CJohnson Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 (edited) What are some different types of macroalgea and what are their roles in a reef tank? Thanks ( They will be in my sump refugium) Edited December 15, 2014 by Kidwithatank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jestep Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 There's typically 4 reasons for keeping algaes, nutrient export, for a safe breeding area for pods and other macro-fauna, food for herbivorous fish, or for aesthetic reasons if you want algae in the DT. If the first 2 are the main priority, chaeto is usually the safest bet. It doesn't export as well as caulerpa, but carries none of the risks of caulerpa, which can include being invasive if it gets into the DT, and it can go into a sexual reproduction mode where it literally melts which can cause a bunch of issues in small tank with the surge in nutrients. For food, Ulva is usually the most appreciated meal by tangs and other herbivores. But they also usually eat certain types of caulerpa, halymenia, and some others. Typically won't eat chaeto, gracilaria hayi, or calcareous algaes. For display purposes, there's several types of gracilaria and halymenia which look great, halimeda, codium, hypnea, and a ton of other nice green, brown, and red algaes. Their success in a display tank or refugium can greatly depend on the nutrient levels, the lighting, and whether herbivores will eat the specific type of algae. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJohnson Posted December 15, 2014 Author Share Posted December 15, 2014 I have A 67 gallon and A 250 metal halide with an actinic blue bulb I just want to put them in my sump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sascha D. Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Good job Jestep. I would like to add a few notes. None of the following macros are known to go sexual under normal conditions. They all spread by fragmentation, which makes them popular for sumps. I keep all of my macroalgae with a 5000k twist CFL, which cost about $1.50 per year. Chaetomorpha has a higher nutrient uptake than G. Hayi, Halimedia, or Ulva. It also grows the fastest, meaning you will have to cull it more often. I take out 5 gallons from my sump every other month. Ulva grows about the same speed as G. Hayi, but gets choked out the fastest. Almost everything eats it, so you'll never have to worry about throwing it away. However, it's the most fragile and you'll have to keep it as the only macro. It also occupies the top space of the sump so you can't really grow anything beneath it well. Nothing eats Halimedia, it has the lowest nutrient uptake and it grows the slowest. Mine doubles about once a year, but since nothing eats it you have to sell it or throw it away. Graciliara Hayi works well as a sump macro. Not many fish eat it, but some tangs do. It grows slower than Chaeto by about half so it requires less attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juiceman Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I have tons of cheato if you want some! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvrEnuf Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I'd add that in my experience "grape" Culerpa is a bit of an exption to the culerpa family; in my experience it grows as fast as cheato, and tangs LOVE it. As I am "tangless" ATM you can have some for free; I throw away about a gallon every other week or so. There was also a rash of some blue Grac. easily found a few months back....looks really cool, but it either morphed, or something ate it out of my sump because it's gone now... I really like dragons breath for astectics; you don't specify what purpose in your sump you're trying to achieve But it's a very slow grower. Guys, is a shaving brush a macro?? Also, some people keep Mangrove for nutrient export, but I don't know of any science showing it as a real producer in this category Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jestep Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Guys, is a shaving brush a macro?? Also, some people keep Mangrove for nutrient export, but I don't know of any science showing it as a real producer in this category There's several species of shaving brush, penicillus is the scientific name. From what I've read it takes an absurd amount of mangroves to provide any meaningful nutrient reduction. I've seen some really cool shallow mangrove display tanks though. http://www.nano-reef.com/topic/315369-mangrove-forest-time-to-say-goodbye/ and refugium: http://reefbuilders.com/2010/12/20/julian-sprungs-refugium-oasis-reef-life/ I think it takes an absurd amount of most macros as well. I can't find it now, but someone did a study a while back on how much algae it actually takes to handle nitrates without any other active filtration and it was a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sascha D. Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 It's a good display macro, but I would avoid shaving brush as a nitrate exporter. First, it needs sand to spread its roots and sand in the sump hasn't been a standard since the early 2000's. Next, to reproduce the main stalk dies and new stalks grow in it's place. That means you'll have to clear away the dead material every so often or it will decay and add nitrates instead of take them away. Lastly, the nutrient uptake isn't high and even a small forest won't decrease nitrates much. It's a good display algae but not utilitarian. The utility of macroalgae has been widely discussed, mostly by anti-refugium and low nutrient system reefers. It cannot be disputed that macroalgae exports nitrates and counteracts pH swings, but the degree is often discussed. Although I have never seen a reputable study on the effects, it is said that a refugium would have to be equal to the display size to completely negate the nitrates added to the tank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sascha D. Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Personally, I've only done five water changes in two years so I'm going to keep my refugium and avoid the reactor until I need one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarmerTy Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I employ a refugium and reactor in my system. I see benefits in both and with the sump space I have, there is no need for one or the other... they can play nicely together. I'm honestly contemplating removing all my chaeto and replacing it with a balled up mess of fishing line. That way I get the benefit I desire more from the macro (an area for pods and other critters to call home) but I don't have to worry about dieoff or fragmentation in my tank. Then I will just go a little heavier with the biopellets and GFO to uptake the nutrients. Honestly, the ball of chaeto I have, which is the size of a large turkey, however large, is barely going to pull enough nutrients from my 250 gal water volume to make the effort to keep worth it. Only reason I haven't removed it yet is because of the pod/brittle star farm that it has become now. I'd rather reclaim that space and put my frag tank back online down in the sump. With the inert fishing line, I can push it towards the bottom of the frag rack and not worry about it growing over my frags or not getting enough light to grow. At the same time, it'll be the perfect media to continue the pod/brittle star farm I have in the sump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sascha D. Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Your subtle reference is not lost on me! Fishing line is unlikely to maintain your population since the food will decrease. Pods are herbivores first the foremost. They will eat anything, like most sea creatures, but they won't thrive without a supply of plant matter. You're better off going with rubble. With rubble you'll maintain a good amount of your population, get some filtration and have a place for invert reproduction. Truthfully, I avoid reactors because I haven't had good experiences with them. The cost/benefit just isn't there for me. I hate how the media always ends up in the tank. The price of the media can be pretty hefty when you factor in shipping costs from BRS. (I would use them more if they had $50 free shipping like foster than smith) It's also another point of failure. How many times have I bumped it and had a fitting come loose? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarmerTy Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Agreed, most pods will eat macro but not so much the chaeto. They used to snack on the ulva I kept but chaeto appears to be unappetizing to them. My whole population down there survives on detritus and uneaten food so the fishing line in theory, should perform the same function for the pods. For the reactor, I'd just get a better reactor if ever decide to run media. Those TLF reactors are cheaply made but perform good enough. If you upgrade, I think you'll have a better experience with reactors. BRS also sells plastic hose clamps so the bumping issue will be a thing of the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sascha D. Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Ulva is the best for pods hands down. The cell wall isn't as think and it isn't calcified. Chaetomorpha is difficult to consume, which is why tangs don't eat it. When they do it often comes out the same way it goes in. My favorite configuration that I have used in a sump is something that I like to call a Liverock Filter. Essentially it's a Berline Style 3-chamber sump with chambers one and two reversed. Of course I modify the Berlin for this sump. I plan on going back to it when I redesign my sump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.