MOJO !!!Read this: Influence of seawater Sr content on coral Sr/Ca and Sr thermometry

[mojoreef]

I know about that paper, it is the same one everybody cites. Randy has it in his article I posted It is the only one there is.

Dirty dog!! I actually pulled it off a german study done on Galaxea fascicularis and they happened to leave out the might part. Boomer have you seen the Yamashiro study???

Thanks for the explanation Collin

Mike

 

[Boomer]

No, Mike I have not seen it. Only what others have mentioned in their articles. I am looking at it like this. They induce bi-phosphonate into the coral and calcification is inhibited. You know that if we induce PO4 into the water to certain levels it will also induce calcification. All meaning not normal, as on a coral reef. The issue at hand in all of this is what controls calcification that would cause an increase in its growth rate under normal conditions. Sr, is such the case, as the concentration shifts and such shifts increase the growth rate in corals in the wild, as show by the abstract I posted.

Yamashiro's article says bi--induces calcification and the new one I posted, Alan T. Marshall and Peta L. Clode says no.... it is an illusion. This means that Yamashiro's article is iffy So, IMHO bi---- isn't a big issue for controlling calcification

Fainlly, you need to remember something in science. Just because some throws you a bone doesn't mean run with it. Remember Ronny and my comments about the Otter studies

Collin

Kind of like saying that a chicken can't fly..a chicken is a bird...so birds can't fly

From my old logic studies also;

All lions are cats but not all cats are lions

 

[mojoreef]

Boomer I was looking at it from more of an overall scenerio. We know the organic compounds (p included) play a role in calcification either directly or indirectly with in the coral as shown many different studies. From more recent studies it seems to be showing a trend to where the coral has the ability to direct the location of the calcification through the use of nutrients from P's to mag and so on. In seeing the study you originally put up (I have the rest of the other studies) it showed that thier must be controls, the study by Alan T. Marshall and Peta L. Clode seemed to be dealing more in disproving the methods Yamashiro's used (ie ASW with low Ca) I had looked at that study previously but did not see the reference to Yamashiro.

No biggie

Mike

 

[Boomer]

I definitely believe something/s are controlling it. IMHO the coral has more control than some think. Some studies now seem to be pointing that way. If they coluld just all get their act together. They need to study corals under normal NSW conditions, as best they can and not by lacing the water or the animal with x, y or z

 

[mojoreef]

I find those control systems to be really interesting and have been trying to put as many studies together as I could find.
So help clear somethings for me. In the study you quoted:

In coral, ALP ***might*** hydrolyze phosphate inhibitors of calcification, such as bisphosphonate chelating agents, which have been shown in vivo to inhibit calcification of hard coral Stylophora pistillata.Yamashiro, laced his subject coral correct ?

If it was laced would that still be in vivo?

And then this one:

We show that bisphosphonate may not inhibit formation of amorphous calcium carbonate and that the inhibition of calcification is possibly illusory. The data are consistent with the trans-calcification model, which suggests that calcification is a source of CO2 for photosynthesis in corals.

In this study they disected the coral polyps down to individuals and then used fresh seawater and fresh seawater + 100ppm of calcium to do thier testing in. But thier was no control set for the elimination of bacteria it was just assumed. then left for 3 days in the sun with an air pump going. Would not the air pump and bacteria kind of screw up this whole experiment?? From reading a bunch of other studies done the corals controls for calcium deposit and formation are done by nutrients, with bacteria present would they not reduce the nutrients?

I agree it would be nice to see a study done in NSW as it could have that x factor in it, but how do you keep the x factor and eliminate bacteria.

anyway just some thoughts


Mike

 

[Boomer]

There is in-vivo and in-vito. The first is within a living organism, the second would be like bacteria in live rock. I haven't see that study you mentioned by Yamashiro and am assuming they laced the tissue with higher than normal amounts of bi-P than normal

Would not the air pump and bacteria.......with bacteria present would they not reduce the nutrients?

That may depend on a number of things and

It may but where they present in any amount to affect the test. How would the bacteria affect Sr uptake at various concentrations ?? It was only 3 days, not 3 weeks



The air pump

The incubation sea water was vigorously stirred and aerated by a diaphragm-operated aquarium pump, except when NaH14CO3 was present in the sea water, when it was necessary to prevent exchange with atmospheric CO2

The air pump was a control tool to keep things constant between ambient air CO2 and that in water. If it wasn't then I would worry about CO2 giving incorrect results

I see nothing wrong with the article really

 

[mojoreef]

How would the bacteria affect Sr uptake at various concentrations ??

No I was refering to the calcium enriched test. I was wondering if the bacteria could take away the nutrient controls the coral seems to have in calcification.

I see nothing wrong with the article really

no just asking questions

Mike

 

[Boomer]

OK

I don't see how the bacteria would create any more or less problems than in the wild. You would think that for bacteria to really create a problem their density population would have to be rather high.

 

[mojoreef]

You just like giving me **** dont ya
What I was talking about was that they are dissecting the corals and exposing the underlining tissue of the coral which would not be exposed normally. The control nutrients are put out in that underlying area, if bacteria were present in the water they would reduce the available nutrients as they were secreted.


You know who loves ya


Mike

 

[Boomer]

The control nutrients are put out in that underlying area, if bacteria were present in the water they would reduce the available nutrients as they were secreted

Ok, that may be a good theory. I would maybe think more on the order of would exposing the tissue make the coral operate differently. This might be a good question for Eric

You know who loves ya

Me to Mo


You just like giving me **** dont ya

More like making people think and you are pretty darn good at it

 

[Maxx]

Too much thinky make head hurty!!!!

JK guys.....conversations with you guys always have me scrambling for chemistry books, (I never was a wiz at Chem...wish I'd had it earlier in High school instead of at 7 am junior year of college), or som other sort of science book to ensure that I really do understand what I think you're saying.....


Nick

 

[Boomer]

Mojo

Some things for you to find ad report on, haven't seen them

Allison, N. and Finch, A. A. 2004. High-resolution Sr/Ca records in modern Porites lobata corals: Effects of skeletal extension rate and architecture. Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems 5.

Astilleros, J. M., Pina, C. M., Fernandez-Diaz, L., and Putnis, A. 2000. The effect of barium on calcite {10(1)over-bar4} surfaces during growth. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 64[17], 2965-2972

Let me know when you get done reading these

http://cima.uprm.edu/~morelock/coralref.htm#b

http://www.coral.noaa.gov/bib/borneman2.html

 

[mojoreef]

In situ atomic force microscopy (AFM) experiments have provided information about the effect of Ba2+ on crystal growth of calcite {104} surfaces. The microtopographic features observed have been interpreted by considering both the structural control that the calcite surfaces exert on the incorporation of divalent cations and the supersaturation state of the solution used. Pinning of the calcite growth steps occurs at low Ba concentrations, suggesting specific sites for Ba incorporation. When the Ba content of the solution is increased the advancement of monomolecular steps is observed. Although [41]+ and [48]+ steps advance showing characteristic jagged edges, the parallel steps (i.e., [41]− and [48]−) remain practically immobile. This fact can be explained by considering the nonsymmetrically related distribution of large and small sites along the calcite steps and the easier incorporation of barium on the former. The measured increase in the height of the newly grown steps is also consistent with such preferential incorporation of Ba in certain positions. A further increase in the Ba concentration of the solutions leads to the formation of bidimensional nuclei on the calcite {104} surfaces. The nature of these nuclei is discussed taking into account the supersaturation of the solution with respect to two possible structures that can accommodate Ba: the calcite-type structure and the aragonite-type structure.

Finch, A.A., N. Allison, S.R. Sutton & M. Newville, 2003. Strontium in coral aragonite: 1. Characterization of Sr coordination by extended absorption X-ray fine structure. Geochimica Cosmochimca Acta 67: 1189-1194. Aragonite was analysed from Porites lobata, Pavona gigantea, Pavona clavus, and Montastrea annularis corals by Sr K-edge extended absorption X-ray fine structure (EXAFS) and compared with aragonite, strontianite, and mechanically mixed standards. Bulk analyses were performed and data compared with equivalent micro-EXAFS analyses on small (~ 400 μm3) analytical volumes with a microfocused X-ray beam. As a result of the architecture of the coral skeleton, the crystals within the microanalytical volume are not randomly orientated, and the microanalytical X-ray absorption spectra show orientational dependence. However, refinement of bulk and microanalytical data provided indistinguishable interatomic distances and thermal vibration parameters in the third shell (indicative of Sr speciation). The Sr K-edge EXAFS of all the coral samples refine, within error, to an ideally substituted Sr in aragonite, in contrast to previous studies, in which significant strontianite was reported. Some samples from that study were also analysed here. Strontianite may be less widely distributed in corals than previously thought.

Meibom, A., M. Stage, J. Wooden, B.R. Constantz, R.B. Dunbar, A. Owen, N. Grumet, C.R. Bacon & C.P. Chamberlain, 2003. Monthly Strontium/Calcium oscillation in symbiotic coral aragonite: biological effects limiting the precision of the paleotemperature proxy. Geophysical Research Letters, 30 doi:10.1029/2002- GL016864. In thermodynamic equilibrium with sea water the Sr/Ca ratio of aragonite predictability with temperature and the Sr/Ca ratio in coral have thus become a frequently used proxy for past Sea Surface Temperature (SST). However, biological effects can offset the Sr/Ca ratio from its equilibrium value. We report high spatial resolution ion microbe analyses of well defined skeletal elements in the reef-building coral Porites lutea that reveal distinct monthly oscillations in the Sr/Ca ration, with an amplitude in excess of ten percent. The extreme Sr/Ca variations, which we propose result from metabolic changes synchronous with the lunar cycle, introduce variability in Sr/Ca measurements based on conventional sampling techniques well beyond the analytical precision. These variations can limit the accuracy of Sr/Ca paleothermometry by conventional sampling techniques to about 2oC. Our results may help explain the notorious difficulties involved in obtaining an accurate and consistent calibration of the Sr/Ca vs. SST relationship.

And you wouldnt believe how many of those I have read....I need to get a life

Mike

 

[Boomer]

Your life is just fne

I really like that Ba abstract

 

[Maxx]

When the Ba content of the solution is increased the advancement of monomolecular steps is observed. Although [41]+ and [48]+ steps advance showing characteristic jagged edges, the parallel steps (i.e., [41]− and [48]&#8722 remain practically immobile. This fact can be explained by considering the nonsymmetrically related distribution of large and small sites along the calcite steps and the easier incorporation of barium on the former.

I'm not sure about this part...Basically some ridges/steps are grow faster due to higher Ba ratios within, but the neighboring steps dont because they dont take in as much BA as the larger nearby steps? If this is the case why then wouldnt the corals grow in a lop-sided uneven fashion?

Nick