The "New" reef philosophy.

[Tom Burns]

Read an interesting article from a link posted here about what the
author felt was the main problem with reef aquaria-namely that people
try to keep lifeforms from different systems together in one tank. His
point is that it is impossible to properly keep corals, fish, etc. that
come from environments which are not the same. The bottom line,
according to him, is that you are doomed to failure, or at least
marginal success, if you try to keep things at temperatures, salinity,
etc. that are not identical to the natural environment(s), which differ
according to where in the world the things came from.

Comments?

[critcher]

All life is adaptable to a greater or lesser degree, but I believe the
writer is correct in that the life of any animal/plant is under stress when
placed in an environment different to the one it and its ancestors have been
living in for long periods of time. Humans are more adaptable than most
other inhabitants of the planet, if reef fish were the same they would be
about a five a dime.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/2003

[Richard Reynolds]

> Read an interesting article from a link posted here about what the
> author felt was the main problem with reef aquaria-namely that people
> try to keep lifeforms from different systems together in one tank. His
> point is that it is impossible to properly keep corals, fish, etc. that
> come from environments which are not the same. The bottom line,
> according to him, is that you are doomed to failure, or at least
> marginal success, if you try to keep things at temperatures, salinity,
> etc. that are not identical to the natural environment(s), which differ
> according to where in the world the things came from.
>
> Comments?

with fish that statement is almost 100% untrue most fish are much more flexiable than the
difference between sg/temp/.... between reefs. though the changes should happen over a
period of time instead of instantly.

many inverts can make the swing easily, others need more time, and some cant make the
cange at all.

many corals can adjust IF itd done slowly, there is more of a risk when ppl run tanks at
in correct levels.


--
Richard Reynolds

[Brian]

I am sure that everyone will notate your answer on this post. Your
background in this hobby speaks for itself not to mention your punctuation
and grammar in the reply to the original poster shows how much of a moron
you really are today.


"Richard Reynolds" > wrote in message
news:6jUkb.101016$gv5.23273@fed1read05...
> Read an interesting article from a link posted here about what the
> author felt was the main problem with reef aquaria-namely that people
> try to keep lifeforms from different systems together in one tank. His
> point is that it is impossible to properly keep corals, fish, etc. that
> come from environments which are not the same. The bottom line,
> according to him, is that you are doomed to failure, or at least
> marginal success, if you try to keep things at temperatures, salinity,
> etc. that are not identical to the natural environment(s), which differ
> according to where in the world the things came from.
>
> Comments?

with fish that statement is almost 100% untrue most fish are much more
flexiable than the
difference between sg/temp/.... between reefs. though the changes should
happen over a
period of time instead of instantly.

many inverts can make the swing easily, others need more time, and some cant
make the
cange at all.

many corals can adjust IF itd done slowly, there is more of a risk when ppl
run tanks at
in correct levels.


--
Richard Reynolds

[Pszemol]

What link? What author? And what is "new" in that philosophy?
I always read about keeping animals at the conditions as much
similar to their natural environment as possible...
You just do not mix goldfish with chichilds in the one freshwater
tank, the same apply to any other fish tank. What is new about it?

[Acrylics]

While there's not much "new" here as we have had biotopic tanks for years, one
of the other issues (IMO) re this is corals coming into contact with other
corals (in tanks) that in nature would never come into contact with each other.
When you have overcrowded conditions (as most tanks are) with different corals
from different biotopes and different regions of the planet all fighting for
the same space - you tend to have a much more coral death due to a much higher
degree of chemical warfare going on.
BTW, the author gave himself the easy out on this as it is just about
impossible to keep closed system water parameters "identical" to NSW much less
any specific natural environment.
Did he give any definition to "marginal success" or "failure"? for that matter.
One could say that a Queen Trigger eating it's tankmates is a failure while
another could call it nature at work.
Humans trying to emulate nature with a high degree of quality is almost always
doomed to failure (or marginal success:) due either to our present lack of
understanding, unwillingness to fully implement what is necessary due to
practicalities or whatever, human error, and a host of other reasons. Not
knowing who the author is in this case; if you actually take his comments
(paraphrased by you) to their logical extremes - one can only say "no ****". :)


James

[Pszemol]

"Acrylics" > wrote in message ...
> While there's not much "new" here as we have had biotopic tanks for years, one
> of the other issues (IMO) re this is corals coming into contact with other
> corals (in tanks) that in nature would never come into contact with each other.
> When you have overcrowded conditions (as most tanks are) with different corals
> from different biotopes and different regions of the planet all fighting for
> the same space - you tend to have a much more coral death due to a much higher
> degree of chemical warfare going on.

Is physical contact required for this war or do they release some toxins
to the water column also and try to inhibit grow of others this way with
not touching going on? Do not have too much experience with corals myself
but I think I recall reading about this somewhere - or my memory is bad ;-)

[Charlie Spitzer]

"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
> "Acrylics" > wrote in message
...
> > While there's not much "new" here as we have had biotopic tanks for
years, one
> > of the other issues (IMO) re this is corals coming into contact with
other
> > corals (in tanks) that in nature would never come into contact with each
other.
> > When you have overcrowded conditions (as most tanks are) with different
corals
> > from different biotopes and different regions of the planet all fighting
for
> > the same space - you tend to have a much more coral death due to a much
higher
> > degree of chemical warfare going on.
>
> Is physical contact required for this war or do they release some toxins
> to the water column also and try to inhibit grow of others this way with
> not touching going on? Do not have too much experience with corals myself
> but I think I recall reading about this somewhere - or my memory is bad
;-)

yes, corals release lots of stuff into the water column.

[K.T. Harrison]

Ive found the most rewarding (and fruitful) tanks Ive set up have been 'site
specific' in that the collection is all in need of the same conditions - i
live near the coast so it was easy to gather a variety of local critters...
(and thier natural substrate) however, ive also found that natural
acclimation is AMAZING in most of the more exotic critters ive had -tenacity
oif life and all that i guess ;-)

KT


"Tom Burns" > wrote in message
...
> Read an interesting article from a link posted here about what the
> author felt was the main problem with reef aquaria-namely that people
> try to keep lifeforms from different systems together in one tank. His
> point is that it is impossible to properly keep corals, fish, etc. that
> come from environments which are not the same. The bottom line,
> according to him, is that you are doomed to failure, or at least
> marginal success, if you try to keep things at temperatures, salinity,
> etc. that are not identical to the natural environment(s), which differ
> according to where in the world the things came from.
>
> Comments?
>
>

[Tom Burns]

Richard Reynolds wrote:
>>Read an interesting article from a link posted here about what the
>>author felt was the main problem with reef aquaria-namely that people
>>try to keep lifeforms from different systems together in one tank. His
>>point is that it is impossible to properly keep corals, fish, etc. that
>>come from environments which are not the same. The bottom line,
>>according to him, is that you are doomed to failure, or at least
>>marginal success, if you try to keep things at temperatures, salinity,
>>etc. that are not identical to the natural environment(s), which differ
>>according to where in the world the things came from.
>>
>>Comments?
>
>
> with fish that statement is almost 100% untrue most fish are much more flexiable than the
> difference between sg/temp/.... between reefs. though the changes should happen over a
> period of time instead of instantly.
>
> many inverts can make the swing easily, others need more time, and some cant make the
> cange at all.
>
> many corals can adjust IF itd done slowly, there is more of a risk when ppl run tanks at
> in correct levels.
>
>
> --
> Richard Reynolds
>
>
>
So what you are saying is that you should gradually acclimate in a
separate tanke any coral from an envirnment which is different from your
main tank.

Makes sense, but how many out there would go so far as to maintain a
transitional tank just to add speciments.

[Tom Burns]

Pszemol wrote:

> What link? What author? And what is "new" in that philosophy?

1-Sorry, I should have posted that, it's at:
http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm/1997/nov/features/1/default.asp

2-TEXT AND PHOTOS BY RONALD SHIMEK Ph.D.

3-It appears to be not that new (1997), but in all my research and
readings I have never come across anyone ever making an emphatic
argument that any reef tank should only be stocked with lifeforms from
the same geographic region or from regions which very closely share the
same environmental conditions, especially temparature range and salinity.


> I always read about keeping animals at the conditions as much
> similar to their natural environment as possible...
> You just do not mix goldfish with chichilds in the one freshwater
> tank, the same apply to any other fish tank. What is new about it?

To me, anyway, it is new. See my comments above.

[Pszemol]

"Tom Burns" > wrote in message ...
> 1-Sorry, I should have posted that, it's at:
> http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm/1997/nov/features/1/default.asp
>
> 2-TEXT AND PHOTOS BY RONALD SHIMEK Ph.D.

Thank you - that was missing in my picture ;-)

> 3-It appears to be not that new (1997), but in all my research and
> readings I have never come across anyone ever making an emphatic
> argument that any reef tank should only be stocked with lifeforms from
> the same geographic region or from regions which very closely share the
> same environmental conditions, especially temparature range and salinity.

As dr. Shimek is explaining, the animals CAN adapt to conditions
which differ from the ideal and CAN survive, but their chances of
survival are SMALLER than when conditions are kept close to ideal.
He gave an example of smaller number of life forms on the region edges.
It sounds so obvious that it does not require further explanations...

If you try to culture some tropical plant in your room, it will not die
quickly overnight but it will not thrive like it would in real rain forest...
It will not grow as fast as it could, it would not look as beautiful
as it could and it will not resist to diseases as successfully as
it could when the conditions were met. That said - our animals
from Red Sea kept in the colder, less saline water will not be
as happy as they would be if we duplicate conditions in Red Sea.
And in vice versa - when we try to duplicate conditions known
in Red Sea in our tank and we mix animals from - lets say -
Caribbean or Florida Keys they will suffer stress and could be
more prone to diseases. then when kept in their ideal conditions.

Freshwater aquarists do know you do not mix fish from hard and
alkaline waters with those from soft, acidic waters for the same reason
like you would not keep successfully African lions in Alaska forests
or mix Red Sea animals with Caribbean ones ;-)

[Tom Burns]

Pszemol wrote:

> "Tom Burns" > wrote in message ...
>
>>1-Sorry, I should have posted that, it's at:
>>http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm/1997/nov/features/1/default.asp
>>
>>2-TEXT AND PHOTOS BY RONALD SHIMEK Ph.D.
>
>
> Thank you - that was missing in my picture ;-)

No problem. But now I'm wondering what it means that his Ph is "D".
Shouldn't it be pH and a number?
(-;

[Don Geddis]

"Pszemol" > writes:
> our animals from Red Sea kept in the colder, less saline water will not be
> as happy as they would be if we duplicate conditions in Red Sea. And in
> vice versa - when we try to duplicate conditions known in Red Sea in our
> tank and we mix animals from - lets say - Caribbean or Florida Keys they
> will suffer stress and could be more prone to diseases. then when kept in
> their ideal conditions.
>
> Freshwater aquarists do know you do not mix fish from hard and
> alkaline waters with those from soft, acidic waters for the same reason
> like you would not keep successfully African lions in Alaska forests
> or mix Red Sea animals with Caribbean ones ;-)

OK, true enough, but your freshwater and African/Alaska analogies are going a
bit far. The ocean is a much more consistent environment than your other
examples. Salinity is basically the same in almost any ocean, temperature
is fairly consistent by latitude, etc. (The Red Sea happens to be a very rare
mild exception, but you had to stretch to find that.)

Yes, you can find some creatures used to cold, deep water (e.g. nautilus).
But really: the vast bulk of life forms available in the aquaria hobby trade
are from tropical oceans near the water surface, and their water chemistry is
basically identical throughout the world.

So the real question people mean, is whether it is ok to mix creatures that
aren't ordinarily found together in nature. E.g. Caribbean anemones from the
Atlantic with clown fish from Tahiti in the south Pacific.

And the answer is: unlike fresh water life forms, or land creatures, the water
in the ocean is basically identical everywhere. So mix & match of these
creatures pretty much works out just fine for hobbyists. And much, much better
than such mixing would work for similar nearby hobbies.

That said, some marine biologists simply prefer to mimic specific locales in
their artificial environments, and enjoy selecting life forms that are found
together in nature. Nothing wrong with that, and it's possible that it works
slightly better over the long run. But the vast bulk of hobbyists will find
no problems at all with mixing life forms from wildly separated geographic
locations.

-- Don
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Don Geddis http://reef.geddis.org/
The Creation of the Universe was made possible by a grant from Texas
Instruments. -- PBS

[Pszemol]

"Don Geddis" > wrote in message ...
> OK, true enough, but your freshwater and African/Alaska analogies are going
> a bit far.

It was intentional to highlight the issue here...

> The ocean is a much more consistent environment than your other
> examples. Salinity is basically the same in almost any ocean, temperature
> is fairly consistent by latitude, etc. (The Red Sea happens to be a very rare
> mild exception, but you had to stretch to find that.)

This are very relative words "basically the same" and "fairly consistent"
are maybe true, but still differences are big enough to observe variation
in life forms variety and population counts in the areas deffering in 1-2 degree.
Confirm charts and pictures in the pointed article... Especialy "Figure 1"
where you have a comparison of temperature and number of coral genera.

> Yes, you can find some creatures used to cold, deep water (e.g. nautilus).
> But really: the vast bulk of life forms available in the aquaria hobby trade
> are from tropical oceans near the water surface, and their water chemistry is
> basically identical throughout the world.

My example with Alaska/Africa was exaggerated. As you could see from
the article, even single degree differences in temperature strongly influence
the number of creatures surviving in the area.

> So the real question people mean, is whether it is ok to mix creatures that
> aren't ordinarily found together in nature. E.g. Caribbean anemones from
> the Atlantic with clown fish from Tahiti in the south Pacific.

It is "always ok" to mix, but the consequence will be less chance for survival.

> And the answer is: unlike fresh water life forms, or land creatures, the water
> in the ocean is basically identical everywhere. So mix & match of these
> creatures pretty much works out just fine for hobbyists. And much, much better
> than such mixing would work for similar nearby hobbies.
>
> That said, some marine biologists simply prefer to mimic specific locales in
> their artificial environments, and enjoy selecting life forms that are found
> together in nature. Nothing wrong with that, and it's possible that it works
> slightly better over the long run. But the vast bulk of hobbyists will find
> no problems at all with mixing life forms from wildly separated geographic
> locations.

... as long as the general conditions are the same in those locations :-)
When you examine the article carefully you will learn that the water
coditions in the ocean is NOT identical everywhere... :-))

[Tom Burns]

I started this thread and found the responses interesting.

I guess the thing that got from all this is that while the theory is
basically sound, it is not definitive in any way. However, it does seem
interesting that one could (and apparently with greater overall success)
keep a reef that was a microcosm of a particular environment. I think it
would also be cool to be able to say that your tank is an accurate
living example of what one would expect to find "if you were to take a
dive in the waters off....". It's a neat concept to try and accurately
replicate a totally natural environment down the all the details,
including rock, coral and other lifeforms. In the end, isn't that what
we are all trying to do? Have a little bit of an exotic natural world
right at home and marvel at it's beauty?

[Don Geddis]

"Pszemol" > writes:
> This are very relative words "basically the same" and "fairly consistent"
> are maybe true, but still differences are big enough to observe variation
> in life forms variety and population counts in the areas deffering in 1-2
> degree.

1-2 degrees? Heck, my tank varies by more than that, on a daily basis.
In the summer it probably goes from 79 oF -> 84 oF, in half a day.

As to average ocean temperatures...the geography is only a minor impact on
ocean temperatures, especially at the equator. It's much more important to
know whether the creature you're interested in came from a tide pool / shallow
water (can get very hot), near the surface of a coral reef (consistent warm
temperatures), vs. 10-20' down in a coral reef (much cooler). That would be
hugely more important to find it's ideal temperature than whether it was found
in the Caribbean or Hawaii.

For creatures found near the surface of a coral reef at the equator, all the
major water parameters (temperature, salinity, dissolved trace minerals,
intensity of sunlight) are pretty much identical all around the world, and
matching environments in the reef hobby isn't nearly the issue that it is in
freshwater aquaria.

> .. as long as the general conditions are the same in those locations :-)
> When you examine the article carefully you will learn that the water
> coditions in the ocean is NOT identical everywhere... :-))

I think the problem is that the variation across the world is much less than
the typical stability within a hobbyist reef tank. If your temperature ranges
from 79<->84 in a day, and your salinity from 1.024-1.026 across weeks, then
the scientific observation that different oceans may have a 1 oF average
temperature difference or .0001 salinity difference isn't really relevant.
It's well within the bounds of the stability of the artificial aquarium.

> Confirm charts and pictures in the pointed article... Especialy "Figure 1"
> where you have a comparison of temperature and number of coral genera.

Sorry, but I missed this pointer. Can you mention the URL again?

Thanks,

-- Don
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Don Geddis http://reef.geddis.org/
Defeat: For every winner, there are dozens of losers. Odds are you're one of
them. -- Despair.com

[Pszemol]

"Don Geddis" > wrote in message ...
> [...]
> near the surface of a coral reef (consistent warm
> temperatures), vs. 10-20' down in a coral reef (much cooler).

Acording to the article, the surface temperatures typicaly extend
down to deeps of about 165 to 330 feet (50-100 meters).

> I think the problem is that the variation across the world is much less than
> the typical stability within a hobbyist reef tank. If your temperature ranges
> from 79<->84 in a day, and your salinity from 1.024-1.026 across weeks, then
> the scientific observation that different oceans may have a 1 oF average
> temperature difference or .0001 salinity difference isn't really relevant.
> It's well within the bounds of the stability of the artificial aquarium.

That is true, indeed.
Smaller tank will never be stable enough compared to the ocean.
But with larger tanks with better temperature controll and automatic top-off
systems you will have much more stable conditions than described above.

> > Confirm charts and pictures in the pointed article... Especialy "Figure 1"
> > where you have a comparison of temperature and number of coral genera.
>
> Sorry, but I missed this pointer. Can you mention the URL again?

Sure I can http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm/1997/nov/features/1/

[Rod]

>
>Sure I can http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm/1997/nov/features/1/
>
Wow, great article ;)
Rod Buehler
www.asplashoflife.com

[JCBlueEyes]

< I think it
would also be cool to be able to say that your tank is an accurate
living example of what one would expect to find "if you were to take a
dive in the waters off....". It's a neat concept to try and accurately
replicate a totally natura lenvironment down the all the details, >

Many public aquariums do this already. Biotope aquariums as they are called,
are also common in the freshwater hobby.