SPS and water temperature, chiller really needed?

[ivans75]

I've been to a place in Bali where they farm and grow all sorts of SPS and I dived and snorkled and saw those sps were neatly attached to 2-3 meter holding frames. And there are looots of em.

The water was not certainly 25 degree celcius not even 26. I am pretty sure the water is about 28-29 degree celcius, contrary to what people believe on what kind of temp they thrive. (25-26 degree)

As for me who lives in a tropical country where these animals are growing, I tend to believe that we need around 25-26 for sps to survive, but when I dived and snorkled and actually hand picked my own collection, the water was beautifully warm lol And they grow like 2 cm a month based on the care taker told me. Water wasnt that clean either, I can see lots of floating organics.
So do you really think u need a certain low temperature for SPS? (25 degree celcius)

 

[mc-cro]

interesting article in advanced aquarist...http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2012/1/corals

the article was way over my head, but basically different SPS thrive in different temps.

the days you were there were warm, how much does the water temp vary daily, or seasonally?

 

[ivans75]

interesting article in advanced aquarist...http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2012/1/corals

the article was way over my head, but basically different SPS thrive in different temps.

the days you were there were warm, how much does the water temp vary daily, or seasonally?

The water was warm enough and I felt warm enough in the water. The water was great. I love it for a swim. In Bali, the temperature is constantly around 29-31. It can go to 28 in the rainy season tho but no less. Hey thanks for the article, I'll have a good read.

 

[nanojg]

Metabolism increases with temperature, so the growth will be greater at higher temperatures. I agree that it is not crucial to have the tank temp under 80 degrees, I think up to 82-84 is fine for most corals; however, temperature stability is important IMO. I like to avoid swings of more than 5 degrees in a day.

That being said I keep my tank around 77, because I dont think its worth it to run heaters all the time and my house is 68-72 year round.

 

[ivans75]

Metabolism increases with temperature, so the growth will be greater at higher temperatures. I agree that it is not crucial to have the tank temp under 80 degrees, I think up to 82-84 is fine for most corals; however, temperature stability is important IMO. I like to avoid swings of more than 5 degrees in a day.

That being said I keep my tank around 77, because I dont think its worth it to run heaters all the time and my house is 68-72 year round.

The temp in the nature will drop a little during the night, I think chiller is need to keep the temp stable at that level. Not too familiar with Fahrenheit lol

 

[T Diddy]

The temp in the nature will drop a little during the night, I think chiller is need to keep the temp stable at that level. Not too familiar with Fahrenheit lol

F= (9/5 Celsius) +32

C= (F-32) 5/9

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The higher you keep the temperature, the smaller the buffer you have against issues like power failures, inadequate oxygenation, etc.

 

[ivans75]

The higher you keep the temperature, the smaller the buffer you have against issues like power failures, inadequate oxygenation, etc.

I don't really understand, care to elaborate this a little bit more Randy?

 

[ivans75]

F= (9/5 Celsius) +32

C= (F-32) 5/9

Thanks I shall keep this formula in mind...(and a calculator handy lol)

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I don't really understand, care to elaborate this a little bit more Randy?

What I meant is that in a power failure situation where flow and cooling stop, on a hot day the tank is going to heat up and lose oxygen. Cooler water to start with will hold more O2 at the beginning, will use it more slowly, and won't get up to deadly temps as soon, giving you (or the power company) more time to solve the problem.

 

[ivans75]

What I meant is that in a power failure situation where flow and cooling stop, on a hot day the tank is going to heat up and lose oxygen. Cooler water to start with will hold more O2 at the beginning, will use it more slowly, and won't get up to deadly temps as soon, giving you (or the power company) more time to solve the problem.

Ah yes, thank you and that might be the reason why when they ship the corals here they put ice in the styro box...

 

[barjam]

I've been to a place in Bali where they farm and grow all sorts of SPS and I dived and snorkled and saw those sps were neatly attached to 2-3 meter holding frames. And there are looots of em.

The water was not certainly 25 degree celcius not even 26. I am pretty sure the water is about 28-29 degree celcius, contrary to what people believe on what kind of temp they thrive. (25-26 degree)

As for me who lives in a tropical country where these animals are growing, I tend to believe that we need around 25-26 for sps to survive, but when I dived and snorkled and actually hand picked my own collection, the water was beautifully warm lol And they grow like 2 cm a month based on the care taker told me. Water wasnt that clean either, I can see lots of floating organics.
So do you really think u need a certain low temperature for SPS? (25 degree celcius)

I feel like the consensus these days is anywhere from 75-85 (23-29c) is ok. If you are at 85 (29c) you are kind of at the high end with no cushion though.

In my case I run 78-80 (25-26c) because the maximum temperature my tank can take on with halides is 80-81 (26-27c) and I don't want to run heaters 24/7.

 

[dzhuo]

What I meant is that in a power failure situation where flow and cooling stop, on a hot day the tank is going to heat up and lose oxygen. Cooler water to start with will hold more O2 at the beginning, will use it more slowly, and won't get up to deadly temps as soon, giving you (or the power company) more time to solve the problem.

That's exactly the opposite of what would happen. Tropical marine animals kept in a lower constant temperature would actually provide less buffer compare to those acclimated to temperature fluctuations. In the event of an equipement failure, for example, fish keep at a constant temperature would experience greater thermal stress using up more oxygen than fish which has experienced regular temperature fluctuations. Generally speaking, keeping a temperature constant does not provide any more buffer or margin of error. It only puts the fish at greater risk when an equipement failure inevitably happens.

Here is a quote from one of the thermal researcher (which you had a discussion with Temperature question):

I work on thermal stress in reef animals, no naturally threads on this subject aggravate me because there's so much misinformation in the hobby regarding temperature and it's constantly being repeated as if it were fact.

To answer the original question, I let my tank get up to 86 regularly. On rare occasions it might climb to 88. Last year during a power outage it went to 92 for a few hours without issue.

Now to address the misinformation about what is harmful and what isn't when it comes to temps-

What kinds of temps are reefs seeing in the wild? The worldwide, yearly average is about 82. The average wintertime low is 77 and the average summertime high is 86. The often repeated "ideal" temperature of 78 replicates the low end of wintertime temperatures. Also, it has been documented that the minute-to-minute fluctuations in temperature are regularly as much as half of the yearly range with the magnitude of fluctuation increasing with depth down to 90-120 ft. There is absolutely no evidence that these fluctuations are stressful to reef animals, nor would you expect them to be since they have experienced these fluctuations for their entire evolutionary histories. In fact, there's limited evidence suggesting that these types of fluctuations may be important for modulating the stress threshold.

So if 78 isn't ideal then what is? For the hard corals we have optima for, it's about 82-84. That's also roughly the average for the area of the Indo-Pacific that represents the center of coral reef biodiversity. That's probably pretty close to the ideal average temperature.

How high is it safe to go? It depends. The answer varies from tank to tank. The stress threshold is not set genetically. It changes depending on the ambient temperature regime. The simple answer is that you're safe to go 2 degrees above the normal maximum temp. That's why it really bugs me to see statements like "above X degrees is just asking for trouble." It all depends on what the temperature normally is.

Another statement that bugs me is "a colder temp offers a wider margin of error in case of an emergency." This assumes that 1) the stress threshold is a set number, which as I already pointed out isn't true, and 2) that the animals in a cooler tank will respire less if there's an emergency. There's not much data on the second assumption, but from the little we have that assumption doesn't seem to be true. At rest, under normal conditions, if you have one specimen (A) at 78 deg F and another (B) of the same species and the same size at 80 deg F, then B will have a higher respiration rate than A. However, as the temperature increases, the respiration rate of A quickly out-paces that of B and for any further non-lethal temperature, B will always be consuming less oxygen than A. In other words, at 80 degrees, A will use more O2 than B does at the same temp. The same is true for 82, 84, etc.

The difference in O2 saturation over the range of temps we keep in reefs is so small that it's essentially negligible. Even at 90, the saturation point is still double the safe lower limit.

There are also lots of evidences that the ideal calcifications rate happens roughly ~2 degrees below the max acclimated temperatures (anywhere from 80F to 82F). The following quote is from Chris:

The rate of calcification for most corals peaks at or 1-2 deg. C below the normal summer maximum temp and then quickly drops off above that temp. due to physiological stress/bleaching. The normal summer time high on most reefs is 84-86 F. Thus, most corals will reach a maximum rate of calcification between 80 deg. F on the low end and 84-86 F on the high end. If one is trying to maximize growth it makes no sense in the world to keep an aquarium below 80 deg F. Averge reef temperatures are higher than that anyway. Temps. lower than 80 F and especially lower than 78 F are essentially winter temps and corals tend to grow substantially slower in winter. I also wouldn't go over 84 F in an aquarium intentionally though. Above the normal summer max. the rate of calcification drops like a rock and one tempts all kinds of other problems with elevated temps. too.

See:

Coles, S. L., and P. L. Jokiel (1978), Synergistic effects of temperature, salinity and light on the hermatypic coral Montipora verrucosa, Mar. Biol., 49, 187â€"œ 195.

Houck, J. E., R. W. Buddemeier, S. V. Smith, and P. L. Jokiel (1977), The response of coral growth and skeletal strontium content to light intensity and water temperature, Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. Coral Reefs, 2, 424â€"œ 431.

Marshall, A. T., and P. Clode (2004), Calcification rate and the effect of temperature in a zooxanthellate and an azooxanthellate scleractinian reef coral, Coral Reefs, 23, 218â€"œ 224.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Which part of my statement do you claim is the opposite of what would happen?

I think you misunderstood. While I may disagree with the temperature fluctuation issues asserted by others in those earlier threads, I didn't make any claim here about fluctuations. Only that if you start lower you have more of a buffer against deadly temps which most people agree happen at some point. You could still have equal fluctuations around a lower average values if you believe the fluctuations are good.

Say, 77-81 in summer rather than 81-85. Then when the power goes off on a 95 deg day the first tank hits 84 and the second hits 88. IMO, I'd much rather have a stagnant tank at 84 than at 88 deg F, and none of the things you post suggest otherwise. But if you are a hyperthem and like everything hot, take the same comparison at 81-85 as the lower example and 84-88 as the high end. The former hits 88 deg F and the latter hits 91 deg F.

No matter what range you pick, there is unquestionably more O2 in the water at lower temps and a higher metabolism of many organisms at the higher temps. Taken together, those two say that O2 runs out first at the higher temp and only later at the lower temp. The statement that you quoted above which tries to assert otherwise assumes the tanks get to the same temperature, which is not part of my assumption for a short term power failure.

 

[dzhuo]

Which part of my statement do you claim is the opposite of what would happen?

Mostly this:

The higher you keep the temperature, the smaller the buffer you have against issues like power failures, inadequate oxygenation, etc.

Just because there are more dissolved oxygen at lower temperature does not automatically mean a higher buffer or margin of error so it's misleading to say keeping a temperature higher reduce the safety buffer.

Say, 77-81 in summer rather than 81-85. Then when the power goes off on a 95 deg day the first tank hits 84 and the second hits 88. IMO, I'd much rather have a stagnant tank at 84 than at 88 deg F, and none of the things you post suggest otherwise. But if you are a hyperthem and like everything hot, take the same comparison at 81-85 as the lower example and 84-88 as the high end. The former hits 88 deg F and the latter hits 91 deg F.

That's a great example but I am very surprise you would actually use these number for discussion. If you have 2 tanks. One runs at 77-81 and the other 81-85 and let's assume they are identical otherwise. There is an outage and it's 90 degree outside. Both tanks will raise close to 90F eventually. The 77-81 tank would not magically stop at 84 while the 81-85 tank continue to raise to 88. Please. You know that.

So the more realistic example is the 77-81 tank and the 81-85 tank will both raise steadily (how fast would probably depends on the total water vol) but eventually end up close to 90F.

Your claim is the 77-81 tank will do better because it starts at lower temperature so there are more dissolved oxygen while the other tank will fail faster with less oxygen to start with. I would disagree. I will claim the small amount of extra oxygen at lower temperature will be used up much faster and continue to used by faster in the lower temperature tank because the fish would experience greater thermal stress (with faster metabolism).

No matter what range you pick, there is unquestionably more O2 in the water at lower temps and a higher metabolism of many organisms at the higher temps.

I think that's a fair and accurate statement. In a typical reef tank, how much more oxygen does a tank running at 78F compare to 88F? And how does the difference translate to an actual usage in the event of a power failure?

According to the research, the difference translates roughly to about 6 extra seconds for a single adult clownfish. In other word, you would have extra oxygen to sustain a single clownfish for 6 extra seconds at these 2 end points. Do you have data to support this claim is false?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

There are many issues with the above discussion, but largely you assume both tanks reach the same temp. In a very long power failure, you are right. In a shorter one, I am right in that the temp will stay more reasonable in the one that starts lower.

I do not know if your data is correct or not about the clownfish, but it is misleading and sounds like something generated by someone with an agenda to promote, rather than someone who thought through the process. We are not in any power failure relying on ONLY O2 that is present in the water at the power loss. If that were the case, anything needing O2 will quickly die. The point is that if the water can take up more O2 at the air surface, more will make it to the organisms that need it. Like a slightly larger pipe allowing more water to flow over time, not because it has more water in it at a dead stop, but because it can handle more flow and over the course of hours, that small difference adds up continuously.

A close analogy is breathing through a straw. At some diameter you can just survive, and at a slightly lower diameter you will die. That is how I think one can think of the O2 saturation difference. Couple that with lower O2 usage at lower temps and IMO it is clear that there is a potential advantage of lower temps during power failures.

If you want to disagree, that's fine, but I do not believe that there is proof that my opinion is incorrect.

 

[dzhuo]

There are many issues with the above discussion, but largely you assume both tanks reach the same temp. In a very long power failure, you are right. In a shorter one, I am right in that the temp will stay more reasonable in the one that starts lower.

Obviously I do not have the extended knowledge to know how fast and what other factors would impact the rate of increase in both cases. In the shorter outage, I think it's reasonable to think it wouldn't matter. If power comes back in a couple of hours, both tank will be fine. In a longer outage, I would claim the tank which used to run higher would be better but you disagree. That's fine.

I do not know if your data is correct or not about the clownfish, but it is misleading and sounds like something generated by someone with an agenda to promote, rather than someone who thought through the process.

It's really up to you to verify the claim and data is correct or not but please do not simply assume it's false otherwise. He's a scientist (with focus on thermal stress in clownfish and anemone) just like you are a professional chemist. It's not good to simply brush off others work because you don't believe it or you have no idea how to verify it. You know respect and professionalism is important in this type of discussion.

I give you the link and the researcher's ID in the above link so it's possible for a follow up discussion. You had a discussion with him previously.

 

[dzhuo]

If you want to disagree, that's fine, but I do not believe that there is proof that my opinion is incorrect.

I do think your opinion is incorrect and I would believe people who have actually worked in this area. Within reason, I don't think lower temperature provide any measurable extra buffer to the benefit of any short or long term equipement failure. On top of that, people who tend to keep a lower temperature also keep a constant temperature which put the animal at greater risk because this reduces their thermal resistent threshold.

It's fine if you disagree and I think I have made my position clear so have a good day.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I do think your opinion is incorrect and I would believe people who have actually worked in this area. Within reason, I don't think lower temperature provide any measurable extra buffer to the benefit of any short or long term equipement failure. On top of that, people who tend to keep a lower temperature also keep a constant temperature which put the animal at greater risk because this reduces their thermal resistent threshold.

It's fine if you disagree and I think I have made my position clear so have a good day.

Since I've not seen you provide a quote that claims that tanks starting at higher temps are more likely to survive a power failure than those starting at lower temps, I think you might possibly be connecting the dots of their statements in ways that were not actually intended, but OK, we'll just agree to disagree.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It's really up to you to verify the claim and data is correct or not but please do not simply assume it's false otherwise. He's a scientist (with focus on thermal stress in clownfish and anemone) just like you are a professional chemist. It's not good to simply brush off others work because you don't believe it or you have no idea how to verify it. You know respect and professionalism is important in this type of discussion.

.

I didn't claim it wasn't true. It may very well be. I just think it isn't the definitive statement about O2 and temperature that it claims to be for the reasons I outlined.