JiaEn

Dinoflagellate Dinos are one of those reefing topics that is intensively emotional. Many reefers decommissioned or restarted their aquarium due to dinos, while many others claims that dino can be wiped out by simply adding product X or equipment Y. Truth is, if the aquarist takes correct actions, dino problem does not automatically means high casualties or tank reset. On the other hand, what some aquarists' triumph against dino, may in fact be victory against a less insidious foe. Let's take a closer look at dinoflagellates to understand better what we are dealing with. I would like to start by discussing two myths about dinos. 1. All dinos are the same/similar There are about 2000 different species of dinoflagellate, almost half as much as that of corals. These different species of dino occupies different niche in the ecosystem. It's therefore unhelpful to consider all dinos the same, especially when it comes to considering treatments for dino bloom. 2. We can identify dino infestation just by looking at the aquarium. Of course, there are certain signs which point strongly towards dino outbreak. For example, stringly bubbly brown films hanging on the coral. We can only have positive identification once the sample is observed under microscope. See a brown patch on the sand bed? Is that diatom, dino, or cyano? Identification with naked eyes is unsatisfactory. To make matter worse, several different species of dinos may look the same to our eyes, but require somewhat different approaches to overcome them. Therefore, the first step of winning against dino is to know exactly which species of dino we are dealing with. If not, any action we take is just a shot ib the dark. As my aquarium is in the midst of a dino outbreak, it's a perfect opportunity for me to take a closer look at the topic of dinos.

Mixed Reef and Nutrition There is a common saying among reefers: LPS and softies prefer dirtier water, while SPS prefer cleaner water. There are many permutations to this saying. The dirtiness could mean nitrate or phosphate, it could also be referring to the amount of particulate matter in the water. I, however, think this lines of thought may have their flaws. While I agree that may LPS and soft corals may survive in a greater range of nutrition profile compared to SPS; My observations lead me to belive that LPS, softies and SPS thrive in similar nutrient profiles. Note that the point of discussion is strictly on nutritions; flow and light (which no doubt affects how coral utilize the nutrients) are not discussed here since much of it has got to do with the position of the coral in the aquarium. Evidence? No, I didn't do a rigorous study to see what exactly is the "best" environment for LPS and soft corals. I made the privous observation based on the following. 1. LPS, SPS, and soft corals may grow on different part of the reef, but their environments are nutritionally similar: extremely low inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus, large amount of nano- and pico- planktons. (Note that the nitrate and phosphate level in unpolluted reef is way lower than most typical aquariums. Heh, even in those scientific studies about the elevated level of nitrate, the elevated concentration is generally kept at 0.2-0.3 ppm.) If the corals are evolved to take up this ecological niche, it will be hard pressed to think that they require much higher level of nutrients to thrive. 2. There are many successful aquaria with "sps" parameters in which the LPS and softies thrives just as well - many of them with astonishing growth rates. These anecdotal examples show that LPS can thrive in clean water. For my own aquarium, I realised that there isn't too much to worry about for LPS and softies. Leave them in the aquarium and they will grow on their own - of course, light and flow must be appropriate too. This orange Trachyphyllia, a supposedly dirtly water loving coral, doubled in size (skeletal) in a year. The water parameters is rather consistent at 2.5ppm nitrate, 0.02ppm phosphate (both are already elevated based on unpolluted reef standards). There is no target feeding either. Like I said, this is un-rigorous observation. But this is worth a thought, no?

Thank you @shiraz. Have been doing quite of bit of... Unorthodox experiments; more content coming soon .

Clarisea The advent of automatic fleece filter, such as the clarisea, brings about a much improved method of mechanical filtration. Gone are the days of floss replacement every couple of days. Not to mention the roller feature regularly remove trapped detritus out of water, preventing decomposition. The fleece claim to handle a flow rate of up to 5000 lph, and filtering particles down to 20 microns. If you remember the chemistry experiment during your teenage years, you would probably recall the horribly slow process of filtration. Once the solid particles start to build up on the filter paper, the flow rate of liquid grinds to a stop. A typical school lab filter paper has a micron range of 30-50 microns. So how does the clarisea filters smaller particles, and faster? I think there are a few engineering trick involved. Large Active Filtration Area The design of the filter roll allows a large surface area of fleece to participate in the filtering process. And logic will tell us, the more fleece we use, the more water can pass through. In the normal operation, the water level will sit just below the float switch activation point, regardless how the clarisea is positioned. This ensures sufficient fleece material participates in the filtering process. Large Head Pressue The pressure different on both side of the fleece is the driving force to push the liquid through. When the clarisea is set up correctly, the liquid level difference is significant. This produce a large driving force to push liquid across the fleece material. Think of this like the booster pump for your RO unit, the increase of the flow rate is critical for the roll filter to operate effectively. The Fleece The heart of the filter is the fleece, in here plenty of engineering goes into making it work, well (which is really a basic requirement in filtering media industry). Let's have a look at the fleece material This is a piece of (kind of) clean fleece under the microscope. Clearly we can see a hole punched out in the material. In fact, if you were to look at the roll filter carefully, you can spot all these hole easily even with just the naked eye. So, here is the question. How does this fleece carries out filtration? Is it like a colander where water flows through the hole and the solids strained on it? In another words, are these holes small enough to trap the detritus in our aquarium? Well, these holes are approximately 1mm in diameter. That's 100x the size of most phytoplankton, 20x the size of a rotifer. It's too big to "clarify water". The actual filtering is not done by the hole, but by the fabrics around it. Looking at this picture of used (and awfully smelly) piece of fleecs shows clearly that there in no solid material trapped by the hole. Rather, many cells, and unidentified mass are collected on the web-like polymer. This is where thr number of 20 microns come from. If you look back at the picture of the clean fleece, you can see the unpolluted network of fibers. This is how Clarisea traps detritus for you. Why then will they punch holes on the fleece? Wouldn't this allow water to flow through without being filtered? I believe this is an engineering compromise. If there is no provision for these holes, the flow rate through the fleece material will be too low to be of any practical use. These holes acts as a built-in bypass, to allow the clarisea to handle large flow reasonably well. This is my take on clarisea fleece, and me appreciating how they kind of make this work. *on a separate note, they should really include an "end of roll indicator" just like those receipt machines. So that we don't have to guess how much material is left on the roll.

More Nematodes Took another look at the skimmer scum. A few interesting preliminary observations after I examine the content of the scum on the neck of the skimmer, and the skimmate collected in the cup. 1. The population of nematodes is significantly more dense in the scum compared to the skimmate 2. A few cells of dino can be found in the skimmate, however, none can be found in scum. It warrants further observations, but does nematodes consume dino? (Specifically Amphidinium sp) Ciliate On a non-related observation, a the small scale, many organisms have numerous cilia on their appendages. This is how they improve the swimming efficiency. Unknown zooplankton, note the highly ciliated "arms" (and pardon the bubbles due to hasty mounting of slide) Another unknown plankton, note the cilia, presumably for swimming. Bonus content: a nematode consuming the above plankton. I looked at this for more than 10 minutes. IPS_2021-10-27.18.28.23.3220(0).mp4

Tank water How about microscopic life in my display tank? Samples from the water column shows that there is little planktonic live in the display; while samples from the sand bed shows some dino and diatoms. Granted, it is not easy to identify bacteriopankton using optical microscope; the planktonic life in the water column could be bacteria dominated. At least visually, the display water is nutrition lean in between feeding. I will investigate more about this in the future. What I do see is a small number of tissue fragments. Perhaps some sort of algae bits, left over when fishes graze the rocks. It's also possible that they are remains of some planktons sheared by aquarium pumps. Skimmate When it comes to skimmates, we imagine it to be one of the most nasty things in the aquarium. It make sense, because if not, why would we want to remove them in the first place. But what does skimmer really remove from the aquarium though. Prevailing understanding tells us that skimmer removes bacteria flocks, planktons and some dissolved organic compounds. With a microscope on the table, I decided to see for myself. I took a swab of skimmer foam with a toothpick, and smear it on a few drops of tank water (to prevent osmotic shock, I didn't use fresh water). Of course, I see the expect stuff. Some unidentified biomass ( probably need to disperse some more), a few diatoms and dinos (mostly captured by clarisea), and a few algal cells. What I didn't expect to see, is the large number of nematodes (marine worms) they are seen to interact with the biomass, presumably consume them. IPS_2021-10-22.16.08.27.3620.mp4 If the sample I took is representative of the skimmer environment, there must be millions of nematodes in the skimmer. Why don't they make it to the display tank? Is it possible to recuit them to scavange detritus? These are interesting questions to ponder. And on a grander scale, I think we have to accept that our aquarium system is hardly a homogeneous habitat. It seems more sensible to consider out aquarium as multiple, independent but interconnected biome.

Muck Diving in the Clarisea We know automatic fleece traps and remove a lot of nasty things from the water colomn. What exactly do they remove though? Just like muck diving in the natural reefs, diving into the microscopic world of gunk on the fleece filter can be an entertaining experience. Taking a swab of the matters collected on the fleece, and observe them under the microscope. Then it's a exciting process to search for every little thing. Dino As I'm having a outbreak of amphidinium, it is no surprise to find some cells in the fleece. Diatoms Now this is a welcome sight. Diatoms can potentially compete with dino and reduce the outbreak; they are also wonderful food for corals and clams. I need more of these. Zooplanktons There are remains of zooplankton trapped in the fleece. There are plenty of nematodes as well. What is This? It's not easy to ID many of the organisms in the gunk. Decomposition has already set in, the cells maybe crushed, compressed, ruptured or twisted. A small swab on the fleece has shown so many interesting things. Surely I will try this some more.

This is sufficient.

Welcome to reefing! 1. Generally the media you place inside the aquarium can be classified into 3 groups. Mechanical (filter sock, fleece, sponge etc) to trap the solid particles in water. You need to replace them when they are dirty. Biological (siporax, biosphere etc) which is where you grow bacteria to break down ammonia etc. You normally should not disturb them. Chemical (carbon, phosphate media etc) which adsorb soluble substances in the water. You need to replace them as they exhaust. The sponge and bio-foam can both act as a mechanical filter and a biological filter. However, they are probably not the best options around. If you use them though, you should set them up such that water flows through the sponge first, which you will replace regularly; then flows through the biofoam, which you will leave it undisturbed. 2. It's no harm to turn on the light. However do note that this probably will cause algae to grow (it's a matter of time anyways). Which means you need to be ready to introduce herbivores, such as snails, to keep them in check. 3. Bacteria may help to speed up the cycle process. It's not necessary though. 4. I do not see any cooling solutions for your aquarium. Do you have any planned? In SG, temperature is a big factor. In any case, what corals do you fancy? It's makes more sense to decide what you like, then make sure the aquarium can support it. 5. There are a million and one tips in reefing. Some are based on facts, while some are just like old wife's tale. Keep an open mind and think for yourself, that would be a good place to start. Happy reefing!

I would suggest going for a tank with sump as well. You will be able to slowly understand more about piping and overflow. You will also have a bit more space to experiment with different setups. @dtdream is absolutely right about the placement of chiller. Good ventilation for the chiller not only make it more efficient, it also prolong the chiller's life-span. When the skimmer and pumps are concerned, there are many affordable and reliable options. In fact, a cramped space of a IOS tank is a much bigger compromise.

Wholesome Food for Corals If we accept that corals prey on planktons in the wild, then logically one of the best food we can give to our captive corals is the very same plaktons available in the wild. When we attempt to replicate these plankton soup in the aquarium, there are a few important considerations Live Culture vs Process Food Live plankton culture provide much benefits for the aquarium. For one, they are more stable in the aquarium system compared to processed food - which pretty much starts to degrade as soon as it hits water. Live culture also engage with the food web of the aquarium. They may scavage detritus or take up nitrates and phosphates in the water colomn. On the other hand, live culture has it's share of challenges. Firstly, the storage and transport of the live culture can be very demanding. Temperature, nutrients, light, various factors needs to be maintained within acceptable range. Secondly,the plankton density in the live culture is generally fairly limited. The culture media also contain various inorganic and trace elements. When live culture is added to the aquarium, these elements are also introduced as well. This can potentially (although unlikely) affect the nutrient in the aquarium system. Finally, there is a (remote) possiblity that live culture may introduce pathogen into the aquarium, harming other organisms. On the other hand, we have plankton cultures which are processed. The culture can be concentrated so there are more plankton in every ml of the feed. The culture could be treated with UV, or pasteurized to kill potential pathogens. The final preparations can be stored in a fridge or freezer, even under room temperature for freeze dried algae. Such preparations has a possibility of rupturing the algal cells. While this could potentially make the food more digestible, it can also cause the food to rapidly degrade in water. Bacterio-, Phyto- vs Zoo-planktons The next factor of consideration when formulating a coral diet, is the composition of different type of planktons. While most corals tries to consume whatever is available in water, we need to be aware that all these different planktons are not the same. One of the chief difference is the size. Generally, corals (and clams and sponges) are specialized to prey on particles of a certain size. For smaller planktons, coral is able to ingest them and digest them in the gut. For larger planktons (especially some zoo-planktons), although the coral is unable to swallow the whole thing, it is shown that they can digest them outside of their body. So having plankton within suitable range of sizes is essential. The challenge though, is that we don't know all that well about what the corals eat. While many experiments are conducted to understand coral nutrition, there are still plenty of gaps to fill. Therefore, I believe having a mixture of naturally occuring planktons is a good approach towards feeding a mixed reef aquarium. Additives? Some compounds can be naturally depleted. It may be beneficial to artificially maintain the concentration in the aquarium. This is another aspect which I would like to find out more. VID_20211020_221956(0).mp4

I would recommend AI nero 3, or jebao slw-10. Those are the smallest profile wavemaker around, if I'm not mistaken. In any case, you are not looking to create a storm. Perhaps by positioning the chiller return (from a second pump) strategically, you may be able to do without a wave maker. Fish wise, long term sustainability is an issue for a Nano tank. Say you get a inch long ocellaris; it will grow to 3 inches long. Probably going to be a bit crowded in the setup. While you certainly can keep several fishes in it, it will be much more demanding on your husbandry.

Welcome (back) to reefing. The fundamentals of keeping a good reef has hardly changed. It's just that there are much more tools to get the job done. A few observation/question on your setup: 1. While the return pump can provide reasonable flow, You need to ensure there is no dead spot in the aquarium. Perhaps a tiny wavemaker? 2. Euphyllia and bubble corals do send out long stinger to attack their neighbours; while many softies can release chemicals to wage war. You have to plan the location of the corals carefully, and provide good chemical filtration. 3. A skimmer can be very helpful in your setup. Even if the ability to export nutrients may be limited due to size, it can still provide good air exchange. 4. Fish wise, I would recommend starting without one. Perhaps a shrimp or two, and some snails or urchins will serve your setup better. Cheers!

I believe how HP helps is through preventing secondary bacteria infections. The concentration of HP will hardly affect the attached parasites or ich cysts. The reduction of spots is likely due to the life cycle of ich parasites, and in the long run, the fishes' immune response. It's good though, to give the fishes every possible help so they can overcome the disease.

Reefer vs Dentists I have recently went for a root canal procedure. Of course, the dentist told me, if I were to take care of the cavity sooner, I could have avoided the expensive treatment. But thinking it's just a cavity or the toothache would probably go away, I put off treating it, forgot about it, until finally I have no choice. Like dentistry, like reefing. if us reefers take the chance and expecting small problems to resolve on their own, we are subjecting ourselves to unnecessary risk. Hyacinthus and Red Planet The latest mishap in my reef started from a fight between two corals. This happens all the time, not much concern really. This time how ever, the Sting of the red planet caused the hyacinthus to develop a small patch of tissue necrosis near the contested area. Thinking that this will not spread further, I let the hyacinthus be. Unlike previous cases of coral aggression, which stopped rather fast, this hyacinthus went on to complete necrosis and took two other colonies together with it. One of them is the red planet. Fortunately I did frag out the red planet, and have since regrafted it back to it's skeleton. Hind sight is 20-20. If I have know then, a simple pulling and of fragging of the injured part would prevent the bigger loss. Luckily sps grows fast, all is not lost. Just like going to the dentist regularly, check those corals and repair as needed. A dab of glue may save your most prized possessions. Added a colony or two to fill the void.

Then this is quite do-able with your setup. Do take note hammers are stony corals. Diatoms are generally not harmful, but it's always good to have some herbivores to graze all kinds of algae.

Depends on what you plan to keep, it can ranges from easy and low maintenance to almost impossible. A small aquarium has its challenges. Perhaps you can share about what you plan to keep? (What kind of corals, what kind of fish, etc)

I suppose TM salts could have high level of iron, which gives a yellow/brown tint to the mix.

I do find these numbers intriguing. For a single day of cycling, the bacteria population is not well developed enough to rapidly denitrify. On the other hand, there is significant level of nitrate (final product of nitrification) What kind of water did you use?

Aquarium Update I am in the midst of a small episode of dino outbreak after changing water and thorough cleaning of the sump. The water parameters doesn't change much pre/post maintenance. Dkh is 7.9(from 8.0), NO3 is 2.5ppm (from less than 5), PO4 at 5ppb (from 3ppb). This goes to show that a disturbance in the available untested nutrients and elements are the trigger for dino to become more proliferate. Coincidentally, after maintenance, the ORP of my system remains low at 230mV (down from 400mV, and the recovery of the ORP post water change is very slow. This suggest that the drop in the ORP is not due to reducing ions, but rather the presence of excessive organics. Moving On Taking sample of the dino and oberve under microscope positively ID them as Amphidinium sp. A rough count suggest that the cell count is 10,000 cells per liter. Which is not that much to begin with. Amphidinium is non-toxic, and produce little slimes compared to other types of dinoflagellate. So there is little incentive for me to take drastic actions against them. The plan is simple. 1. Feed corals more to compensate for nutrient uptake by dino. Yes. Some of these nutrients may fuel the dino growth, but having enough nutrients for corals is the priority. 2. Mechanical removal by disturbing the sandbed to dislodge ths dino. The free floating amphidinium cells (50 micron, measured) should be easily trapped by the 30 micron clarisea filter. 3. Establishe competition and predation. Since amphidinium is non-toxic, herbivores can prey upon them without ill effect. The stombus and cerith in the sand bed should graze on the dino, even if just a little bit. The plan for introducing competition, is through addition of a variety of heterotrophic bacteria. They should compete with dino for dissolved and particulate organic compounds, while at the same time, serves as coral food in the form of bacteria plankton. That's about it.

My aquarium has the same depth and width as you. Personally, I find the extra depth and width provides a lot of flexibility in terms of the aquascape. It is, however, very difficult to access some parts of the aquarium for scaping or maintenance. I see that you are using 12mm glass, do consider top and bottom bracing for your tank size. Depending on what you intend to keep, especially on the sand bed, you may end up needing much more light than this. The challenge of a deeper tank is that if you ever consider keeping light demanding animals on sandbed (for example clams), you light requirements will be very very high. I second @josephwzr and @alexcyf that going for xr30 (or equivalent) is a better choice, and do prepare to get more down the road. My previous aquarium has internal central overflow. I experienced two issues with it. 1. The overflow compartment is not very accessible, especially with the aquarium being so deep and wide. If any fish jumps in ( it happens even with all the cover.), the retrieval is troublesome. 2. The central box tends to create dead spot. So really need to have more wavemaker. I feel an external (backpack) overflow is much more serviceable. Are these the same pumps? If you use one of the vectra as closed loop, then there is no redundancy. Unless the closed loop is a third pump, in that case, excellent. Welcome to reefing!

Nitrogen Sources for Acropora let us consider zooanthellate corals (especially Acroporidae). We know they derive much of their required energy through photosynthesis carried out by symbiodinium - symbiotic dinoflagellate inside the coral tissue. Photosynthesis fixes inorganic carbon such as carbon dioxide and bicarbonate ions into organic carbon. That much is well understood by most reefers. How about other elements? Such as nitrogen? These elements must be taken up by the coral, to support the function of the symbiodinium, and for it's own growth. Therein lies an important consideration for us reefers: how do we supply nitrogen to the corals? No doubt one can raise corals and enchance their colors using a variety of methods. Yet I believe understand the baseline coral physiology can provide an insight into our reefing approach. Sources of Inorganic Nitrogen Nitrogen is a precious element in the natural reef. The available nitrogen in the reef exists chiefly in three forms. Ammonium, Nitrate and partculate organic matters. Coral holobiont (coral + bacteria and other organism living on the surface of the coral) is capable of direct uptake of nitrate and ammonium from ambient water. After all, coral required nitrogen to support the zooxanthelle as well as proteosynthesis. However, not all inorganic nitrates are the same. Acropora respond to nitrate and ammonium uptake differently (Fernandes, 2020). It was demonstrated that elevated level of nitrates (0.18ppm, 6 times the nitrate concentration compared to natural seawater) although increase photosynthesis, caused the calcification rate of the coral to decrease, at the same time, these corals showed significant oxidative stress. On the other hand, when the corals were exposed to 0.054ppm of ammonium, the corals has increased photosynthesis just like when nitrates are added, but there is little impact on the calcification rate. In addition, corals are much more bleach resistant, and recover faster post bleach. Take note of the parameters in the experiment conducted. The impact of elevated nitrate set in at 0.18ppm nitrate, 25°C. So it's not a stretch of imagination to say that for many hobbyist aquarium, the corals are often under high level of oxidative stress. Nitrogen Budget The dissolved inorganic nitrogen (nitrates and ammonium) while necessary, does not form the bulk of the nitrogen budget. In fact, they only make up about 30% of the total nitrogen budget of the corals. The other 70% is supplied through particulate feeding (Bythell, 1988). Therefore, corals, even the phtosynthetic ones, needs to actively capture food from the water column. Not for their respiration (energy) needs, but to obtain sufficient nitrogenous compound. Takeaways In summary, three ideas we can glean from these researches. 1. It's better to dose ammonium than nitrate to supplement nitrogen element. 2. Most aquaria are nitrogen rich anyways. 3. Particulate food (from fish poop to planktons) is essential for coral health. One bonus take-away: there is a wealth of rigorous research done by many marine biologists who are not out there to sell us some products. Read those papers.

I am more concerned about your ammonia level though. Maybe something is decomposing in the tank?

This can be a good reactor to run CO2 scrubber media

Brewed and testing