Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I removed my entire refugium and...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I removed my entire refugium and...

    ... now my skimmer doesnt get full like it used to. I find that kind of strange. Does that mean that my refugium was spitting out a lot of high nutrients and organics? I had about a 6" DSB in it with tons of rocks.. then last week or the week before, I decided to take away my refugium and only let water pass through it. Im thinking now that it was a good step removing my refuge.

  • #2
    Interesting. Much crud in the DSB?

    Comment


    • #3
      Im not sure... but i never fed anything into that tank... it just sat there for 2 yrs with super slow flow. My chaeto wasnt growing at all anymore and thats when I said.. lets take it offline and see what happens.

      Comment


      • #4
        Does that mean that my refugium was spitting out a lot of high nutrients and organics?
        IMO yes,beware because removal of high nutrients refugium can sometimes lead to corals and aquarium decline.I think the reason for that is that corals are acustomed to loots of food(nutrients) what they get from the refugium and suden eliminations of their food is not what they like.

        Comment


        • #5
          Yea, I have been watching them and everything looks great! Thats why I waited 2 wks to say anything

          Comment


          • #6
            I agree with bluereef - I think that your fuge was infact adding a high level of nutrients. I removed my fuge about 5 weeks ago and I noticed that in one week (removal of fuge - begin of zeo) that the skimmer didn't skim as much, the water quality looked better - clearer, and I didn't get the algea growth on the glass like I was.
            --Matt

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by tonkadawg
              I agree with bluereef - I think that your fuge was infact adding a high level of nutrients. I removed my fuge about 5 weeks ago and I noticed that in one week (removal of fuge - begin of zeo) that the skimmer didn't skim as much, the water quality looked better - clearer, and I didn't get the algea growth on the glass like I was.
              EXACT SAME THING happened! Water is clearer, less skimming, etc. I wonder if it was starting to release all this junk now since I have been on ZEOvit for a while as if it was trying to fight the ZEOvit?

              Comment


              • #8
                you mean like the macro going asexual? I can't comment directly on this since I had a lapse of a week between removal of my fuge and start of zeo, but it does seem possible. IIRC macro will go asexual when it feels it's existance being threatened - and with what Zeo does - nutrient (PO4, NO3) removal, this could be the catalyst...
                --Matt

                Comment


                • #9
                  Think of all the detritus that can get trapped in that web of algae - makes sense that it would be adding nutrients to the system.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Greetings All !

                    As someone disturbingly interested in the establishment, maintenance, and mechanisms of microflora/microfauna "food webs" in saltwater systems, I have spent alot of time researching deep sand beds in saltwater aquaria. I also participated ... incompletely (my work schedule prevented full participation in the lab exercises) ... in Dr. Shimek's "Deep Sand Beds. Theory and Practice" online course last year. I'm no expert, but maybe I still have some things to contribute, FWIW.

                    Does that mean that my refugium was spitting out a lot of high nutrients and organics?
                    Refugium DSBs (... so-called "remote" DSBs ...) can be problematic. Many people have reported having difficulty managing the "providing adequate nutrients" vs. "maintaining the necessary diversity of infauna & meiofauna" equilibrium. It turns out that delivering DOCs and POCs to remote DSBs via system "turnover" flow (... or anything similar in terms of overall plumbing/flow ...) oftentimes turns out to be inadequate for maintaining the biodiversity and biomass required for a truly healthy and functional DSB. If you were not regularly supplementing the infauna and meiofauna populations with new/additional specimens ... and even then ... oh yeah, it's entirely possible that your refugium was spitting out DOCs, POCs, and a wide range of exudates and "nutrients."

                    Think of all the detritus that can get trapped in that web of algae - makes sense that it would be adding nutrients to the system.
                    Definitely. But if we're talking about a web of algae in a refugium with either a DSB or SSB, then things get alot more interesting. It turns out that at the interface between an algal mass and an associated substrate, a microhabitat forms with some very interesting nitrification, denitrification, and mineralization pathways.

                    The microbeasties do matter ...
                    Joesfson, et al (2002). Fate of phytodetritus in marine sediments: functional importance of macrofaunal community. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 230: 71-85, 2002.

                    Perhaps more interesting ...
                    Austen, et al (2002). Biodiversity links above and below the marine sediment-water interface that may influence community stability. Biodiversity and Conservation 11: 113-136, 2002.


                    you mean like the macro going asexual? I can't comment directly on this since I had a lapse of a week between removal of my fuge and start of zeo, but it does seem possible. IIRC macro will go asexual when it feels it's existance being threatened - and with what Zeo does - nutrient (PO4, NO3) removal, this could be the catalyst...
                    Forgive me if I blunder off into a rant ...

                    ... like I'm not already there ... ...

                    ... but, macroalgae in general, and Caulerpa species specifically, do not go asexual ... they're already there. An asexual "reproductive" mode is characterized by vegetative growth. If a macroalgae is growing, it is demonstrating asexual reproduction, among other things. When Caulerpa species "crash" or "wipe out", they have shifted into a sexual reproduction mode ... so-called "going sexual". The technical term is sporulation. As environmental parameters shift in a way that produces stress and/or limits the asexual growth process ... the exact shift in parameters remains surprisingly undefined, but are clearly related to dissolved O2 concentrations, cellular exudate concentrations, AND available nutrient levels ... Caulerpa species redirect their energy towards generating spore producing structures which broadcast quite large numbers of reproductive cells into the immediate environment. The shift in metabolic pathways is marked by the "whitening", and eventual translucence of the alga's vegetative structures. The broadcasting of reproductive spores is evidenced by the greenish tint in the surrounding water.

                    It seems to me ... in the absence of documentation ... that the shift in environmental parameters associated with the ZEOvit system could be VERY problematic when it comes to pre-existing Caulerpa cultures.

                    Regarding Chaetomorpha species, despite the common misconception that Chaetomorpha species do not go sexual ... (oh YES! ... Chaetomorpha species can, and in fact do, sporulate ... see "The Biology of Seaweeds. Botanical Monographs Volume 17", Lobban and Wynne, University of California Press, 1981) ... the resultant relatively low mass of reproductive cells has not shown to be particularly problematic in saltwater aquaria. It's the resulting release of nitrogen-based compounds and other cellular components from the biomass of the Chaetomorpha that poses the most significant danger to system stability.

                    It seems to me ... in the absence of documentation ... that the shift in environmental parameters associated with the ZEOvit system could be VERY problematic when it comes to pre-existing Chaetomorpha cultures, also.

                    FWIW.
                    Last edited by mesocosm; 01-27-2005, 01:27 PM.
                    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
                    Hunter S. Thompson

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Gary - thanks for the info - definitely learned something in your last post!
                      --Matt

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        mesocom beat me to it. I was hoping to look smart for a second Of course it was mesocosm who told me that info anyway, lol

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          mesocosm, I always love your input.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X