Shower thoughts on phosphate

[Manny]

Ty, I have to thank you for providing an excellent opportunity for me to get on one of my soap boxes and rant! :-D I'll say nice things about you the rest of the day! Just looking at a few species of Acropora shows how misleading it is to use the term "SPS" when talking about corals. I know for the most part we do not know the exact species we are dealing with but I feel as as best as possible we need to be specific not only to the species level but to the variant or conditions needed for specific colors when a species has a range of colors potentially available. (I have lamented before the need for a communal database.)

My experiences with Acropora youngei, A. millipora and A. valide is their colors are only influenced by light intensity. Attached is a picture of A. valide from the same tank with A. youngei, "Green Slimmer", from my first post on this thread with PO4 between .34 and .41. I regret not having any clear picturtes but the A. millipora varied from a nice green around 200 PAR to a pleasing peach and yellow around 500 PAR. This is what I would expect looking at their species description in Veron's "Corals of Australia and the Indo-Pacific" (printed in 1992 by university of Hawai'i this book is still an excellent buy at about $80). These species are found in multiple reef communities indicating adaptable species providing lighting is bright enough (Veron gives broad descriptions for 14 different community types for tropical reefs for hermetic coral communities, Delbeek and Sprung detail 11 basic zones in Vol I of their Reef Aquarium seiries). Looking at your Acropora echinata it is only found in deep, clear water strongly suggesting a species needing very specific requirements to do well. It shouldn't be surprising at all that it would be a good indicator species for a specific set of environmental conditions. But considering the range of environmental conditions Acroporas grow in I certainly would not expect every species to like the same conditions. A final point, with some acropora species though, coloration may be primarily influenced by water flow and not light intensity/spectrum or nutrient levels, an excellent example is this thread:

http://www.austinreefclub.com/topic/24657-color-and-growth-influenced-by-water-flow/?hl=%2Btwo+%2Btone

I do not have an answer as to why high phosphates do not cause algae problems in my systems as would be expected. I do know I've been able to duplicate it. I'm also very comfortable speculating it has to do with systems maturing that may develop biological controls. One reason I suspect this is long ago when I recognized a system that was doing better than average I would use water from it to seed other systems, in some cases I saw dramatic results. Admittidly in others no difference at all but that a 10% water change with "dirty" water would sometimes have good results suggested to me there was something more complex going. Additionally, looking at Nilsen and Fossa's chart and seeing similar cycles both with new systems AND with algae issues which had a clear link to a catastrophic event then clearing up with relitively little effort to remediate the problem, what seems reasonable to me is these ecosystems besides being very dynamic also have an inherent check and balance that will "naturally" lean to a system beneficial to corals, sometimes in spite of what the basic water chemistry might be indicating. While it's still way beyond our ability to test for in our aquaria the research showing incredibly complex microbial communities that are possibly unique to their "host" species of coral is probably part of the answer. But part may also be giving the nutrition and feeding requirements of corals. One study Delbeek and Sprung refference in Vol III, pg 576, collected about 1 lb of zooplankton in one day with a meter wide net (picture a 200 gallon tank) and Shimek has a pretty good article on anorexic reef aquariums in the Nov/Dec 2010 of Coral magazine. Feeding corals so they can compete with nuisance algae may be a better long term solution than starving an entire system to eliminate only one undesirable component.

Acropora valida

A valida March 13 017.jpg

Take that high five to the face Ty!!![emoji34]

[FarmerTy]

Haha, glad I could be the platform for your cannonball Tim!

I too share your distaste for these generic labels but they are what they are, they serve a function for us to describe a group of corals easier than saying, all my SPS do better in lower phosphate conditions, versus, all my validas, yongeiis, microclades, and echinatas do well in lower phosphate conditions. It's the same as lumping zoas and palys together or throwing softies all into a group... LPS as well. It's just a general label to make them easier to discuss as most have very similar morphological characteristics, similar growth forms, and SOMETIMES similar husbandry.

I think the biggest detriment to the broad based classifications is like what you mentioned, there will be certain species that although grouped in the same broad based grouping, that have very different care requirements. Your mention of the echinata is a perfect example.

I have not seen or run as many tanks over the years as you do Tim, being in the profession, so I can only speak from what I have observed in my own tank, which is a much more limited data pool than yours. Off of my experiences, I have seen some flow affect coloration and growth form, I have seen plenty of light intensity affect coloration and also growth form, and I've witnessed nutrient levels also affecting both as well. Based on only my direct experience with my "SPS" population, I find that the most important criteria for coloration is nutrient level. And let me explain that statement a little further.

I can place all my SPS in a par level they are happy with and they might not reach the full potential of their color. It looks good, and to most, perfectly acceptable, but depending on species, I know there are more colors I can pull from it. I can place them in the appropriate flow, once again, they'll color, and look good, but to get that extra color from it, the final step of influence was always the phosphate level. For me, it can be at the right par, and the right flow, but without low phosphate levels, it never colored up to its true potential. I'm not saying they don't look good, because they do, but not to their best potential of color in my opinion. I also left out a very important factor not discussed yet, stability, which may be one of the most critical of all the factors as well. They are all integral pieces of the coloration puzzle and with most tanks I run across with coloration being an issue for SPS, it is almost always the phosphate level that needs to be tweaked. Most can get the flow, par level, and stability down but pushing the phosphate level down further was the main difference maker for these tanks.

My echinata looks good to most standards right now, but I know that it is missing that pearly essence I had gotten from it before. Funny thing about the echinata, as more of a deepwater species in nature, the years of it being raised in captivity and being cultured by ORA and hobbiests, it has acclimated to the same environmental conditions as the rest of my SPS. I can stick it at 500-600 par with no ill effects... I can blast it with flow and not a complaint. I would almost speculate that a freshly collected specimen would no doubt waste away in my tank in the same conditions.

Which leads me to the success you have with higher phosphate conditions in some of the tanks you maintain. Adaptation plays a big part in that and in every tank that people keep in my opinion. My old nano probably had screaming high nitrates but I was none the wiser. I'd try corals and it's either they adapt and live in my tank or I just chalk it up to a difficult to keep species and move on.

Tim, you've seen my old tank at its peak. I always wondered this but never had asked you, where would you have rated the coloration on my SPS? Again, since I see less tanks than you, my only base comparison for SPS coloration were the few other hobbiest that kept SPS in the Austin area. I was curious to your opinion based on just the sheer number of tanks and experiences you've seen. The big 3 that always stand out in my head for coloration for SPS were Don Duncan, Sam, and Tim (wizard). Sorry if I left anyone out but their tanks always popped out in my head for their impressive SPS coloration.

I do apologize if any thoughts seem not congruent as I am typing this post on my phone.

Sent via Tapatalk

[Neon Reefer]

IMHO I think we tend to over think this problem a bit. Excluding anything but a mature tank we need to look to the coral to determine if levels of PO4 as well as NO3 is at correct levels for them and us! Yes us! Why because the PO4 has such a small window or threshold of acceptance to us. Much smaller than the SPS corals we grow, they and other stony corals have a wider acceptance of PO4 than we ourselves have for them. We are more in tune to growth rates and visual color then they are themselves. So our relationship with the coral is where we should be looking to decide whether to add or remove PO4 from the tank. What criteria do we look to in this relationship. Simply the growth rate which also includes overall health, and color which is more specific to our preference and that is about it.

Growth = health and speed...Are we trying to overgrow our coral then up the PO4 and increase the 65k light. This will give us a faster growing healthy coral but a nice brown one Color...Are we trying to color up the coral then decrease the PO4. So overall health and faster growth usually means slightly higher levels of PO4, and colorful corals means lower levels of PO4.

And increasing and decreasing these levels are fairly easy. Lots of people as mentioned here look to algae growth to determine if PO4 levels are too high. And that's a good indicator to us but maybe a little to broad. Making it simple is always best and we can do this by eliminating variables. Once a tank is well established and we are no longer making big changes it easy to set a feeding level bemnch mark to maintain for our fish coral and inverts to include feeding and supplementing all our pets utilizing an array of fish foods and coral foods to meet all needs. Once this level is established we have a fairly constant inflow of PO4 into the tank, because we know the foods we utilize contain almost all PO4 entering the mature tank. Therefore we can more easily control the levels of PO4 by the amount of PO4 removal from the tank.

This exportation of PO4 can come in many forms but the most basic of which is mechanical filtration and skimming to remove organics from the system before they become dissolved. Once dissolved there is a plethora of other options to remove dissolved organics from the system. But by keeping to the basics I can adjust the PO4 by increasing my wet skimming to reduce organics and PO4 or dry skim to allow the organics to build up a bit. Or / and I can increase my mechanical filtration by adding floss or sponge to increase filtration and reduce organics to decrease overall PO4 and visa/versa. In addition there are other housekeeping chores needed to decrease PO4 constants. Like the sump and filtration maintenance. I personally utilize a self cleaning sump with only mechanical filtration. Therefore I further reduce my exportation changes to increasing / decreasing my PO4 thru simple changes in amount of filtration and skimming I also utilize bare bottom tanks or substrates that can be stirred or vacuumed deeply, meaning no sands and easier upkeep creating a more stable environment to control. By keeping the input of PO4 constant with simple variation of the exportation thru normal means in a stable environment it is easy to find the balance of what we want between growth and color.

[Timfish]

Your observations on coloration with respect to PAR is interesting, but I think it may be hard to assume that the rest of the measurable variables (temp, salinity, Alk, Ca, Mg, PO4) remain constant while the light (or flow in your other example) are the main drivers for coloration in the species that you mentioned. That totally neglects the "ether" parameters that we either don't know about or can't reasonably measure.

We are really in an impossible hobby that requires knowledge in impossibly diverse fields. We stack the deck in our favor as best we can, but ultimately the people who are really successful and have great tanks have great luck, unlimited time or unlimited funding.

It's pretty clearly light is influencing the coloration. I didn't assume other variables you listed remained constant, I know some of them changed and others are irrelevant as far as coral coloration goes. The temp on the tank in post #23 had a seasonal fluctuation of roughly 12 degrees fahrenheit (71 - 83) well with in the ranges that are found on reefs albeit Pink Birdsnest will start to bleach out below 72 degrees it returns to normal coloration within a few weeks of temperature going back above 72 and P04 in mid 2010 was .08 and climbed to roughly .4 in 2013, also withing the range found on reefs. Salinity does not have any influence unless it's high or low enough to kill a coral. Riddle notes neither pH, calcium or magnesium have any effect on fluorescence (1). As far as unknown variables for starters only a small percentage of the suspected two or three thousand fluorescing and chromo proteins have been identified. The multiple roles these proteins are playing is still not fully understood and is being intensely researched. The picture of water flow influencing coloration is an excellent example of unknowns. Dana Riddle's response to seeing the picture was "To my knowledge, this is the first ever evidence suggesting the fluorescent pigments (and maybe non-fluorescent proteins) are linked to water motion."

It seems obvious to me we're not in an impossible hobby. It does require a diverse knowledge base. Seems to me all the more reason to look at the science and not generalizations. As far as needing luck I'm inclined to think the better we understand the specific needs of the species in our tanks the less we need to rely on it.

(1) http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2012/12/corals

[Timfish]

Haha, glad I could be the platform for your cannonball Tim!

I too share your distaste for these generic labels but they are what they are, they serve a function for us to describe a group of corals easier than saying, all my SPS do better in lower phosphate conditions, versus, all my validas, yongeiis, microclades, and echinatas do well in lower phosphate conditions. It's the same as lumping zoas and palys together or throwing softies all into a group... LPS as well. It's just a general label to make them easier to discuss as most have very similar morphological characteristics, similar growth forms, and SOMETIMES similar husbandry.

I think the biggest detriment to the broad based classifications is like what you mentioned, there will be certain species that although grouped in the same broad based grouping, that have very different care requirements. Your mention of the echinata is a perfect example.

I have not seen or run as many tanks over the years as you do Tim, being in the profession, so I can only speak from what I have observed in my own tank, which is a much more limited data pool than yours. Off of my experiences, I have seen some flow affect coloration and growth form, I have seen plenty of light intensity affect coloration and also growth form, and I've witnessed nutrient levels also affecting both as well. Based on only my direct experience with my "SPS" population, I find that the most important criteria for coloration is nutrient level. And let me explain that statement a little further.

I can place all my SPS in a par level they are happy with and they might not reach the full potential of their color. It looks good, and to most, perfectly acceptable, but depending on species, I know there are more colors I can pull from it. I can place them in the appropriate flow, once again, they'll color, and look good, but to get that extra color from it, the final step of influence was always the phosphate level. For me, it can be at the right par, and the right flow, but without low phosphate levels, it never colored up to its true potential. I'm not saying they don't look good, because they do, but not to their best potential of color in my opinion. I also left out a very important factor not discussed yet, stability, which may be one of the most critical of all the factors as well. They are all integral pieces of the coloration puzzle and with most tanks I run across with coloration being an issue for SPS, it is almost always the phosphate level that needs to be tweaked. Most can get the flow, par level, and stability down but pushing the phosphate level down further was the main difference maker for these tanks.

My echinata looks good to most standards right now, but I know that it is missing that pearly essence I had gotten from it before. Funny thing about the echinata, as more of a deepwater species in nature, the years of it being raised in captivity and being cultured by ORA and hobbiests, it has acclimated to the same environmental conditions as the rest of my SPS. I can stick it at 500-600 par with no ill effects... I can blast it with flow and not a complaint. I would almost speculate that a freshly collected specimen would no doubt waste away in my tank in the same conditions.

Which leads me to the success you have with higher phosphate conditions in some of the tanks you maintain. Adaptation plays a big part in that and in every tank that people keep in my opinion. My old nano probably had screaming high nitrates but I was none the wiser. I'd try corals and it's either they adapt and live in my tank or I just chalk it up to a difficult to keep species and move on.

Tim, you've seen my old tank at its peak. I always wondered this but never had asked you, where would you have rated the coloration on my SPS? Again, since I see less tanks than you, my only base comparison for SPS coloration were the few other hobbiest that kept SPS in the Austin area. I was curious to your opinion based on just the sheer number of tanks and experiences you've seen. The big 3 that always stand out in my head for coloration for SPS were Don Duncan, Sam, and Tim (wizard). Sorry if I left anyone out but their tanks always popped out in my head for their impressive SPS coloration.

I do apologize if any thoughts seem not congruent as I am typing this post on my phone.

Sent via Tapatalk

Well, this may be an excessively facetious response on my part but using the term "similar morphology" when looking at the taxonomy of the stoney corals in the order Anthozoa

makes as much sense to me as lumping all the animals in the order Carnivora into two groups based on an arbitrary length of their fangs, like DFL, Deadly Fang Length, and SFL, Safe Fang Length, and using greater or lesser than a 1" length as the standard to split the two groups.

In posts on other threads I have commented we have arguably developed domestic variants that have different survival skill sets than their wild conterparts (the last two links in my 2nd post, #20, provide interesing insight to corals learning their environemnt), your comments and expereinces with your A. echinata seem to me to support my postion we

need to be making decisions based not only at the species level but the variant as well, not on generalizations at the family level that have no scientific basis.

As far as the factors that influence coloration I certainly agree nutrition is important as it is with any plant or animal. But I'll argue the corals genes then the presence or absence of algal symbionts are top two criteria and third is light. If a coral does not have a gene to transcribe for a specific fluorescing or chromo protein it's irrelevant what influence the symbiont species or light souce has (or nutrition for that matter). That the presence or absence of algal symbionts determines whether or not fluorescing or chromo proteins are produced irregardless of the light field tells me the algal symbionts trumps light (besides the 3rd link in my 2nd post I persoanally have seen a white aposymbiotic plating monti that roughly triple in size without regaining any coloration but did display excellent polyp extension).

Stability is important but in my opinion it's been taken to an extreme so people are now maintaining static water parameters. The different reef communities see from daily to seasonal changes which include fluctuations in nutrients. While I have yet to find seasonal data for a specific reef (1) Borneman does list highs, lows and averages for basic water parameters for approaxamitly 1000 reefs and there is quite a bit of variation. Looking at the links I posted on corals learning their environments we may be raising spoiled brats that are happy only under the narrowest of conditions.

Funny you should mention experience base, even though I have multiple systems I have maintained on a weekly basis for decades I consider myself as having a very limited and narrow experience base. Of the many thousands of different species and variants I am only keeping and reproducing a small, small fraction. Thinking back from 2000 to 2009 I doubt I tried even a dozen new species of coral and can only clearly recall 4 (one being two clone lines of BTA that are now almost a constant source of irritation). Even now a significant percentage of corals in my tanks are species I got in the mid nineties that initially did well under 40 watt T12s (I can remember seeing advertisements for MH fixtures with the choice of 4200K or 5000K bulbs). That there are so many species living in very different environments is why I try to spend as much time as possible reading what researchers are publishing. What I find interesting is as I experiment with some of these supposedly difficult corals is they do fine with the same water conditions as corals I've been keeping since the 90s. And when I look at the variations found on reefs there's a disconnect with what I see being posted on the internet forums.

Your observations about your corals browning out points out one of the fascinating aspects of keeping corals I really would like to see further research on. Dana Riddle write

of changes in the brown coloration in corals without an associated change in algal symbionts so we cannot always assume a change in the brown coloration is a change in the

symbiont populations. Your assumption the algal symbionts increased does seem a reasonable observation to me but we need to keep an open mind to the possibility something else is going on.

Ty, I was impressed with the bright colors of your old tank, it was a very pretty tank and I'm sure you will be able to tweek your new tank to your satisfaction. I do not,

however, necessarily see brightly colored tanks as healthy or ideal. It may be quite true using your approach is essential for the long term welfare of some species, like possibly

your A. echinata, but other species may very well do better with systems that maintain more natural microbial populations and nutrient cycling. Another point that appears to

be poorly known is just because a coral looks brighter when it's algal symbionts are reduced does not correlate with the amount of fluorescing protein the coral is producing, one study that looked at the amount of fluorescence associated with heat and cold stress on A. yongei showed fluorescence measurably increased even though the concentration of fluorescing protein decreased along with the number of Symbodinium sp. dinoflagellate cells. So I would not always expect reducing the algal symbionts to be the best way to bring out the prefered colors of a coral or what's best for the health of a species.

Anyway, I am happy to put my money where my mouth is, you got any A. echinata frags you want to sell?

(1) Changingseas.tv episode #603 discusses briefly the importance of the nutrient rich and seasonal Humbolt current for the coral reefs of the Galapagos Islands.

[Manny]

Haha, glad I could be the platform for your cannonball Tim!

I too share your distaste for these generic labels but they are what they are, they serve a function for us to describe a group of corals easier than saying, all my SPS do better in lower phosphate conditions, versus, all my validas, yongeiis, microclades, and echinatas do well in lower phosphate conditions. It's the same as lumping zoas and palys together or throwing softies all into a group... LPS as well. It's just a general label to make them easier to discuss as most have very similar morphological characteristics, similar growth forms, and SOMETIMES similar husbandry.

I think the biggest detriment to the broad based classifications is like what you mentioned, there will be certain species that although grouped in the same broad based grouping, that have very different care requirements. Your mention of the echinata is a perfect example.

I have not seen or run as many tanks over the years as you do Tim, being in the profession, so I can only speak from what I have observed in my own tank, which is a much more limited data pool than yours. Off of my experiences, I have seen some flow affect coloration and growth form, I have seen plenty of light intensity affect coloration and also growth form, and I've witnessed nutrient levels also affecting both as well. Based on only my direct experience with my "SPS" population, I find that the most important criteria for coloration is nutrient level. And let me explain that statement a little further.

I can place all my SPS in a par level they are happy with and they might not reach the full potential of their color. It looks good, and to most, perfectly acceptable, but depending on species, I know there are more colors I can pull from it. I can place them in the appropriate flow, once again, they'll color, and look good, but to get that extra color from it, the final step of influence was always the phosphate level. For me, it can be at the right par, and the right flow, but without low phosphate levels, it never colored up to its true potential. I'm not saying they don't look good, because they do, but not to their best potential of color in my opinion. I also left out a very important factor not discussed yet, stability, which may be one of the most critical of all the factors as well. They are all integral pieces of the coloration puzzle and with most tanks I run across with coloration being an issue for SPS, it is almost always the phosphate level that needs to be tweaked. Most can get the flow, par level, and stability down but pushing the phosphate level down further was the main difference maker for these tanks.

My echinata looks good to most standards right now, but I know that it is missing that pearly essence I had gotten from it before. Funny thing about the echinata, as more of a deepwater species in nature, the years of it being raised in captivity and being cultured by ORA and hobbiests, it has acclimated to the same environmental conditions as the rest of my SPS. I can stick it at 500-600 par with no ill effects... I can blast it with flow and not a complaint. I would almost speculate that a freshly collected specimen would no doubt waste away in my tank in the same conditions.

Which leads me to the success you have with higher phosphate conditions in some of the tanks you maintain. Adaptation plays a big part in that and in every tank that people keep in my opinion. My old nano probably had screaming high nitrates but I was none the wiser. I'd try corals and it's either they adapt and live in my tank or I just chalk it up to a difficult to keep species and move on.

Tim, you've seen my old tank at its peak. I always wondered this but never had asked you, where would you have rated the coloration on my SPS? Again, since I see less tanks than you, my only base comparison for SPS coloration were the few other hobbiest that kept SPS in the Austin area. I was curious to your opinion based on just the sheer number of tanks and experiences you've seen. The big 3 that always stand out in my head for coloration for SPS were Don Duncan, Sam, and Tim (wizard). Sorry if I left anyone out but their tanks always popped out in my head for their impressive SPS coloration.

I do apologize if any thoughts seem not congruent as I am typing this post on my phone.

Sent via Tapatalk

Well, this may be an excessively facetious response on my part but using the term "similar morphology" when looking at the taxonomy of the stoney corals in the order Anthozoa

makes as much sense to me as lumping all the animals in the order Carnivora into two groups based on an arbitrary length of their fangs, like DFL, Deadly Fang Length, and SFL, Safe Fang Length, and using greater or lesser than a 1" length as the standard to split the two groups.

In posts on other threads I have commented we have arguably developed domestic variants that have different survival skill sets than their wild conterparts (the last two links in my 2nd post, #20, provide interesing insight to corals learning their environemnt), your comments and expereinces with your A. echinata seem to me to support my postion we

need to be making decisions based not only at the species level but the variant as well, not on generalizations at the family level that have no scientific basis.

As far as the factors that influence coloration I certainly agree nutrition is important as it is with any plant or animal. But I'll argue the corals genes then the presence or absence of algal symbionts are top two criteria and third is light. If a coral does not have a gene to transcribe for a specific fluorescing or chromo protein it's irrelevant what influence the symbiont species or light souce has (or nutrition for that matter). That the presence or absence of algal symbionts determines whether or not fluorescing or chromo proteins are produced irregardless of the light field tells me the algal symbionts trumps light (besides the 3rd link in my 2nd post I persoanally have seen a white aposymbiotic plating monti that roughly triple in size without regaining any coloration but did display excellent polyp extension).

Stability is important but in my opinion it's been taken to an extreme so people are now maintaining static water parameters. The different reef communities see from daily to seasonal changes which include fluctuations in nutrients. While I have yet to find seasonal data for a specific reef (1) Borneman does list highs, lows and averages for basic water parameters for approaxamitly 1000 reefs and there is quite a bit of variation. Looking at the links I posted on corals learning their environments we may be raising spoiled brats that are happy only under the narrowest of conditions.

Funny you should mention experience base, even though I have multiple systems I have maintained on a weekly basis for decades I consider myself as having a very limited and narrow experience base. Of the many thousands of different species and variants I am only keeping and reproducing a small, small fraction. Thinking back from 2000 to 2009 I doubt I tried even a dozen new species of coral and can only clearly recall 4 (one being two clone lines of BTA that are now almost a constant source of irritation). Even now a significant percentage of corals in my tanks are species I got in the mid nineties that initially did well under 40 watt T12s (I can remember seeing advertisements for MH fixtures with the choice of 4200K or 5000K bulbs). That there are so many species living in very different environments is why I try to spend as much time as possible reading what researchers are publishing. What I find interesting is as I experiment with some of these supposedly difficult corals is they do fine with the same water conditions as corals I've been keeping since the 90s. And when I look at the variations found on reefs there's a disconnect with what I see being posted on the internet forums.

Your observations about your corals browning out points out one of the fascinating aspects of keeping corals I really would like to see further research on. Dana Riddle write

of changes in the brown coloration in corals without an associated change in algal symbionts so we cannot always assume a change in the brown coloration is a change in the

symbiont populations. Your assumption the algal symbionts increased does seem a reasonable observation to me but we need to keep an open mind to the possibility something else is going on.

Ty, I was impressed with the bright colors of your old tank, it was a very pretty tank and I'm sure you will be able to tweek your new tank to your satisfaction. I do not,

however, necessarily see brightly colored tanks as healthy or ideal. It may be quite true using your approach is essential for the long term welfare of some species, like possibly

your A. echinata, but other species may very well do better with systems that maintain more natural microbial populations and nutrient cycling. Another point that appears to

be poorly known is just because a coral looks brighter when it's algal symbionts are reduced does not correlate with the amount of fluorescing protein the coral is producing, one study that looked at the amount of fluorescence associated with heat and cold stress on A. yongei showed fluorescence measurably increased even though the concentration of fluorescing protein decreased along with the number of Symbodinium sp. dinoflagellate cells. So I would not always expect reducing the algal symbionts to be the best way to bring out the prefered colors of a coral or what's best for the health of a species.

Anyway, I am happy to put my money where my mouth is, you got any A. echinata frags you want to sell?

(1) Changingseas.tv episode #603 discusses briefly the importance of the nutrient rich and seasonal Humbolt current for the coral reefs of the Galapagos Islands.

Timfish, you're my new hero! [emoji482] I am deeply fascinated with this debate here as all involved are very knowledgeable about what you speak of yet it is apparent we have opposing views. I would love to follow your progress with the echinata. I will be closely watching this thread and others showing your results.

[victoly]

This was all just a long con for Tim to get a hold of Ty's echinata.

[Timfish]

This was all just a long con for Tim to get a hold of Ty's echinata.

You got me figured out!

[FarmerTy]

This was all just a long con for Tim to get a hold of Ty's echinata.

You got me figured out!

Man Tim, you could have just asked to buy a piece instead of writing all that!

[Bpb]

Adaptable as it may be, would you guys with echinata experience say that color and growth would be improved under lower light since it's a deeper water species? I have mine way up at the top of the tank. After seeing Ty's Hawkins echinata in the 125 gallon it was hands down the most beautiful coral I had ever seen and I've attempted to replicate that. I know you had yours in fairly high light conditions, which is contrary to maybe some advice on mimicking it's natural conditions.

[FarmerTy]

Bpb, my best coloration was at 200-300 par in the old tank.

In the new tank, it's accepted up to 600 par with no issues. Prime color is still TBD. I need some stability for a bit to find out that piece of info (i.e., keep my dang hands out of the tank).

[FarmerTy]

Timfish, I think we share a great interest on reading everything we can about our hobby/line of work. It shows the passion one can have for a hobby as interesting and diverse as reef keeping. I've commented in red below my thoughts where applicable.

Well, this may be an excessively facetious response on my part but using the term "similar morphology" when looking at the taxonomy of the stoney corals in the order Anthozoa
makes as much sense to me as lumping all the animals in the order Carnivora into two groups based on an arbitrary length of their fangs, like DFL, Deadly Fang Length, and SFL, Safe Fang Length, and using greater or lesser than a 1" length as the standard to split the two groups.

-agreed, and I do enjoy the facetious response. I too have the same frustrations when it comes to the generic terms used but I stopped fighting it these days... kind of like shouting at the sea to stop the waves. It's just going to keep coming.

In posts on other threads I have commented we have arguably developed domestic variants that have different survival skill sets than their wild conterparts (the last two links in my 2nd post, #20, provide interesing insight to corals learning their environemnt), your comments and expereinces with your A. echinata seem to me to support my postion we
need to be making decisions based not only at the species level but the variant as well, not on generalizations at the family level that have no scientific basis.

-agreed just like any other life form, domestication alters their survival skill sets. I would no quicker release my Shih Tzu into the wild and think he'll survive. He'd be a quick tasty snack for something much quicker and faster. I don't think my wife would appreciate me saying that. Now I'm being facetious...

As far as the factors that influence coloration I certainly agree nutrition is important as it is with any plant or animal. But I'll argue the corals genes then the presence or absence of algal symbionts are top two criteria and third is light. If a coral does not have a gene to transcribe for a specific fluorescing or chromo protein it's irrelevant what influence the symbiont species or light souce has (or nutrition for that matter). That the presence or absence of algal symbionts determines whether or not fluorescing or chromo proteins are produced irregardless of the light field tells me the algal symbionts trumps light (besides the 3rd link in my 2nd post I persoanally have seen a white aposymbiotic plating monti that roughly triple in size without regaining any coloration but did display excellent polyp extension).

-while I tend to agree with what you are saying, that the coral genes trump everything, I think that for me that was something I thought everyone would assume anyways. In simpler terms, you're saying that the coral genes (what is roughly the equivalent of saying, what species of coral) are the biggest determining factor of coloration, then presence or absence of algal symbionts (zooxanthallae), then in no particular order, light and nutrition. Simpling stating, the species of coral is the biggest factor in coloration, then the population of zooxanthallae, then again, light and nutrition in no particular order.

Again, I assumed everyone was already aware of that. You can't get a strawberry shortcake to look like a purple valida, because it doesn't have the coral genes to express purple. Your strawberry shortcake will be a brown stick, if there is too much zooxanthallae. Nutrient level and light level help determine the amount of zooxanthallae within the coral, thereby, affecting what colors we see as an end result. In more detail, you could go into fluorescing pigments and such, but to simplify, I left it out.

A more generic example would be in humans. Humor me because I think this is funny. Gene expression gives me the color of skin I have... nutrient level and light level plays a part in it... I can eat terribly and my skin color can look sickly, get more light and my skin color darkens. But I don't have the genes to have the same skin color as my wife... a little redhead from Marble Falls.

Stability is important but in my opinion it's been taken to an extreme so people are now maintaining static water parameters. The different reef communities see from daily to seasonal changes which include fluctuations in nutrients. While I have yet to find seasonal data for a specific reef (1) Borneman does list highs, lows and averages for basic water parameters for approaxamitly 1000 reefs and there is quite a bit of variation. Looking at the links I posted on corals learning their environments we may be raising spoiled brats that are happy only under the narrowest of conditions.

-agreed, my Shih Tzu is a prime example of a spoiled brat. Maintaining stable water parameters I think is critical for SPS-geared tanks. I'm not talking about temperature, lighting intensity, or even to a certain extent, nutrient load. I'm talking alkalinity. You swing a few dKh and they are toast. My temperature can ramp up and down and as long as it is within acceptable parameters and doesn't go to extremes too quickly, they could care less. pH, again, as long as it's within parameters, doesn't matter the fluctuation. Even lighting intensity, never killed an SPS due to too much light or too little light, episodically at least. If I left it that way in either extreme condition, I'm sure eventually it would die. Nutrients? My nitrates shot up to 60 ppm before I started noticing any effects to my SPS colonies... and once it was remedied, back to normal. Does that mean I want my nitrate level to fluctuate up and down like that? Probably not. I understand that keeping stable parameters can be taken to the extreme but what is the repercussion of keeping it too stable? Too nice of a reef tank? Sure, maybe your corals build up less of a tolerance for variations in parameters but let's be honest, who out there who is trying to achieve static parameters is 100% successful? We have heaters that fail, probes that drift, lights accidentally left on, mixing up saltwater with incorrect salinity, not topping off consistently... the goal is to aim for static parameters, real life dictates we won't achieve it... but we have the highest success when we aim for it.

Funny you should mention experience base, even though I have multiple systems I have maintained on a weekly basis for decades I consider myself as having a very limited and narrow experience base. Of the many thousands of different species and variants I am only keeping and reproducing a small, small fraction. Thinking back from 2000 to 2009 I doubt I tried even a dozen new species of coral and can only clearly recall 4 (one being two clone lines of BTA that are now almost a constant source of irritation). Even now a significant percentage of corals in my tanks are species I got in the mid nineties that initially did well under 40 watt T12s (I can remember seeing advertisements for MH fixtures with the choice of 4200K or 5000K bulbs). That there are so many species living in very different environments is why I try to spend as much time as possible reading what researchers are publishing. What I find interesting is as I experiment with some of these supposedly difficult corals is they do fine with the same water conditions as corals I've been keeping since the 90s. And when I look at the variations found on reefs there's a disconnect with what I see being posted on the internet forums.

-Out of curiosity, what are the difficult corals that you have experimented with Tim? How have they fared in your tanks? You have a much larger testing lab than I do! The results could be interesting!

Your observations about your corals browning out points out one of the fascinating aspects of keeping corals I really would like to see further research on. Dana Riddle write
of changes in the brown coloration in corals without an associated change in algal symbionts so we cannot always assume a change in the brown coloration is a change in the
symbiont populations. Your assumption the algal symbionts increased does seem a reasonable observation to me but we need to keep an open mind to the possibility something else is going on.

-agreed, but I think this is where I think there needs to be a differentiation between theoretical or academic discussion versus application. My browning of my coral, whether it is from the increase of population of algal symbionts or their increased capacity to block fluorescing pigments from the coral, the end result is it is brown. We could discuss all day why it's brown, but in the end it's brown. Do I know how to make it not brown anymore? Why yes, make sure it is in a par level it prefers, in the light temperature range that best encourages that color to express (10k, 14k, 20k), given the correct amount of nutrients (low phosphates, lower nitrates), flow that it prefers, and all the other basic parameters are stable. Presto, brown stick = pretty stick.

Ty, I was impressed with the bright colors of your old tank, it was a very pretty tank and I'm sure you will be able to tweek your new tank to your satisfaction. I do not,
however, necessarily see brightly colored tanks as healthy or ideal. It may be quite true using your approach is essential for the long term welfare of some species, like possibly
your A. echinata, but other species may very well do better with systems that maintain more natural microbial populations and nutrient cycling.

-agreed. I stated in my build thread before that the pretty corals aren't always the healthiest when it comes to SPS at least. We walk a tightrope of health and beauty. Those brown sticks are probably a lot healthier than the colorful versions of them. But to see their pretty colors, we need to reduce some of their populations of algal symbionts. To do that, we lower the nutrient level or expose them to more light. Lower the population of algal symbionts too much and we in turn start starving out our coral. Feed them too much and we get brown sticks. You are correct in many other species will do better in other tanks that maintain a natural microbial population and nutrient cycling process, but when it comes to my SPS-dominant tank, I'm going to reproduce the conditions that are most ideal for them. The zoas and LPS will suffer a bit in the same conditions and I have no doubt look better in other tanks but my goal is SPS. I think you bring up a good point and something I'd like to emphasize. 99% of the time when I discuss coral health and husbandry, I'm targeting a SPS dominant system. I can almost guarantee you that if I took my zoas and LPS and put them in any of Tim's tanks, they'd look much more amazing than in my tank.

Another point that appears to be poorly known is just because a coral looks brighter when it's algal symbionts are reduced does not correlate with the amount of fluorescing protein the coral is producing, one study that looked at the amount of fluorescence associated with heat and cold stress on A. yongei showed fluorescence measurably increased even though the concentration of fluorescing protein decreased along with the number of Symbodinium sp. dinoflagellate cells. So I would not always expect reducing the algal symbionts to be the best way to bring out the prefered colors of a coral or what's best for the health of a species.

-understood, but from my experience with SPS, more often than not, I'm seeing better colors. What are better colors? Well, that's just an opinion but I do enjoy how my tanks have looked over the years. This is another situation where I tend to think that academic discussion is less useful than application in our tanks. Whether the green slimer's fluorescence increased or not independently of the fluorescing protein concentration or algal symbiont concentrations, the end result is whether the color looks pleasing or not. Does the coral look better because the fluorescence increased? Or is it because the algal symbiont population decreased? In the end, does it matter? The only objective of the hobbiest is to achieve the better color. It may be useful to know what helps express that color better to aid in that goal but I don't find the results of the yongei experiment to apply as much for functional goals of coloration. Don't get me wrong, I read the articles and research because it is interesting, but to me, there's a differentiation of interesting data... and potentially applied data.

Anyway, I am happy to put my money where my mouth is, you got any A. echinata frags you want to sell?

Give me a month or two sir. I want to make sure the echinata is happy and stable and I'd be happy to supply a piece in the name of science! On that note, please everyone, do not submit to me your "research papers" and ask for a free frag of echinata. Uh, yeah Ty, I'm researching how good that echinata would look in my tank.

(1) Changingseas.tv episode #603 discusses briefly the importance of the nutrient rich and seasonal Humbolt current for the coral reefs of the Galapagos Islands.

-glad you mentioned the episode. I look forward to watching it. It did make me think of what we're trying to accomplish here with reefkeeping. We're trying to best replicate as we can, the conditions of the world oceans, in a tiny little glass box with a bunch of electronics. One thing the ocean can do really well is give a large supply food, while at the same time, not raising the phosphate levels and nitrate levels. I aim for the same in my tanks. Throw tons of food in there and do my best to minimize the damage done with increased phosphate and nitrate levels. The ocean has natural sinks for all this nutrient... all I have is my sump, my reactors, my skimmer, my macro, and my media. I'm sure the ocean is wishing me a sincere "good luck dude!".

[Bpb]

Bpb, my best coloration was at 200-300 par in the old tank.

In the new tank, it's accepted up to 600 par with no issues. Prime color is still TBD. I need some stability for a bit to find out that piece of info (i.e., keep my dang hands out of the tank).

You've inadvertently convinced me to lower it i. My tank. Colors are nice but I'm about to change to 10k bulbs and i don't want to force it to acclimate to 500-600+ par levels if it's happier at 200-300

[FarmerTy]

Haha, well you know 200-300 worked in my old tank. The jury is still out on 500-600 but I currently have it around 300 in the new tank.

Sent via Tapatalk

[Timfish]

-Out of curiosity, what are the difficult corals that you have experimented with Tim?

The meandroid (grows in channels or grooves) Lobophyllia species is what first comes to mind, probably Lobophyllia hataii and L. robusta. I've had them look good for a while then they start to fade. I don't have any of the phaceloid (individual polyps) types but I've seen colonies in peoples tanks that are clearly growing and reproducing, most likely L. hemprichii as it is very widespread compared to the other species suggesting a greater degree of adaptability.

[Timfish]

This was all just a long con for Tim to get a hold of Ty's echinata.

You got me figured out!

Man Tim, you could have just asked to buy a piece instead of writing all that!

Hah! First in line!

[Manny]

Updates on Tim trying a Hawkins. . . . .

[FarmerTy]

My Hawkins is working on that. Grow little guy, grow!

[Manny]

Any chance Tim of you acquiring out elsewhere?

[FarmerTy]

They have frags of ice fire echinata and strawberry shortcakes at RCA. I'd think either would work as a substitute for my echinata for the coloring up challenge.

[MantaFan]

This thread is such a good read... I certainly appreciate all the knowledge you guys drop in here for us mortals to absorb :-)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Timfish]

I've already talked to Hunter at Aquadome about getting more ORA Acropra enchinata var. "Hawkins". I want to try not only frags from different sources but also in different tanks (so how many frags am I getting again? )

[FarmerTy]

1 million frags! [emoji6] I'm hoping to squeeze out one frag as long as my tank doesn't have any more setbacks.

[Manny]

Let's see this experiment get done Tim. I'm sure you gotta be able to find a echinata almost anywhere in Austin. I just got a very nice sized frag (mini colony) shipped from RCA for very cheap. I would love to see you have success with these delicate pieces.

[Timfish]

Let's see this experiment get done Tim. I'm sure you gotta be able to find a echinata almost anywhere in Austin. I just got a very nice sized frag (mini colony) shipped from RCA for very cheap. I would love to see you have success with these delicate pieces.

I have, I need to get some current pictures and I'll post them.