Beautiful Encrusting Algae But There’s A Small Downside

Marine aquarists try very hard to create a beautiful aquarium – whether the system is fish only or reef that is the target. These attempts are generally successful and often the picture is enhanced by Mother Nature. Mother Nature obviously provides the ‘eye targets’, the colourful fish and corals.

In the aquarium are usually rocks – whether fish only or reef this could be to provide homes and also be decorative. Both, particularly reef, could be ‘living rock’ for biological filtration. This rock is normally interesting in shape and over time provides a base for algae growth.

At this point the assumption is that the aquarist has properly maintained seawater quality which in turn means that stocking levels are acceptable. It’s also assumed that lighting is adequate.

Encrusting algae, often known as coralline algae which is more accurate, is lovely. It can cover upper surfaces of rocks and make a real contribution to the overall aquarium picture. Often it is introduced to the aquarium on live rock from the dealer or another aquarist. Helpfully, ordinary maintenance seems to assist in its spread.

I’ve taken some photos from areas in my aquarium (I’m not an expert on photography so hopefully they’re adequate!). The heading photo has nothing to do with the subject, it’s just that my flame angel (Centropyge loriculus) cruised by and I couldn’t resist pressing the button.

The next two photos show interesting formations created by the algae as it grows. As is often the case there is beauty in the detail. There is much more in the aquarium that isn’t shown.

Ok, so what’s this downside that has been mentioned? There’s always a price to be paid for anything, and the price demanded for this algae is in an extension of maintenance. However, this isn’t much.

The algae not only uses rocks as a base, it’s quite happy to use glass. On the rear glass this doesn’t matter, and in my case the left hand glass can be left as well. However, the other viewing glasses need to be cleaned periodically. Of course this is already done to deal with the green stuff that accumulates but unfortunately a magnet cleaner doesn’t usually remove the encrusting algae. Therefore a razor cleaner is the best tool.

The next two photos show growth on a corner and on a horizontal glass pump support. Coralline algae seems to like growing in the corners of the aquarium – or at least it does in mine. Cleaning is not a problem with a razor but make sure the razor is sharp and also have regard to the silicone joints if there are any.

Calcium testing is normally carried out where there is a known need for it. There is another test that is generally beneficial particularly with a reef and that is alkalinity. I maintain my alkalinity at about 4.0 meq/l (it drops off slowly, I test at routine seawater changes) and this seems to benefit the encrusting algae – not only the coralline but other types present as well. Maintaining a higher alkalinity is considered to be desirable with a reef system but is not essential.

It has been mentioned that routine maintenance could assist with the spread of coralline algae. When the algae is being scraped off the glass it disperses into the seawater and this seems to generate further growth in other areas of the aquarium, though I have never seen any scientific or other confirmation of this.

One more concern has been raised in the past – does the coralline algae presence on live rock reduce the effectiveness of live rock filtration. Bacteria essential to the well-being of the livestock dwell within the rock so could seawater fail to reach the bacteria causing their demise followed by serious problems? ‘No’ has to be the answer. Though, as far as I know, there hasn’t been serious or scientific testing of this question there hasn’t been a reported failure of filtration, again as far as I know. There are marine aquarists far and wide who are delighted with the presence of the algae. Personally I’m also delighted and have never had a problem with filtration because of the algae presence.

---

Interesting Maybe, But It Doesn’t Matter

Interesting?

O3        +  NO2 ………> O2         + NO3
(Ozone + Nitrite ………> Oxygen + Nitrate)

Could be, but in the majority of cases the answer is no.

A potential marine aquarist or even an existing one keeping a reef or fish only system is likely to shy away from anything approaching scientific, and fair enough. (The above is straightforward and understandable if the symbols are understood but gives the general idea). Being a marine aquarist doesn’t mean a white laboratory coat is required or a ‘professor’ appearance, though there are one or two aquarists who love to mystify the marine aquarium and elevate their accomplishments. There isn’t any need to boost success with an aquarium; it is there for all to see.

Some books contain explanatory formulas that would cause consternation with any ordinary person. This isn’t to say that scientific formulas are a waste of space, they aren’t. They are of use to a scientist of course, and interesting to those with experience who wish to delve deep. The same principle applies to many hobbies.

The hobby needs science; it is the scientists who explain. The hobbyist doesn’t need to be involved at that level.

Even when avoiding science troubles still arise. The new aquarist, particularly if interested in a reef system, is still faced with gobble-de-gook. There seems to be an unending stream of needs that must be met or failure will occur. Worse, much of this is in shortened version such as KH (for Kelvin), SG (for Specific Gravity), Alk (for alkalinity), temp (for temperature), calc (for calcium), ppm (for parts per million) etc, never mind the variations with lighting; there isn’t a need to go on. Much of this shortened terminology is often used when hobbyists are ‘chatting’ on forums.

Even when the potential aquarist knows what it all means, the problem doesn’t stop. Seawater quality is the number one requirement so the beginner starts to delve into that. The important parameters are discovered but then there are comments on forums and in books about balance – if this is low that will suffer, generating more confusion.

The beginner can flounder at this stage and start to wonder if it’s worth it, it’s supposed to be an enjoyable hobby, at least that is what was understood at the beginning.

The beginner is going to be a successful marine aquarist with some perseverance and if research is done. The research doesn’t need to be into how everything works and what depends on what. The marine hobby has been going for long enough for scientists and advanced hobbyists to have discovered what leads to success. This doesn’t include deep studies into seawater make-up as an example.

It is now well known what ‘high quality’ seawater means. There are tables available that suggest the levels of various items. For example specific gravity is usually quoted as 1.022 to 1.025 for a fish only system, and 1.024 or 1.025 for a reef system. So the aquarist maintains the seawater at the chosen level having considered the given advantages of numbers within the scale. Other parameters are maintained at the levels suggested for them and doing so generally removes the problem of imbalance. It is also known what is not required in the seawater, for example nitrate. Again there are guidelines that suggest upper limits for different systems, so these levels can again be maintained. The beginner aquarist will also have learned of the need for stability and how to achieve this.

So the marine hobby isn’t a scientific challenge for a beginner or anyone else. All that needs to be known are the suggested levels for a marine system, and then maintain them. It should also be said that the system itself needs to be basically adequate, but again these needs are well known and obtainable.

So the mystique is gone. It must be said that patience and a basic understanding are required. The basic understanding is just that, the numbers that represent the levels that livestock require within an adequate system. When this is achieved and maintained, all things being equal success is on the way.

That doesn’t mean to say however that the aquarist never delves into the world of science. Once the ‘bug’ has bitten, some aquarists have to pursue knowledge about ‘why’, and that is to the advantage of us all.

---

Why Should Alkalinity Be Higher In The Aquarium?

The marine aquarium can be so beautiful if the aquarist does straightforward routine maintenance as required, and doing this maintenance includes attention to the all important seawater quality.

Seawater quality is maintained by routine changes of sufficient quantity, and at the same time tests are completed to ensure that the required standards are met. These tests include specific gravity (SG), pH, nitrate and for a reef could include calcium and similar. Some aquarists continue to test for ammonia and nitrite after the initial maturing process. Alkalinity is a test that is useful to marine systems too.

It would seem fair to think that Mother Nature would know best in these matters and the alkalinity level in the wild is 7 to 9 KH*. So perhaps we should keep out aquarium seawater at the same level.

We could maintain a natural level and hopefully all things being equal there wouldn’t be any problems. However, we are not talking of the vastness of the seas and oceans where seawater quantity is measured in cubic miles; we are talking about aquariums where even a large home system of 500 gallons is, by comparison, very tiny.

Most aquariums are fully stocked whatever system they are. The life in the aquarium puts pressure on the seawater in several ways and one of them is the acid/alkalinity balance. We know this measure as it uses the pH scale, and we want a pH of between 8.0 and 8.4 which is on the alkaline side. The life functions in the aquarium constantly try to reduce this pH towards the acid side, something we do not want.

Prevention of the reduction in pH is achieved by the ‘buffering’ capacity of the seawater, in other words its ability to resist changes caused by acidic substances. The ‘buffer’ is mainly the carbonate/bicarbonate content of the seawater. In certain circumstances the buffer could be seriously weakened or even exhaust and the pH would fall which is detrimental to the livestock.

Dry seawater salt as purchased by most aquarists for seawater make-up has a buffering capacity usually around natural levels. However, many aquarists boost the buffering capacity of their seawater by adding carbonate/bicarbonate powders. These powders are usually mixed in some seawater before being added to the aquarium, being careful not to hit corals etc. The powders are sold commercially and are very easy to use.

In an aquarium it is considered best to maintain alkalinity from 8 to 14 KH.* It is not recommended to raise the level above 14 KH.* The recommended level of 8 to 14 KH does not mean the level can vary within these limits, it should be reasonably stable at the chosen point, ‘reasonably’ meaning that some variation over say a week will not usually be harmful. My system runs at 10 KH and needs boosting to an extent weekly.

If the aquarist measures the alkalinity of a fully stocked system on a weekly basis and keeps a note, then the trend of the aquarium can be seen. The amount of buffer that needs to be added is easily prepared week to week. Testing can be reduced once this requirement has been discovered but should not be abandoned.

If pH is a problem and it is falling despite routine seawater changes and good husbandry in feeding etc, then perhaps the buffer capacity needs attention. Increasing the buffer by 1 KH week to week will not do harm. I have found a good alkalinity level is also beneficial to the growth of welcome encrusting algae which can beautify the aquarium.

By the way, if the desire is to measure alkalinity by mg/l, then multiply KH by 17.9.

(*Reference: Marine Atlas. Helmut Debelius & Hans A. Baensch)

---

The Long One

Like the majority of aquarists I have a schedule for maintaining my aquarium. With the commitments I have and the time available I’ve found that this schedule saves time – usually.

Saving time doesn’t always occur, sometimes, and it is infrequent, something occurs which takes up a lot more time. Not today though, all went well mainly.

My schedule depends on a number. Number one is clean the glass. Wow, that’s it! Number two is the same as one plus the intake filters on some powerheads, plus a routine seawater change. Number three is the same as one. Number four is a comprehensive clean. Included with all of these numbers is a check for any unwanted organisms such as Aiptasia. So as can be seen maintenance covers a four week cycle.

Maintenance is nearly always done on a Sunday as there is time available, in the morning anyway.  It all sounds a bit military maybe, but it works.

The number for today is four, the long one. New seawater ready and waiting, cleaning equipment near the aquarium. The aquarium is surrounded by carpet, so polythene covers are in place. They catch the drips and minor splashes very well.

The very first thing is to clean, with a hard toothbrush, my miniscule algae scrubber. This developed by itself and is obviously doing something as it exists! There must be some level of nutrients in the seawater feeding it. The photo shows it – I did say it is tiny, about 3 inches across and 2 inches deep! The seawater flow is from the hang-on skimmer.

Next the bracing struts and viewing glasses are cleaned with an algae magnet. Only the front and one end viewing glass are done, encrusting algae is permitted to grow on the others.

Exciting stuff this isn’t it! Now the four powerheads which sit in a small compartment are checked. The powerheads driving the under-reef spray bar and anti-phosphate filter have sponge intake filters and these need thorough attention. The anti-phosphate filter is shown in the photo; it is a homemade hang-on type. (Taking the photo was difficult, it is under an open stairway and space is restricted.) The other is an anti-nitrate filter, again homemade but this isn’t in use.

This maintenance is progressing well. The Eheim canister filter is next, the mechanical media has to be checked. This is comprised of fine and medium sponges and it can be surprising how much they catch from what appears to be clean seawater. I have to save numerous very small shrimps as well; these are placed in the display aquarium ensuring the fish don’t get them. There are numbers on the filters – this is from when they were both used for biological purposes so that they could be selected for cleaning, this doesn’t apply now as the biological media has been removed.

Getting there now and it is usually at this point that a cup of coffee appears. Thanks!

Siphoning is next on the agenda but before the main siphon tube is used, I attack any unwanted organisms. Today I located a few Aiptasia and these were dealt with. I’ll have to deal with more as time passes; they are never eliminated, probably because there are so many nooks and crannies in a reef aquarium. As long as they are not left to their own devices for too long they aren’t a problem.

So out come gallons of seawater with the siphon tube, this seawater will be dumped. (I used to use it for brine shrimp production but no longer do so.) At this time any debris spotted on the base of the aquarium is removed. There isn’t much base to be seen but it is checked anyway.

The new seawater is placed on the stairs above the aquarium and my wife kindly makes sure the tube doesn’t come out (not the siphon tube, one that is considerably longer). In goes the seawater.

Not quite done. I manually add certain additives to the seawater, these being calcium, bicarbonate and carbonate powder (for alkalinity) and iodine. Calcium is maintained at around 420ppm and alkalinity at around 4.0meq/L. I don’t measure the iodine level as it is only added once every two weeks at the minimum dose, there has never been a problem.

Nearly time to pack up now, just give the glass bracing struts a clean with a paper towel, likewise the viewing glasses. A check with the hydrometer is required, this is fine at 1024.

Final job – give the fluorescent tubes a wipe. Now it’s all done.

No, not quite. The two fish get some brine shrimp for being so patient!

---

A Question About Algae

Algae could be the aquarist’s friend and at the same time an enemy, it all depends on what type it is. A question arose recently about algae and my immediate reaction was ‘Oh no, not again, algae!’’ In fact it wasn’t so bad.

The question came from a beginner aquarist who openly admitted that she didn’t have much experience. In fact, she had done precisely four routine seawater changes with her new aquarium. The aquarium, a fish only, was not overstocked, if anything it was understocked. She was a little fed up; the excitement of actually seeing some life in the aquarium after all the patient waiting when the system was being put together was being spoilt by the dreaded algae. I was unable to see the aquarium.

Basically she had done seawater changes and after each one she advised ‘red’ algae had gone bananas. That’s what she said; I don’t think it could have been quite as bad as that!

Many aquarists have problems with various types of algae, particularly when inexperienced and when the aquarium is in its early days. I was surprised that it was red algae causing the trouble. Usually it is green hair algae, or so-called slime algae or smear algae (a thin sheet that slowly covers rocks, sand etc). Slime algae can be ‘reddish’, very dark and appear red nearly black. Another type is diatoms that are usually more golden brown in colour.

Red algae can be calcareous and branching or encrusting, or have flexible ‘leaves’. These algae types are often sort after by aquarists as they are decorative. In the red algae family there are over 4000 types. The algae though had been identified as a problem and not decorative so it cleared these types away. So the algae in question had to be a problem type, but what? Green hair algae was obviously not the answer.

When an aquarium is first started up diatoms often appear. They could cover rocks, sand etc. The diatoms rely on silicates in the seawater – if the silicates go so do the diatoms. If they appear then die back, the silicates are used up. If they then re-appear at a routine seawater change, then more silicates have been introduced. The fresh water source could be suspect. Dry sea salt does not usually cause this type of problem.

Smear or slime algae is a bigger problem. It can be quite difficult to erase but this can be achieved. The presence of smear algae suggests excess nutrients in the seawater, even in a new aquarium. Also smear algae does not like strong currents – it often tends to appear in quiet areas of the aquarium, though just to be helpful it can appear in more turbulent areas.

10% of the net system gallonage is the guideline amount for routine seawater changes, until the actual needs of a particular aquarium are known. The changes being done were of this amount.

Possibilities would have to be narrowed down, so the first suggestion was that seawater tests should be done, that is, nitrate and phosphate. A request was made to test both the seawater in the aquarium and the new seawater made up for a routine change. Ideally, in the aquarium nitrate should be as low as 10ppm (parts per million) or less particularly for a reef aquarium, a fish only could be higher but should still have nitrate minimized. Phosphate should not be detected at all hopefully, but at least the level should not be more than 0.03ppm. If it is higher, say 0.10ppm, it is too high. In newly made up seawater there shouldn’t really be any presence of nitrate or phosphate. Nitrate and phosphate are known problem algae nutrients, thus the need for control.

It turned out that nitrate and phosphate were present and ‘a little too high’, levels were not given. The seawater destined for the routine change was also tested – the same for nitrate. Now then!

So on to the next possibility. This follows the clues given – the algae become more apparent after a routine seawater change and nitrate was present in the new seawater. A check was suggested of the freshwater being used.

The information arrived that the nitrate level in the freshwater was ‘high’. Maybe this was tap water, the most likely, or it could be local spring or well water, I don’t know. Nor was the actual level given. However, ‘high’ in this instance meant ‘too much’ and this seemed to be the problem that needed to be dealt with.

Tap water is not necessarily as pure as might be thought. In agricultural areas there could be excessive nitrate levels. There could also be heavy metals, pesticides, phosphate, chlorine, chloramines and so on. The water is made safe for human consumption; there are regulations as to how much of what is permitted.

The suggestion was made that fresh water should no longer be used from that source, and that a reverse osmosis (RO) unit should be obtained. The RO unit is a membrane that only permits pure water to pass, or nearly so. The purity is usually about 95 to 98%. It is important to have a unit that incorporates a carbon filter at the front end; this protects the membrane as chlorine is removed. Chlorine could damage the membrane. A sediment filter is often incorporated before the membrane as well. RO units come in various ‘gallons per day’ sizes, one needs to be picked that is suitable for the size of the routine seawater change. RO units are very reliable and only require the carbon filter etc changing from time to time in accordance with the manufacturer’s directions. They are not particularly expensive either.

It is worth using high quality fresh water obviously for the welfare of the livestock; also dry sea salt is not cheap. Dry sea salt manufacturers produce salt that is free of nitrate and phosphate – why spoil this with poor fresh water?

Much later on it was learned that an RO unit was in use and though nothing had happened for a while, in time the algae (‘slime’ I assume) started to reduce and the aquarium became clear of it.

This seems a good demonstration that the aquarium will reflect what it receives. Feed in algae nutrients and algae could appear. In this case all turned out well.

---

How Gallonage Matters

No matter how big or small an aquarium is they all have a gallonage which is often stated in the manufacturer’s documents. Some aquariums are of a standard size and are known as a ‘fifty’ or whatever.

The gallonage quoted in the aquarium name or manufacturer’s documents is with it empty, it has to be this way as of course the manufacturer has no idea of what use the aquarium will be put to and what will be inside it.

As far as the marine hobby is concerned, the quoted gross gallonage can be ignored, it is irrelevant. What is of interest is the net gallonage, the amount of seawater the aquarium can hold once all the decorative whatnots are installed. In the case of both a fish only and reef aquarium, whether live or inert rock is being used doesn’t matter; it is the amount that is installed that does. In the first place, if live rock is being used there must be enough to provide adequate bio-filtration for the full bio load. Secondly, the more there is of either rock type the less the seawater gallonage will be.

If the aquarist decides to use a DSB (deep sand bed) or plenum then this will again reduce the seawater gallonage. A decorative sand bed is not as deep but still accounts for lost seawater space.

So it is important that the aquarist is aware of the net gallonage of the aquarium. Having a sump has advantages and one of these is that the net gallonage is increased.

Calculating the net gallonage could be a hit and miss affair. Probably the most accurate way is for the aquarist to measure the prepared seawater as it goes into the aquarium on the first fill. However, many aquarists mix the initial seawater in the aquarium, but nevertheless a note could be made of the amount that goes in. If any of this first fill is eventually removed because of overfill it needs to be deducted of course. There are helpful gallonage calculators on some marine forums for those who did not measure the ingoing seawater, though accuracy will be lower.

Both the reef and fish only aquarium rely on net gallonage for stocking levels. This is for fish; corals present a much lower bio load. The reef aquarium carries less fish than a fish only system which gives regard to necessary seawater quality. With both systems seawater quality is the number one requirement – how can the aquarist stock correctly if the net gallonage is not known?

When calculating stocking levels for whatever system, the sump seawater should be ignored. The seawater in the sump is not available to the fish and should be viewed as a quality enhancement advantage.

Stocking to the gross gallonage of the display aquarium, or to an overestimated net gallonage could lead to trouble. The aquarium could be and is likely to be overstocked. If there are too many fish there is greater pressure on the seawater quality. In addition it creates more work for the bio-filtration. Further, if there was a temperature increase there could be oxygen problems. The fish obviously require sufficient oxygen, and so does the bio-filter, or rather all the oxygen hungry bacteria in it. If there are problems with the bio-filtration then real trouble could begin.

Also, overstocking can mean overcrowding. Fish will argue and even fight over the right to territory, some more than others. This could lead to fish not eating properly because of stress. On the wild reef fish have plenty of hiding places and in addition if they need to retreat there is plenty of space to do so. Within the strict confines of an aquarium where does a fleeing fish go?

So it is certainly to the advantage of the aquarist and his/her future enjoyment of the hobby to go through a careful initial procedure. This includes research into compatibility with tank mates and aquarium type of course, but should also consider the space that is going to be available. During reef or aquascape construction the aquarist should give full regard to supplying sufficient homes for the number of fish it is intended to keep, many commonly used rocks are helpful with this because they are of very irregular shapes. It will pay off as fish that are settled and secure will be healthy and show the colours that nature intended.

---

Algae – Friend Or Foe?

Mention the word ‘algae’ to different marine aquarists and the reaction could be mainly one of two, a look of horror perhaps bordering on panic or a smile and a nod. It all depends.

To some aquarists algae is most definitely a foe. These aquarists are, in the main, novices who are gathering experience and have found out the hard way the consequences of over feeding, over stocking, or over lighting. There could even be a combination. One consequence is long hairy green stuff waving in the currents as though it is making fun of the suffering aquarist. Green filamentous algae can spread to such an extent it overgrows the whole aquarium! It seems to be hardy too, as even if the nutrient level is reduced the monstrous stuff seems to survive for quite a while. It takes the nutrients out of the seawater of course which is the only saving grace I can think of. No, there’s one more, which is that it is food for some fish. Nevertheless, it is not required in abundance.

Similarly, slime alga is a problem. This time it is like thin semi-solidified goo on surfaces which is capable of suffocating the life out of anything it covers, again definitely not required. Fortunately it can be siphoned out at routine seawater changes but tends to linger for a while.

So who smiles at algae? It has to be those aquarists who have control of their aquarium conditions. Seawater parameters are as they should be and not permitted to be anything else. Some of these aquarists use algae to combat other algae, which sounds like justice to me! For example, nitrate and phosphate are implicated in the growth of nuisance algae. The same nutrients are necessary to some decorative algae. So, take some decorative algae, such as the Caulerpa macro type, and grow it in reasonable quantity in favourable conditions. If the bad algae is being physically removed and the good algae is taking in nutrients and in favourable conditions, which will lose out? It is likely to be the bad algae. Many use the system and it is definitely helpful.

Have a look at the imported photo with this text. Is that some of the hairy stuff I see?

I’m going off track a little but remaining with algae. Here’s another positive for algae which could develop beyond the intended stated use in a few years. Hope it proves to be of huge benefit!

http://coast2coastam.net/?p=198

---

Next Page »