight).

So, I suspect the phyto is getting into the dendros inside small zooplankton. Obviously, they need the pigments to make the colors for whatever purpose that serves. So, I believe that they take phyto: I just don't think it has been shown that they take up phyto directly.

Fabricious used microscopic dissection to show very rare retention of zooplankton in wild collectedc polyps. However, her data showed only large (>750 microns) zooplankton; obviously, her method was missing the ciliated protozoa and other plankton in the range of 50-300 microns. It seems that only the tough, mobile, zooplankton- the very ones that would be hard to catch- were present in her samples. That means to me that her microscopic methods weren't picking up the soft bodied smaller zooplankton.

Also, her clearance studies on zooplankton was done by using catch from a 100um net- probably too large for the organisms of interest.

I have been comparing the feeding mechsnisms on my dendro with those of the Nephthyigorgia (chili coral). Their construction is similar; both have tentacles, with small pinnules. However, the chili coral is about 8-10 times the polyp size of the dendro. The chili coral takes 800 micron baby brine shrimp very easily. The dendro has obvious tentatular capture of golden pearls at 5-50 microns, but as Fabricious notes, releases larger partifcles after about 50 seconds on average.

The dendro clearly shows tentacular capture and feeding response to golden pearls.

The pinnules of the dendro are, as Fabricious notes, in the range of 60-80 microns. In order to stimulate 2-3 pinnules at a time and trigger a feeding response, it is likely that the particles of interest to this organism would be in the range of 50-200 microns. This would be typically ciliated protozoa, as well as pelagic eggs. Small zooplankton in this range would havae to be stuffed with phyto- they have very little else to eat.

Another reason I think they don't eat phyto primarily is that they are not the best design for it. Soomething like a mucous net would be much more effective, such as internal to a sponge.

It may very well be that the smallest golden pearls- the 5-50 micron size- are too small. The proper size may be the 50-100 or slightloy larger. I'm going to try those.

Mary reports ingestion of baby brine shrimp. I've tried it, but I can't convince myself yet that they are being swallowed. I'm still working on it with my jeweler's loupe. In any event, a baby brine shrimp (newly hatched) is 800 microns, which is the exact size of the oral disk; having been frozen, it's likely easy to capture, and may make a good substitute for a protozoa. They may be a little large, so being immediately newly hatched may be important.

Tinyreef, Fabricious has some excellent methods sections I would like your thoughts on. She has carefully done polyp growth counts at different flow rates. She reports best growth at 12-15 cm/sec, which I guess is about 6 inches/second flow. She used five hours on, 3 hours off; I'm going to go with her flow regimes for awhile.

She also reports their preference for manmade surfaces, the fact that they are early colonizers, and their rapid growth of 8%/day in the wild, by polyp count. She clipped branches, put them in an aquarium "with running seawater" (?open or recirculating is not stated), and they regularly attached in 10 days. This period of rhizoid formation, where the branchlets attach to the pvc, in my view raises suspicions about the validity of the paper by Widdig- he just cut them and tested them during a time when they were still adapting to the cut. If they were triggered for rhizoidal growth after the amputation, it's quite possible that any conclusions he reached regarding their feeding behaviour should only be applied to recently amputated specimens. Fabrisious used adapted, settled colonies on PVC plates.

So: my current take-home lessons.

1) Flow of 6 inches/second. Slack times of 3 hours don't hurt, alternating with 5 hours of flow.
2) They grow best on vertical PVC in the wild, and are early colonizers. We should be able to adapt her methods to the aquarium.
3) Tentacular capture looks best for frozen BABY brine (800 microns) to 50 microns, no smaller. Ideal size may be around 200 microns, enough to hit a few pinnules in the net and trigger a response.
4) All successes to date tend, I believe, to have VERY clear water.

I've amended my new setup of 55 over a 55 sump. Very slow flow into the sump (a trickle) to allowlong retention of food. I'm going to feed only zooplankton substitutes at 50-300 micron size. I've added a Deltec hang on skimmer rated for 180 gallons to the sump. There is an 8 inch sand bed with sulfur granules in the bottom (I regret this now as I hope this doesn't add another variable I don't need), some chaeto, and will be dosing supplements and silica. I will be using times flow to 6 inches/second. Also, will be plating out dendro branchlet frags on bundles of PVC pipes and suspending them from the top to eliminate disturbance from benthic creatures (nothing worse than finding an amphipod pulling stuff out of a dendro polyp in the middle of the night!). I'm going to order the VorTech pumps and use 4 for the top 55 gallon. I will have no substrate in the culture tank to prevent advection of the food, and will clean the glass regularly to add phyto to the system (I will keep a brown dusting going with macroalgae grow fertilizer with silica). And, will add ozone and carbon- the Deltec is easy to work with this way. The skimmer will be at the front of the refugium sump, and will add bread to the back part of the sump, so the ciliates won't all get sucked into the skimmer.
 
The chili coral takes 800 micron baby brine shrimp very easily.
OK, that got my attention. I know its not about dendros, but I happen to have a chili coral in my tank. Are you talking live or frozen brine?

I have tried feeding oyster eggs and small size golden pearls. I seem to get a feeding reaction from the golden pearls but have no idea about injestion since I do not have poper equipment to observe.

Fred

P.S. Since this thread is so many pages long I figure this is more of a sidebar than a hyjack. :D
 
I have had mine eat both frozen and fresh hatch.

I also had a chili for a while. Lost in the tank somewhere, maybe still there. anyway it would take frozen baby brine if concentrated around it. (hope this helps.)
 
I have had mine eat both frozen and fresh hatch.

I also had a chili for a while. Lost in the tank somewhere, maybe still there. anyway it would take frozen baby brine if concentrated around it. (hope this helps.)
 
I have had mine eat both frozen and fresh hatch.

I also had a chili for a while. Lost in the tank somewhere, maybe still there. anyway it would take frozen baby brine if concentrated around it. (hope this helps.)
 
Have reviewed fabricius 1996 on flow dependent herbivory at length last night.

There is no question that her results are fatally flawed regarding phytoplankton. If you look at feeding trial three, she noticed that shse needed to do a control with algae cultures that were free of zooplankton in order to demonstrate that the digestion to pheopigments was not taking place inside a small zooplankton. She showed pigment uptake, but did NOT perform the necessary experiment to show that there was digestion (she did not assay for pheopigments).

This is quite strange, as she had done this multiple times in other experiments. Widdig in a subsequent paper questioned this very point- that the digestion was inside zooplankton.

Also- she compared the pheopigment ratio to "ambient seawater". in a subsequent paper a few years later, similar rations were observed within a meter of the reef surface, indicating that significant herbivory does indeed occur. However, close to where dendros live, it appears from my reading that there is a layer of digested algal pigments caused by expulsion from true herbivorese (tunicates, sponges and other mucus bag feeders). So her "ambient" values were questionable.

I'm a little spooked by her treatment of this subject in her paper, buried as it is under methods and rather difficult to understand. She subsequently left this area of research, and there has been some criticism, as summarized by Widdig.

Bottom line- the preponderance of evidence suggests that Dendros do not capture and use phytoplankton, except indirectly as "gut loaded" weakly motile zooplankton in the range of 50-300 microns.

Mary's recipe of soaked fish flakes, frozen (immobile) BABY brine shrimp, possible live new hatched brine, and possibly prozen rotifers may be useful. Some baby brine shrimp is in the rance of 200-600 microns (San Francisco type, as per volume three of Delbeek and Sprung). As per Fabricius 1996, she did note that plankters less than 300 microns were "regularly captured" in her observed feeding trial experiments, seeming to contradict some of her conclusions.

The use of rotifers gut-loaded with phyto, or of ciliates, may be what's needed. It's likely that ehy need to feed three times daily, at 6 inches/second laminar flow current, and that a period of three hours of slack may prepare them to expand and feed with the startup of the current.
 
Addendum- I will be testing decapsulated brine shrimp eggs (brineshrimpdirect.com) as a direct feed as well. they are high in lipids, as opposed to the Golden Pearls, which are high in protein. I have also ordered the GP sizes 50-100 microns and 100-200 mirons for feeding trials.

-Charles
 
David-

I haven't used the Weiss product. What I see this company doing (I understand Marc is no longer with the company, his wife received it in a settlement) is adapting stuff from the aquaculture industry. This is probably one of those encapsulated microbe products sold where the organism reduces nitrates or something.

Data from two sources (Steve Tyree and Bob Stark) suggest there is plenyof bacteria in aquariums. See also Richard Harker on this. I doubt there is a bacteria shortage explaining the problem...

My attempts at using probiotics was limited by induction of bacterial growths in the high nutrient environment I was keeping.

Chip
 
well thought i'd give one a try. I'm placing it in a cave but it's still lit up by the halide pretty good. I have a high fish load so i'm hoping that might help. wish me luck.
IMG_4097.jpg
 
Your Regal might like it. Mine liked the non photosynthetic softy I recently tried (althought it ignored the sponge on the same rock).

Steve
 
i hope not...i actually have a lot of not reefsafe fish in my tank. my regal has been a model citizen so far. i'm worried that my idol or other angels might try a taste though.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8082261#post8082261 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by luvstns726
Data from two sources (Steve Tyree and Bob Stark) suggest there is plenyof bacteria in aquariums. See also Richard Harker on this. I doubt there is a bacteria shortage explaining the problem...

My attempts at using probiotics was limited by induction of bacterial growths in the high nutrient environment I was keeping.
sorry charles, i've been very busy of late but i've also been reading up on some of the articles we discussed previously. but coincidentally, some of those articles i dug out were regarding this very sub-topic, bacterioplankton.

"Retention of phytoplankton..." by Ayukai, 1995
"The Effect of water exchange on bacterioplankton..." by Duyl, et al., 2004
"Biomass, production, and heterotrophic activity of bacterioplankton..." by Torreton, 1998

there are others too but i'm still translating them. too much technobabble. :p

a few of the articles was questioning the significance of phyto versus the value of bacteria in plankton (carbon biomass/dietary percentage). they thought that bacteria's portion in calculating plankton composition, importance of ecosystemic processing, and dietary contributions have been historically low-balled for a variety of reasons. the general consensus seemed to be (still reading when i have the time) that bacteria plays a much larger role than thought.

our previous mini side-discussion of the possibility of these corals actually being more bactivores may be more on-target (maybe). it does agree more with your suspicions that they're not significant phytoplanktivores but derive significant nutrition elsewhere. maybe it's just not the right bacteria strain.

your previous efforts on the floating bread (am i remembering that wrong?) may be closer to the truth.
 
ok i posted a pic of my Scleronephthya sp on page 16 on july 6th.its now been about 5 1/2 months and i'll post a new photo soon as i reduce it to fit on here.i had an algae problem that neerly killed it but it's coming back arround.the algae basically grew over and starved it.i have 6 baby ones growing in other spots of the tank from its faging the 1st day in my tank.the original ones have had poor growth but time will tell.i have learned several things.they love water movement blowing straight down on them,they love dt,they hate algae.i think they don't belong captive and i will not get another if it dies.i did'nt know much about it when i bought it or i would not have gotten it and thats my own fault.i would no sooner attempt to raise an alligator in my bath tub.good luck to all the other owners and i'll get a photo up soon,but its not as pretty as before.
 
One very interesting observation: over the years, I have fed various nitrogen-rich foods (oyster eggs, golden pearls), I see growth, and get excited and start feeding more. Then, the whole tank starts looking poor, the denddros decline in their feeding response and expand less, and the maacroalgae looks worse and stops growing, and the dendros decline- and I have in the past concluded from this that the food wasn't the right stuff. Or, I will add iron for the macroalgae, thinking that that was limiting, and the dendros die- and concluded that iron was poisonous.

I have found recently that there appears to be an organic carbon shortage under these circumstances. I think (and I may be wrong here- still testing) that we do indeeed develop an organic carbon shortage when feeding heavily.

I have been using an Aquachef feeder to dose Golden Pearls four times during the night. I add granulated white sugar to the pearls.

This is dosed into the 25 gallon, which goes to the dendro frag tank 25 gallon, then to the 75 gallon refugium, then to the sump with a big skimmer and two other 120 gallont tanks. The red macroalgae in the refugium has taken off, and the skimmer is WAY more productive.

The high water movement keeps bacterial polysaccaride clumps from forming on the walls.

It's not generally known that dendros are hard to keep in the wild, much less in aquariums. They grow extremely vigorously on new surfaces- doubling every week or so in height (Fabricius)- then spontaneously delince in a natural succession. They don't compete well with hare corals. Exactly how can they not compete? Possiibly because the algae (carbohydrate) is inside the hard corals; whereas otherwise it's raining down in feces and accumulating on surfaces as mucopolysaccaride bacterial films, which gets swept into current. It's likely that the dendro need for carbon is very high: they are like hummingbirds, they need sugar. They are often sseen with "strings" of floc on them, and some have suggested that they digest this stuff; I just think this is part of being in a high organic carbon environment.

I am trying to find a chemist to help determine whether dendros have carbohydrase enzymes (amylase and laminarinase). I suspect they don't have laminarinase, which is required to digeest cell walls of phytoplankton. But I don't know. We will see. This will determine whether feeding phyto directly is helpful, or if we are just feeding sugar.

The nice thing about table sugar is it stimulates skimmer production, and lowers nitrates and phosphates. The dendros might feed both on the sugar directly, and the produced particulates.

I am redoing another system to test this further. I will use a 55 gallon without a sump, and use three Aquachef dispensers to feed 12 times daily, using Golden Pearls 50-100 microns, table sugar, and possibly dried phytoplankton. I am going to use an undergravel filter plate covered with about 1 inch of large shells/chips, and use 4 uplift pumps each with about 1000 gallons/hour (turnover probably in the range of 80x). I am going to use a very large hang-on back skimmer, and automate the pumps to a 5 hours on/three hours off rest cycle. I will adjust the sugar to the nitrates, but wil probably be using a 50/50 mixture.

With sugar, I THINK I am seeing rapid growth in the attachments at the base. Interestingly, in the Widdig paper, when frags were amputated, they demonstrated a "pharyngeal block" for phyto. I think the rhizoids are carbohydrate-rich, and producing carbohydrase after amputation would prevent the rhizoids from forming. Also, loss of turgor may be the mechanism for the initiation of the pharyngeal block. In any event, I am going with this line of experimentation for awhile. I recently aquired a stereoscope for doing polyp counts, so I should be able to make adjustments rapidly.
 
Back
Top