Nutrient levels

Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum

Help Support Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum:

reedman

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2003
Messages
3,255
Location
Mukilteo, WA
I was doing some reading and came across this article:
EUTROPHICATION AND WATER QUALITY
from http://www.globalcoral.org/Eutrophication%20and%20Water%20quality.html
Critical Levels of Nutrients
Only in recent years have we have learned just how low nutrients must be to maintain healthy coral reefs. The limits were found independently by two researchers working on opposite sides of the globe, who were not aware of each other's work. By looking at the relative amounts of corals and algae along nutrient gradients from intense land-based sources, namely agricultural fertilizers in Australia and bird droppings on a mangrove island in Belize, Peter Bell and Brian Lapointe independently determined exactly the same limit for acceptable nutrient concentrations. Biologically available nitrogen (nitrate plus ammonia) needs to be below 1.0 micromole per liter (less than 0.014 parts per million of nitrogen), and biologically available phosphorus (orthophosphate plus dissolved organic phosphorus) needs to be below 0.1 micromole per liter (less than 0.003 parts per million of phosphorus). In addition concentrations of chlorophyll (in the microscopic plants called phytoplankton) needs to be below 0.5 parts per billion.


These values are all regarded as extremely low levels, almost undetectable, in coastal waters of temperate and cold zones. For years researchers measured concentrations in this range but thought that values were too low to possibly cause problems to reefs. This was wrong because they used irrelevant standards for acceptable nutrient levels. It is essential that appropriate water quality standards be applied in coral reef ecosystems if they are to be protected against eutrophication. These standards must be below the levels given above. In general, where water quality standards have been applied for tropical waters, they are often based on uncritical adoption of nutrient standards from North America and Europe that are irrelevant to the tropics because cold ecosystems are normally exposed to much higher nutrient levels. Many nutrient water quality standards available are related to human health and are even more worthless for coral reefs because humans can drink water with nutrient levels hundreds of times higher than coral reefs can stand.


a few things struck me in this article:
  1. how low the nutrient levels on the reef really are​
  2. how narrow the margin is between a healthy coral reef and eutrophocation​
  3. the reference to the measurement standards that have been used in the past and why they are not appropriate to coral reefs (to me reinforcing the need for RO/DI, nutrient exports, and any other means of limiting the nutrients in the tank)​
 
from another article:
Coral reefs are the most nutrient-sensitive of all marine ecosystems and are killed and overgrown by weedy algae at nutrient levels that would not affect any other ecosystem. As a result they require the most stringent nutrient limits and the highest level of waste treatment of any ecosystem.
 
Please tell me if I'm off here. From a SPS keepers point of view, if you can sustain macro algae. You need to look at additional means of nutrient removal or lower input.

Don
 
That's my thoughts Don. I figure if you can grow any macro algae in an SPS tank (refugium or main tank) then your nutrient levels are too high. That's part of the reason I wanted to post the article clipping; to emphisize the levels found on a reef in the wild. I don't think people really appreciate how low the PO4 and NO3 levels are in nature.
 
I dont know where to go with this one..

Eutrophication is: Excess nutrients that stimulate excessive plant growth

They seem to be measuring the correlation between excess nutrients and coral health to the overgrowth of algae. This makes sense in wild reefs as people do not usually intervene to kill off excessive algael growth.

So what I hear it saying is excessive algeal growth kills corals. I don't hear it saying excessive nutirents kills corals.

It may seem like semantics, but we are able to control algae growth through predation, growing it remotely OR keeping non-existent nutrient levels.

The question that remains in my mind IS: If we have excessive nutrients, yet effectively manage algae growth, does the coral recieve benefit?

IME excess PO4 results in higher Zoox algae. Not really a bad thing, just a different way (uglier way) to feed the coral. Take that away and the coral has to rely on other means to feed itself (filter feed ect). IMO this limits the flexability the coral has to feed itself possibly even making it more suceptable to stress..

What do you guys think?
 
reedman said:
That's my thoughts Don. I figure if you can grow any macro algae in an SPS tank (refugium or main tank) then your nutrient levels are too high. That's part of the reason I wanted to post the article clipping; to emphisize the levels found on a reef in the wild. I don't think people really appreciate how low the PO4 and NO3 levels are in nature.

In keeping with this line of thinking. Are there any studies that you know of on RODI water and or salt mixes? I mean testing of levels that low, are we just polluting the tank with what we believe is clean water?

Don
 
how narrow the margin is between a healthy coral reef and eutrophocation

I know in my tank is nowhere near the low level of nutrients found in a coral reef and eutrophocation has not occured yet...does this mean it's inevitable ? Even though many people have great filtration can it ever compare to a healthy coral reef ?
 
I agree with most of what you say John. My main point here is that in the wild (which is what most of us strive to mimic) nutrient levels are so low that algaes just don't grow. If we try for this my using macro algaes to export nutrients....well, if it was a productive means of nutrient export then the algaes would eventually die due to nutrient limitation (not enough nutrients to support algal growth-our goal).

PO4 was listed in one of the articles as a primary fuel for algae. This sets off flares for me. I don't want any more fuel than necessary.

You are absolutely correct that they say excess nutrients fuel algae growth and allow the algae to kill off the corals. This is seen in the aquarium too. People often have problems keeping algae from taking over their tank...same concept. I don't believe excess nutrients will kill corals (and I didn't mean to imply this). I just wanted to make people aware of the nutrient levels in the wild for reference....very, very low
 
does this mean it's inevitable ? Even though many people have great filtration can it ever compare to a healthy coral reef ?
Nope..not inevitable at all....probably unlikely in a tank as we intervene before algae can take over. And no, we won't have the same filtration as the wild...that goes without saying.

I didn't mean to imply that this is what is going to happen in a reef tank. Jus wanted to show people what the levels in the wild are (where we get some of our corals).
 
Very cool article. I read a few others on there.
Pretty neat. Just more info that tells me I need, rodi, a skimmer, and phos absorber.
Now how do the real reefs get saved, and repaired. Its talking in other articles about 100s of years with no new input from sewage and runoff, to get the reefs back to where they were.
 
I need, rodi, a skimmer, and phos absorber.

Humm I have never used RO water or a phos absorver and I have a DSB, I'm probably a poster child for eutrophocation :lol:

Great article reedman thanx for sharing. This reminds me of the Caleurpa invasion that's destroying the Mediterranium Sea.
 
yup, yup, yup and yup :)

BTW: I should frame my perspectives as having SPS prejudice. LPS and softies have similarities but I really focus on Small Polyp Stonies ;)

The thought lingering in my brain is that my tank is no where near as stable as the ocean. Not being as stable also means there is a degree of stress I put my animals through.

If algae can be controlled remotely, allowing slightly elevated nutrients available to the coral, could that give them a little extra energy? If so the additional energy could help the animals in stressful situations as they arrise..

We can set our goal on achieving rock solid levels through mechanical methods which we can control (Havent perfected this myself)

We can try to achieve a biological balance which is very difficult to control... (Not well understood)

It's quite the conundrum, so let me talk in a circle :)

Knowing I don't understand, nor control all the biological processes in my tank I may be better off finding mechanical means to erradicate nutrients.
 
If algae can be controlled remotely, allowing slightly elevated nutrients available to the coral, could that give them a little extra energy? If so the additional energy could help the animals in stressful situations as they arrise..

That's a great point ! Maybe that explains why my SPS have been able to withstand my typical 84-86 * F temp I usually maintain in the summertime :idea:
 
John,

You have a great question that I am still trying to find an answer (or just some insight into). Can higher nutrients benefit corals if the negative effect of fueling invasive algae can be kept in check? I'll keep looking
 
I know that the tendency in a SPS tank is to keep them exclusively but would it be beneficial to keep corals that tend to like heavier nutrient levels so they can compete with algea ? Or maybe to increase the biodiversity especially filter feeders ?
 
I think part of the question from John on the nutrient levels being beneficial can be answered by the (dare I say it) ZeoVit system. In this system (as best I can understand it) the nutrient levels are kept very low...so low that they have nutrients to dose into the tank. This to me is exactly what you are talking about John, but the difference is that they want to remove as much of the nutrient load as possible and add desired nutrients back in in controlled doses vs. not removing as much as possible and thus leaving some for the corals to benefit from.

Here's my concern with the latter choice. What are we leaving in the tank - nutrient wise? Are we leaving anything that is detrimental to the corals health?
 
In this system (as best I can understand it) the nutrient levels are kept very low...so low that they have nutrients to dose into the tank.

To me this is a paradox. What would be the desired nutrients and how would you be able to measure them ?
 
cheeks69 said:
To me this is a paradox. What would be the desired nutrients and how would you be able to measure them ?

Cheeks, thats the que to check out the Zeovit threads. Use the search tool and you are sure to find many good and detailed threads on it.

I only defer to zeo threads because continuing to discuss their claims to what the "right" nutrients are on this thread will turn it into ANOTHER zeo thread :)

All are wlecome to slap me on the wrist and talk about it in further detail here thogh ;)
 
I only defer to zeo threads because continuing to discuss their claims to what the "right" nutrients are on this thread will turn it into ANOTHER zeo thread

Wow that's a big thread ! Will it answer my question ? If not then I won't bother:D
 

Latest posts

Back
Top