"Plant Life" experiment results

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
Bang: thanks for your professional acceptance of my comments. Perhaps ph stabilizing is the wrong wording. I actually meant that my display ph rose to 8.4 and stayed there from week to week testing. But that was only the daytime readings. Very well could drop at night. But them my livestock is doing much better anyway.
 

bang guy

Moderator

Originally posted by nicky1.8t
:) thanx for the good info. but do you think there might be different results if you didnt plumb into the lagoon, i belive it may be to stable of a system for an experement like this.

I disconnected the tanks from the Lagoon about a week before starting to take measurements. They were not plumbed to the Lagoon during the experiment.
 

bang guy

Moderator

Originally posted by 007
Do you by chance have any more numbers bang? I can run some statistical analyses in SPSS if you do . . .

How much longer should I run this? I have this mornings numbers but I was hoping to do something different with the tanks.
I'm unable to take measurements during the day and I'm not thrilled about getting up at 1am to take anothe reading. What I need is a probe that takes constant measurements. don't have the $$ for that though.
I have taken PH readings in Jamaica. They fluctuated a LOT from day to night. 8.5 - 7.7 was one days reading. That was the extreme but I was only there 6 days.
 

bang guy

Moderator

Originally posted by beaslbob
And in case I can across too negative, Thanks to bang. These experiments do take time and show a thoughtful

Not at all. I think it was a pretty decent peer review. I made a couple mistakes that nobody pick up on yet :D But they were insignificant (probably).
oh... Using Mollies as a bioload wasn't a dig at you. They were handy & hardy so that's what I used.
 

007

Active Member

Originally posted by Bang Guy
How much longer should I run this? I have this mornings numbers but I was hoping to do something different with the tanks.
I'm unable to take measurements during the day and I'm not thrilled about getting up at 1am to take anothe reading. What I need is a probe that takes constant measurements. don't have the $$ for that though.
I have taken PH readings in Jamaica. They fluctuated a LOT from day to night. 8.5 - 7.7 was one days reading. That was the extreme but I was only there 6 days.

Well put it this way, the more data you have the more valid the data will be. Run it as long as you want . . . there is enough there to get some info from, just not enough to call it "significant" which in the scientific world means everything.
 

cincyreefer

Active Member
I don't think stabilizing pH is very important as long as the swings between day and night are consistent. One of the biggest things I have learned in keeping saltwater animals/plants is that consistency is of extreme importance. Although there are definite benefits to keeping a stable pH by using off-setting photo periods, what happens when you have an unexpected pH drop (even slight)? Will some of the fragile inverts/fish die because they are not used to this, whereas they might have lived if they were used to pH fluctuations between photo periods? I have found the latter to be true. Anbody else have experience/input with this?
 

bang guy

Moderator
I think the PH affects the formation & function of certain enzymes. I believe the average PH is important and I believe sudden PH shifts can be dangerous.
I'm still forming my opinion about this though. Years ago I believed a stable PH was a must. I no longer believe that.
I think Beaslbob's concern about CO2 concentrations is valid. This seems to be far more important than PH.
A very worthwhile way to remove CO2 is to drip limewater at night. This has many benefits IMO even if you have a Calcium reactor, perhaps especially if you have a Calcium reactor.
 

cincyreefer

Active Member
Are you implying that you believe there are certain enzymes available depending on the pH and that they possibly cycle in the ocean with vaying pH levels? This could be an interesting theory as to why some inverts, like an anemone, might not do well in home aquariums... Could it be possible they aren't exposed to a wide enough variety of enzymes, for whatever purpose those enzymes might serve?
 

cincyreefer

Active Member
Well the way I look at it is this... One of the major roles that enzymes play are "cleaners" that hunt out foreign cells and defects and use some DNA from good strands to replace it through replication. Say some of these enzymes were not available in an aquarium, when they might be in the ocean. When an anemone dies, it typically just melts away. Maybe it died (assuming perfect water quality and perfect lighting that some people try to supply them with) because it could not produce the enzyme needed to "hunt down" a foreign or defected cell which allowed a mutation to form, and caused the anemone to melt away. Maybe it is difficult to get this enzyme to reproduce to needed levels in an aquarium, thus making it difficult to keep many anemones.
Thats just a shot in the dark, but is really starting to intrigue me.
 

bwmichael21

Member
I would like to add something if i may. It is actually discouraged to bring live plants into hospitals due to the fact the fixation of carbon by photosynthesis can only take place in the presence of light so thus without light respiration is employed to produce atp and e- carriers(though not proportionate, but i think still somewhat significant). I would have to agree with the general conclusion reached not by my knowledge of aquatic ecosystems but from what biochemistry i've taken so far. I think its great that their are actually people still actively interested in science and haven't became complete slaves to television yet.
 

bwmichael21

Member
Bang you are right enzyme actively is greatly affected by pH concentrations, especially allosteric enzymes. Just like our immune system enzymes have an optium pH to they function at, slight moderiations in pH will affect the concentration of enzyme that is available to bind substrate and allows for "fine tuning" of activity. Most things like amino acids, proteins, enzymes, etc are bound by weak van der Waals forces and changing the pH of a system is enough to denature (break the bonds) them. I am not really to sure how probable it would be that anemone's rely on enzymes from the ocean, firstly enzymes are living not an inorganic nutrient, so they exist in organisms. I guess secondly i would have to think researchers would have discouvered this required nutrient unless its trace and exists at a very low concentration but then what would the probability of a particular anemone being able to uptake this nutrient ? and don't they live hundreds of years in the ocean. I would agree that there has to be some parameter missing from our closed aquatic systems but would be declined to believe it would be an enzyme. Everyone has mutations even you and i almost always they are not expressed, example; the deamination of cyctosine to uricil occurs in 1/10 x 10^7 base pairs per 24 hour period, but never builds up due to enzyme repair. If a mutation is magnified enough it leads to an adaptation. Adaptations begin with gene mutations that usually have no effect on an individual species. However, if the animal reproduces, mutations have a small chance of passing forward and increasing in intensity When these favourable adaptions occur, they alter the environment around them (including other life, only a particular species can fill a particular ecological niche). The adaptation can affect the sensory organs, behaviour, mental capacity, gestation period, size, etc.. This initial succesful adaptation changes the rules of the game (like moving your pawns sideways in chess). Other animals either die off, or adapt themselves. The complex interplay between collective and competitive actions is lost; a succesfully adapted animal enhances the survial odds of its species in its ecosystem. I have no idea how much research has been put into studying the biochemistry of anemones but if captive aneomnes have a defficiency of a particular enzyme i would believe it would be the result of a particular nutrient of co-factor not present.
 

bwmichael21

Member
Sorry what am trying to say is that if mutations were responsible for the "early" death of an anemones in aquariums we would see all sorts of things occuring cause the probability of only particular mutations occuring is very very unlikely, and perhaps we would have seen the creation of "super anemones" Death is determined partly by your genes and the wear and tear on cells. We have identified what particular gene is responisble for death in c. elegans (a flatworm) and can play around with their life span. Perhaps something is missing in some metabolic pathway but i don't think enzymes or mutations are primarily responsible.
 

reefnut

Active Member

Originally posted by Bang Guy
I think Beaslbob's concern about CO2 concentrations is valid. This seems to be far more important than PH.

Guy, does excess CO2 cause other problems other than low PH levels?
 

squidd

Active Member

Originally posted by Bang Guy
I think it was a pretty decent peer review. I made a couple mistakes that nobody pick up on yet :D But they were insignificant (probably).

4 VHO URI AquaSuns (even old ones) on a Ice Cap 660 ballast provide provide the "incorrect" light spectrum for proper "plant life"/pH stability...
In order to reproduce the results Bob claims you would need to use Home Depot Shop Lights...:D
 

overanalyzer

Active Member
A couple of questions:
Bang - Lighting varies along tube length - so that might be a question if you were worried about the growth of the algeas.
ALso - did you use Tap or RO/DI water to set-up your initial reef tank that provided you with your water?
BOB - Your issue of the PH dropping and other problems you had with your tank - you state: "The fish developed white spots, detoriated, started breathign heavy, and slowly died"
I am assuming you added macros after these events. I am also assuming you removed hte dead fish and did no water changes......
Did you replace all of your dead fish?? As you lightened your bioload considerably by having fish die and not replacing all of them. This would affect your overall water chemistry just as much as adding macro's.
I think Bang's experiment proved one major point:
one should not add Caulerpa to a display tank and expect the PH to stabilize.

Thanks for running the experiment. would be itneresting to see if macro in combination with other actions raises the PH of a tank.....
lastly - BWMIchael - WOW - cool stuff - are you a biochemistry major or something?? ALso - thanks for hte shorter explanation about the anemones!
 

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
Over: you are correct. and Perhaps I did lighten the bioload. But the fish I added after addition of the plants, did not have those problems and the tang with white spots recovered.
I also now realize that ph does fluxuate and probably more with plants during a 24 hour cycle. My point was and still is that my ph at noon had dropped to 7.4 and lower. After plants the noon time ph rose and stablized at 8.4.
As bang stated, carbon dioxide may have been the main reason my tank(s) do so much better with plant life. Ph just the symptom.
Finally bang's experiment only tested tanks with plant life in them. There was no control plant lifeless tank. Therefore, one can not determine whether all three of these tanks are tremendously better than a tank with no plant life.
What I see over and over again are newbies who use lr/ls. cycle, add cleaner crew. Then have heavy breathing fish who die in the tank. They deserve better.
 

overanalyzer

Active Member

Originally posted by beaslbob
What I see over and over again are newbies who use lr/ls. cycle, add cleaner crew. Then have heavy breathing fish who die in the tank. They deserve better.

I think bang guys diatom/coraline only tank is very close to a tank where someone uses LR and LS ....
Also - heavy breathing to me would signal a lack of o2 - which can be accomplished in a variety of ways .... not just hte addition of plant life!
I really agree with you on your last two points - fish not (yet) suitable being in a tank that deserve better!!
Side Note - the white spots are most likely ick (figure you might know that already but just tossing it out there).
BWMichael - very cool - if I had to do it all over I would get a zoology degree with something else combined in there.....
 
Top