Myth of LPS and ‘dirty’ water

[Otaku Reefer 89]

Just sharing an article from reef builders which i find interesting and challenge our current understanding.

 

Might be an answer to why some LPS recede without any reason..

 

https://reefbuilders.com/2020/05/28/the-myth-of-lps-corals-living-in-dirty-water/

 

 

 

 

Sent from Singapore Reef Club mobile app

[Willy Guccivera Yap 108]

Thanks for sharing.

 

"dirty means that they actually enjoy high nutrients like Phosphates and Nitrates"

So what value is determine safe and dirty for lps to enjoy.

 

Quite Agree with they enjoy more and thrive in too.

My LPS enjoy at nitrate value at 20, with the high bioload I've. 

Hammer open fat and big!

[Otaku Reefer 89]

Thanks for sharing.
 
"dirty means that they actually enjoy high nutrients like Phosphates and Nitrates"
So what value is determine safe and dirty for lps to enjoy.
 
Quite Agree with they enjoy more and thrive in too.
My LPS enjoy at nitrate value at 20, with the high bioload I've. 
Hammer open fat and big!

Hi bro, think u misunderstood the article, think its trying to say LPS enjoy low nutrient waters which sps also thrive in, its just that they need to be fed often as they evolved mouths and sweeper tentacles which likely means a high percentage of their nutrition comes from capturing and devouring food from the water column, not just photosynthesis.

And because of their lower metabolism, they able to withstand higher nitrates and phosphates better, not that they enjoyed it.

Remember i read somewhere aussie gold torch comes from turbid waters which means alot food for them to munch on and turbid doesn’t mean dirty (high nitrates/phosphate).




Sent from Singapore Reef Club mobile app

[Willy Guccivera Yap 108]

19 minutes ago, Otaku Reefer said:

 

Hi bro, think u misunderstood the article, think its trying to say LPS enjoy low nutrient waters which sps also thrive in, its just that they need to be fed often as they evolved mouths and sweeper tentacles which likely means a high percentage of their nutrition comes from capturing and devouring food from the water column, not just photosynthesis.

And because of their lower metabolism, they able to withstand higher nitrates and phosphates better, not that they enjoyed it.

Remember i read somewhere aussie gold torch comes from turbid waters which means alot food for them to munch on and turbid doesn’t mean dirty (high nitrates/phosphate).




Sent from Singapore Reef Club mobile app

 

Thanks for explaining. Yes you are right. 

In my experience however Indeed at higher nutrient rate I see a faster growth, not that I'm directing feeding them or what.

But hearing from the author point of view, "This is completely wrong as LPS enjoy the same water quality as SPS, and low nutrients levels too.", I've to agree too. 

Hope there's more sharing of people to solve or explain that myth.

[Otaku Reefer 89]

Thanks for explaining. Yes you are right. 
In my experience however Indeed at higher nutrient rate I see a faster growth, not that I'm directing feeding them or what.
But hearing from the author point of view, "This is completely wrong as LPS enjoy the same water quality as SPS, and low nutrients levels too.", I've to agree too. 
Hope there's more sharing of people to solve or explain that myth.

Thanks for sharing your experience bro, This topic is good for discussion and sharing. i also agree that corals need some level of nitrates and phosphate to thrive. But at what levels for them to truly thrive is the holy grail of reefing haha.


Sent from Singapore Reef Club mobile app

[Otaku Reefer 89]

To add on, i have always wondered why ocean water nitrate and phosphate levels are near undetectable and yet LPS thrive, so this makes me wonder why do we say LPS need higher nutrient levels?


Sent from Singapore Reef Club mobile app

[peedeers 14]

To add on, i have always wondered why ocean water nitrate and phosphate levels are near undetectable and yet LPS thrive, so this makes me wonder why do we say LPS need higher nutrient levels?


Sent from Singapore Reef Club mobile app

It is always about availability rather than residual levels. In the ocean nutrient availability levels are high - even if residual levels show low. Also depending on currents sometimes residual levels also can become high.

Also, regarding sps needing low nutrients may not be very true. There are studies/ ancedotal evidence that shows sps growth is higher in higher phospate levels. What sps dont like is instability. So if you go from high phospates for some time to low phospates then that negatively impacts them. Same thing from low to high but to a lesser extent.

Interesting discussion though.


Sent from Singapore Reef Club mobile app

[JiaEn 32]

I think it's safe to say that LPS has more elaborate prey catching mechanism as compared to sps (actually, it's an assumption as well ) so being less dependent on photosynthetic symbiosis, they are less affected by nitrate and phosphate levels. 

54 minutes ago, peedeers said:

low nutrients

What is low and what is high? We need to have some basis to have meaningful discussion.  We also need to consider which element is limiting in the particular reef. 

Can we say a low nutrient is less than natural reef level,  normal nutrient is average of reef crest level,  moderate nutrient is perhaps double that.. Etc.  This can make further discussion more consistent. 

3 hours ago, Otaku Reefer said:

To add on, i have always wondered why ocean water nitrate and phosphate levels are near undetectable and yet LPS thrive, so this makes me wonder why do we say LPS need higher nutrient levels?

I feel that the abundance of prey meets their nutrition needs 

[JiaEn 32]

1 hour ago, peedeers said:

instability

On a different note,  I have a (untestes) hypothesis about how instability impacts sps. 

I believe the fluctuations in nutrient does not impact the sps itself.  Rather, the instability of the available nutrients cause a shift/collapse of the bacteria holobiont in the coral mucus. 

The disruption of the existing bacteria population gives opportunity for pathogenic bacteria,  such as vibrio sp.  to thrive and cause the decline of sps. 

In a way this also explains why the impact of the parameter shock is rarely immediate, but often has a lag time of a day or two.