Hi Julian - comments below

[Eric Borneman]

I apologize for the perhaps disjointed commentary on this one, and the length, but as a response to another thread, I thought I might as well throw all this out there, and look forward to seeing Julian’s response. In particular, I am very interested in his observation of a correlation between bleaching and wasting, as it is not at all my observations of these corals across the world in tanks, or my personal experience, that bleaching is occurring prior to or concurrent with the slow wasting process. And, I also throw this out there since everyone is probably getting accustomed to the two of us firing out commentary at the other’s ideas, yet remaining personably amicable – or at least I think so. If nothing else, it’s kind of fun. See you at IMAC, Julian! Actually, Circop before that, huh? I already bought two new jackets as I about froze last year when I was in Paris!

>>These corals are among a small group of hermatypes that have both charmed and frustrated aquarists for years.<<

Most collected are not hermatypes – they are free-living and do not contribute to reef growth.

>>In my opinion, it is wrong to generalize that all "Goniopora" are difficult to keep. There are numerous species, and they behave differently in captivity.<<

I agree with this, but the variation is not represented by collection – most collected are from a few species, and of the others, I don’t think enough people have enough long-term experience with any particular one to say for sure what these variances in survivability or behaviors are. Furthermore, good luck telling the species apart in the majority of cases in living corals, so who would really know what those specificities of care are, given that we can’t tell what species they are.

>>Also, I reported (Sprung, 1999a, Sprung 1999b) that certain species of Goniopora are easy to keep, contrary to popular belief, and that most Alveopora are similarly hardy.

Anecdote, and anecdote contrary to most experiences of most aquarists. On the other hand, I have fairly long-term Alveopora and Gonipor ain my tanks…but have watched far more fail – of both genera. But, also, not since beginning phytoplankton additions.

>>Long-term success is reportedly rare in Goniopora stokesi, the most commonly harvested species for the aquarium trade, and the loss of the coral usually occurs slowly, as a sort of wasting condition. <<

I believe this is actually supposed to be stokesii. However, the single “i” has been perpetuated in the descriptions of this coral (Veron, and others.). Other species, including corals, bearing Stokes’ name, are all stokesii. Or is there a reason for the single “i”? I don’t have the original description on this coral.

>>Some other Goniopora species are likewise difficult to maintain for apparently the same reason,<<

What reason?

>> but there are some species that do not usually suffer the same wasting condition. These "easy Gonioporas" are the ones with which I have had long-term success, in excess of five years. <<

What species? What are they?

>>More recently I have been working on Goniopora stokesi. I believe I have discovered what it needs to prevent and cure the wasting condition, and why it occurs, but before I explain that, I want to review the state of opinion among aquarists concerning the genus.<<

If its opinion, why review it? The preponderance of the remaining article ends up justifying, contradicting or explaining prior anecdote with current anecdote.

>>Subsequent to my publication of an article describing my ideas about coral bleaching and Goniopora stokesi (Sprung, 1999a), there were discussions on the internet and an articles published in response (Toonen, 1999a and Toonen, 2001) suggesting that Goniopora (again, in the general sense) required more food. Many aquarists want to believe that the syndrome affecting Goniopora is really just starvation. I don't believe it is. Nevertheless, Goniopora species do feed, and at least one study suggests the feeding is essential for their survival (Toonen 1999a and Toonen, 2001).<<

Where to start? First of all, the wasting condition is not bleaching. Bleaching is not evident in the tissues even directly near the wasting tissues, much less in the “healthy” tissues. Second, the tissues show distinct signs of atrophy and are consistent with what is seen in starvation. Of course Goniopora feed, and the literature is clear that Goniopora cannot meet N needs by light alone, hence the atrophy in the lack of sufficient N. For at least many species, especially G. stokesii and others collected from lower light environments, will be below their compensation depth for C, a well. Then, the Toonen references are not studies, but articles that describe the studies. The study was the unpublished Peach thesis.

>>The successfully maintained colony in the open system is never fed, and since the water supply to the tank is taken from a well there is no plankton supplied either. This arrangement could be employed in a set-up to demonstrate that food is or is not a factor for this species of Goniopora.<<

Food comes in many varieties, and the majority of plankton on reefs is not pelagic but diurnally migrating demersal. The long term tank at Waikiki likely has significant amounts of planktonic or detrital inputs derived from the display itself. Water column analysis would have to be done for such plankters across the day. Has this been done?

 

[Eric Borneman]

>>In the existing display the Goniopora sp. is maintained in a reef aquarium with live rock and a bottom substrate, so one cannot rule out the production of plankton from a developed meiofauna population within the aquarium, even though no plankton is added.<<

Exactly…but, I doubt its meiofauna. Its probably largely detrital, microbial, and microfloral.

>>One might draw a variety of conclusions about the difference between the aquaria at Waikiki, and it is really too easy to assume that the closed system aquarium became depleted of some essential trace element. Anecdotal observations such as these have existed for years, but no one so far has definitively offered a reproducible demonstration that Goniopora requires a particular element for survival in closed aquaria.<<

Exactly.

>>Moreover, analysis of seawater in closed system aquariums shows that though some trace elements are depleted, many accumulate with time or are in excess in the artificial seawater medium. (Fosså and Nilsen, 1996, Shimek, 2002, Atkinson and Bingman, 1999). In (Sprung, 1999a) I stated my opinion that neither excess nor depletion of trace elements is a causative factor in the difficulty with G. stokesi. I now disagree with my earlier opinion.

Analysis of the well-water source at Waikiki showed that it contains a variety of elements in excess of natural seawater values, due to dissolution of volcanic rock in the aquifer (Atkinson et al, 1995). Of particular interest to me are the levels of iron and manganese in this water, as I will shortly explain, after debunking some of the other myths associated with the demise of this coral.<<

Why are levels in excess of NSW required? Even hypothetically, Goniopora do not live in areas requiring elevated levels of anything.

>.Some authors, noting that clownfish have a tendency to choose Goniopora polyps as a surrogate anemone, have suggested that the pestering presence of clownfish was a possible cause for Goniopora's demise in aquaria. In my opinion this is not so. I have heard the occasional report of clownfish literally ripping off polyps, but aside from such obviously destructive behavior, their mere swishing among the polyps is not the cause of the gradual decline seen in Goniopora, nor is it stressful to their surrogate host.<<

I agree it doesn’t always seem stressful, but by what criterion is stress being judged? Expansion of the polyps? Its very hard to say what the actual physiological response to this action is.

>>One of my own Gonioporas that I purchased from the late aquarist/marinelife collector Eric Reichardt, lived for a couple of years in his aquarium with a trio of clownfish. I bought it and the clownfish when he had to tear his tank down. The Goniopora is now several years older, four times larger in skeleton and healthy as can be with its clownfish "pests." The notion that clownfish housed with anemones might transfer damaging anemone mucus to the Goniopora is interesting to test, but certainly is not a factor in the common wasting syndrome typical of most Goniopora stokesi in captivity.<<

I agree, and think this is silly, too. I see no reason why one mucus would be damaging to another organisms. Mucus is a food source, and any two organisms in the same tank would be exposed to each other’s mucus, signaling molecules, chemicals, microbes, etc., anyway.

>>Wilkens (1990) discussed nitrate and the green boring alga Ostreobium as causes for decline in the health of Goniopora. While it is true that the proliferation of boring algae in the skeleton can harm corals, aquarists are now more careful to maintain low nitrate levels via plenum or turf filter systems, even bringing nitrate down to the very low levels found on reefs. Despite this and in the absence of the telltale green stain on the skeleton that characterizes Ostreobium, Goniopora may still languish. Theories about elevated phosphate levels in closed systems harming Goniopora are also countered by the fact that aquarists who maintain low phosphate now by using protein skimming, R.O. water, Phosphate adsorbing filter media, and dosing kalkwasser still don't see a dramatic increase in success with Goniopora stokesi.<<

Agreed. I would add that endolithic fungi are present and will erode skeleton, and this may be a factor in bioerosion and natural fragmentation, especially in lightweight Poritidae, but coral tissue, if healthy, can wall off both fungi and algae .

>>Air in the skeleton

Newly imported specimens of Goniopora may suffer from the effect of air trapped in the skeleton (B. Carlson, pers comm), which may make them prone to infections.<<

Why would it?

>> Goniopora spp. are prone to "brown jelly" (protozoan) infections (Wilkens, 1990), (Delbeek and Sprung, 1994). If these are not treated immediately the coral is wiped out in a very short period of time, normally one or two days.<<

Sure, but clearly not the wasting syndrome.

>> Another shipping stress related disease I have seen is caused by bacteria. The symptoms include strong retraction of the polyps and development of a white film over portions of the colony, associated with necrosis of the polyps and tissue. Flushing away the white film reveals that this condition rapidly destroys the coral tissue, causing it to separate from the skeleton and literally disintegrate. The condition is often associated with a foul smell and sometimes hydrogen sulfide production from the core of the skeleton. In any case these causes of death are swift and not related to the slow wasting condition.<<

Beggiatoa – sulfur oxidizer. Forms white webs and mats and a known coral tissue effector.


>>Some aquarists believe that Goniopora stokesi simply needs more food in aquaria, that the symptoms of slow decline are really a sign of starvation (Toonen, 1999a and Toonen, 2001). This natural supposition does not make sense when coupled with a few other observations. First, the occasional specimen of Goniopora stokesi thrives and grows for years without supplemental feeding, in closed systems and in open systems. Other Goniopora spp. also thrive without supplemental food aside from what is offered to the fishes. The Goniopora sp. at Waikiki, for example, is in an open system fed plankton-free well water. If food were the only issue, surely specimens maintained in heavily fed aquariums would fare better than those maintained in sparsely fed aquariums. They apparently don't.<<

This cannot be said by any means. Coral species differ markedly in their dietary items, and Goniopora are no exception. At least some species thrive in areas of heavy particulates, and one cannot assume that food, whether supplied naturally or artificially (supplemental) is providing the required diet. Dendronephthya and other soft corals are prime examples of this. It may well be that the “easy species” whatever they are, are zooplanktivores and the “hard species” are not. Or perhaps they are nanozooplanktivores and there isn’t enough of that food source. Or herbivores – or detritovores – clearly implicating low nutrient systems and previous poor success given the lack of such things in typical tank systems.

>>Bleaching induced starvation

When Goniopora stokesi begins to decline it bleaches and becomes sensitive to light: bright light makes it bleach further and retract its tentacles (Sprung, 1999). The tentacles furthermore become stumpy and degenerate.<<

Yes, they waste. Wasting, because the coral is starving from lack of photosynthate. See the similarity?

>> Though the photosynthetically produced exudates from its symbiotic zooxanthellae is a source of food, the light harms the coral for reasons I'll shortly explain, and thus it cannot obtain sufficient food from its symbionts. Gradual tissue recession results, partly due to starvation and partly due to what I believe is the principle problem, oxidative stress damage. This situation is a bit of a paradox: Starvation is not the cause of the problem, but Goniopora stokesi apparently do slowly starve to death in aquariums.<<

Sure, but this is when and where bleaching occurs. Most of the wasting Goniopora are not bleached.

>>While bacteria can cause infections and tissue loss in corals, other bacteria on corals have been associated with bleaching alone or bleaching that leads to tissue loss. Rosenberg and Loya (1999) describes how bleaching in a species of Oculina is caused by a species of bacteria, Vibrio shiloi. In Sprung (1999) I stated my opinion that the slow wasting condition in Goniopora stokesi may be a disease caused by a specific pathogenic bacterium, as in the example of Oculina shiloi. While I still believe that such a pathogen may affect Goniopora spp. sometimes, I do not believe it is the principle factor in the slow wasting condition commonly observed in G. stokesi in captivity.<<

Good.

 

[Eric Borneman]

>> I still believe the principle factor is a bleaching phenomenon, but I believe that it involves the system used to detoxify oxygen free radicals generated during photosynthesis. Before I elaborate on that I want to continue for a moment on the topic of bacteria induced bleaching.

A more recent study (Ben-Haim and Rosenberg, 2002) made the connection between the effect observed in the Mediterranean and one observed on tropical reefs in the common tropical Indo-Pacific coral Pocillopora damicornis collected from Zanzibar (see Delbeek, 2002 for some additional comments regarding this paper).<<

Neither of you guys are looking at this recent paper very well. I have not commented on this work, because the data is very questionable and I received a preliminary copy of this paper. The data has changed significantly since the first reports – and also the finally published paper omits things in prior versions apparently not accepted for publication. The temperatures, effects or the bacterium, and methods are still very very questionable. It does show nicely the effects of temperature on pathogenicity correlating to the V. shiloi model, but the colonies of Pocillopora were originally bleached. The bacterium reisolated did not cause bleaching, but lysis – and this does not fulfill Koch’s postulates at all. Also, the temperatures were not anomalously high and cannot be extrapolated to other situations. Much more work is needed in this model.

>>The fact that bacteria have been associated with coral bleaching in some species of corals does not mean that bacteria are involved with bleaching symptoms in Goniopora. Anecdotal field observations, however, lead me to believe that at least sometimes bacteria may be involved. Borneman (2002) reports "random occasional bleaching" mixed with healthy colonies in deep water in Indonesia. Veron (1986) on page 248 shows photographs of such mixed bleached and unbleached Goniopora pandoraensis. Such patchy effects need to be examined to determine whether their cause is environmental or due to the effects of pathogens. The hypothesis must be tested.<<

I agree

>>What needs to be done to understand whether bacteria may be involved with the bleaching in Goniopora spp. is to:

1. Isolate a suspected pathogenic microorganism from an "affected" Goniopora. (i.e., one having symptoms such as reduced polyp expansion, bleaching, etc.)

2. Grow this organism in pure culture.

3. Inject the culture of this microorganism into a healthy host (one that is free of the same pathogen and apparently healthy) to determine if the symptoms are reproduced by such an inoculation.

4. Recover the suspected microorganism from the experimentally infected host.

This method is referred to in microbiology as applying Koch's postulates and it is used to demonstrate the causative agent of a disease.<<

Unfortunately, Koch’s postulates are very limited in coral disease studies because of viable non-culturables. Also, one omission from the statement above is that the agent must be present in ALL cases, not just one or two. And, first, one must adequately describe what a “case” is. Given that the action of various microbes may have similar effects given the limited number of physiological signs of disease in metazoans, it is hard to say if the action may be due to one or numerous agents. I.e. bleaching. Bleaching can be caused by light, temperature, bacteria, chemical exposure, etc. All have the same signs…loss of zooxanthellae. Therefore, extrapolate to biotic disease and agents. Ten bacteria might produce the same signs, and Koch’s postulates would be wrong in a less than complete sampling. This is why epizootiological data must be included.

>>An additional approach, which can be done in conjunction as a part of the study, is to determine if antibiotic treatment reverses the slow wasting condition. The authors of the papers on Oculina and Pocillopora were able to block the disease with specific antibiotics.<<

And unable in other cases, including unpublished results. Again, see above….must be the case in ALL cases.

>> Nevertheless, I suspect that the majority of incidences of slow wasting in Goniopora stokesi are not due to disease, but are instead related to an inability to detoxify oxygen free-radicals in the captive environment. The question is, why does this species almost always seem to bleach in captivity?<<

In almost no cases of wasting have I seen bleaching as part of the wasting response. Wasting occurs after bleaching, but bleaching doesn’t in any way necessarily occur before wasting.

>>Recently there has been an increased interest in supplementation with iron and, to a lesser extent, manganese in aquarium publications (Holmes-Farley, 2002a and b). While some of the interest surrounds the use of iron by plants in refugium filters, the benefit to zooxanthellae and corals is less studied but implied (Sprung 2002, Holmes-Farley 2002a). Holmes-Farley (2002b) offers a review of scientific literature concerning experiments with iron and corals, as well as studies of the iron content in corals.

The literature concerning iron and corals is not voluminous, but for plants that is another story. Iron is essential for the synthesis of chlorophyll, for the release of energy from sugars and starches accomplished by light energy transferring compounds during photosynthesis, and it is a component of several important enzymes. These functions are crucial to corals that have symbiotic zooxanthellae.

Manganese is a cofactor that is essential for chloroplast production and chlorphyll formation, and it also participates and assists iron in energy release from energy transferring molecules during photosynthesis. Manganese is also involved in the uptake of nitrogen. Manganese also activates important enzymes, and is involved with superoxide dismutase, an enzyme that detoxifies oxygen free-radicals.

This indicates a connection to the zooxanthellae and bleaching, which is often a response to the over-production of oxygen free radicals (Warner, et al., 1999, Downs, et al, 2002). Different forms of superoxide dismutase have iron or manganese. There are other forms of superoxide dismutase with other metal ions associated with them, but only iron and manganese are likely to be limiting in closed aquariums (Shimek, 2002, Fosså and Nilsen, 1996).<<

Interestingly enough, iron is also generally the limiting factor in bacterial pathogenicity. Would increasing iron contribute to increasing microbial pathogens?

>>An additional effect of the iron and manganese supplement on Goniopora cf. tenuidens also is demonstrable. All…<<

How many? – all in your experience, or all?

 

[Eric Borneman]

>>… imported specimens of a purple and blue variety of this species exhibit polyp contraction that soon leads to gradual tissue recession and polyp loss. I have observed dozens of specimens, all exhibiting the same condition from the moment they were received. <<

Shipping stress? From the moment received implies that things are happening quickly and visibly, which in turn implies a stress related response.

>>Intrigued by this I wondered whether it might be possible to reverse the condition and keep one of these colorful Gonioporas. I bought one at a local shop in Miami and placed it in one of my aquariums, high up under metal halide light and in moderate water flow. It is my experience that members of the Poritidae that have strong purple or blue pigment tend to occur in bright light situations on the reef.<<

Agreed. Purple and blue are likely high light fluorescing proteins.

>> The Goniopora cf. tenuidens remained closed for several days, but I noticed that the addition of a supplement I prepared that contains iron and manganese seemed to stimulate polyp expansion in the coral within hours. When I discontinued the addition, after a few days the polyps remained contracted for days. When I added the supplement again they expanded within hours and stayed expanded for a few days. When I added the supplement regularly the polyps remained expanded and developed colorful tentacles. <<

Had they lost the coloration? How fast? Photoacclimation? The colors aren’t from zoox, and are animal derived. Are we now postulating that the iron affects animal…. or zoox?… or both? It is possible that iron is involved in blue pigmentation. Could be a required precursor to synthesis similar to Heliopora pigment..

>>The anecdotal observation that iron and manganese seem to help alleviate bleaching symptoms in G. tenuidens, and the literature concerning detoxification of oxygen free-radicals suggests these elements are useful to the coral, but does not necessarily suggest that Goniopora stokesi has a special requirement for iron and manganese<<

Yes, indeed. I would expect that high light Goniopora would gain more from the light in terms of C, and the other species would need to be looked at. Iron limitation is getting better established in phytoplankton. I’m curious about this because I see two possibilities that are not bleaching related – as I don’t think the contraction and wasting are particularly related to bleaching, exept where bleaching might occur. However, iron might very well foster phytoplankton growth, and then feed the coral, as phytoplankton might be an important trophic resource. However, the time you relate is probably too quick to see that kind of phytoplankton response in terms of normal doubling times. However, it is intriguing in that normally zoox are not going to respond like free-living phytoplankton because of host limitation. However, dissolved substances are available to zoox without host involvement. So, they could be iron limited. It is an interesting postulation. It also goes in well with higher nutrient tank success since iron may be provided in such tanks via particulate sources including bacteria attached to these particles. But, as you mention, it needs controlled studies.

>>I am in the process of acquiring numerous specimens of Goniopora stokesi for a long-term controlled study of the effect of supplementing iron and manganese. The ultimate purpose of the study is to either prove or disprove my hypothesis that the slow wasting syndrome that affects this species in captivity is caused by a bleaching phenomenon related to the loss of ability to detoxify oxygen free-radicals. The first phase of the study is to demonstrate<<

Again, many wasting Goniopora are not bleached.

>>1. That iron and manganese limitation or supply affects Goniopora stokesi.<<

2. It prevents or reverses the slow wasting syndrome.<<

If this is a hypothesis, it should be clearer – affects how? How will it be studied? How will you assay for bleaching and SOD? How will you control variables?

>>Branchy Goniopora and Alveopora.

In Sprung (1999a) I described a set up I created initially as a refugium/Jaubert plenum filter system, which has turned out to be quite a nice place for growing branched Goniopora and Alveopora. For Alveopora and branchy Goniopora species (for example, G. pandoraensis, G. eclipsensis, and G. columna) that look like Alveopora, moderate to relatively low light intensity and moderate to low water flow are best. In the low flow, diffuse light aquarium with shallow water I have been able to grow branchy Goniopora pandoraensis and Alveopora gigas for several years. They extend their daisy-like polyps beautifully. <<

Is there some difference you can relate regarding growth form patterns that do not apply to encrusting, semi-massive or free-living species?

>>These corals simply would not survive in the typical "more-flow, more-light" systems in vogue today among reef keepers. I have not seen any of the above-mentioned species take food offered to them, whether live or particulate.<<


Agreed. But, once again, you – and most aquarists – are assuming that visible food capture must occur. The foods being captured might simply be too small to see.

>> While it is true that such a placement is generally good for many members of this genus, it is not the substrate itself that benefits the coral. Rather it is the less intense and less direct light, as well as lower water flow.<<

agreed – but only for those species which inhabit lower light environments. The polyps of most species would mandate the lower flow environment, but some of the species have relatively short columns and reduced expansion and can be found in higher flow habitats.

>>I have maintained Alveopora spp. on the substrate and attached to rock, but always with indirect light and moderate to low water flow. Toonen (1999) discusses occasional success with Goniopora stokesi in refugium aquariums. As such aquariums typically also include various algae, it may be that the aquarist is supplementing with iron and manganese for the algae and benefiting the coral, or that exudates from the algae are chelating the iron and manganese in the water and maintaining adequate levels for the coral. The algae also give off spores that the coral may feed on. <<

Maybe – sexual reproduction in the algae might not be a particularly common event except for Halimeda and Caulerpa. But I agree that a correlation might be proposed for the algae/iron link.

 

[Eric Borneman]

>>Alveopora japonica

This small species is popular with aquarists in Japan where it is readily available. Colonies are typically small spheres, about one or two inches in diameter, but with the polyps extended these are about three or four inches across. They come in fantastic combinations of green, white, and gray. Alveopora japonica is a bit more sensitive to high temperatures than other Alveopora species. It should be maintained below 80 degrees F., with moderate to low light levels. It tolerates strong water motion but shows best in low to moderate flow. It should not be placed on the substrate because sand-shifting creatures may bury it. This species does not take food offered.<<

Food offered does not equate to not feeding.

>>Goniopora fruticosa,

This species is occasionally harvested in Indonesia for aquariums, mostly unintentionally, as small colonies attached to another organism. Goniopora fruticosa, has chocolate brown polyps with white oral cones. The polyps don't extend quite as much as in other Goniopora spp. I saw this species in clear water on reef slopes in the Solomon Islands. Colonies are encrusting with numerous short upright branches, and may cover large surface areas. They were not on exposed reef fronts, but instead occurred on more protected slopes that are at about a 45 degree angle with respect to the surface. The currents were slight to moderate in this habitat. In captivity they tolerate a wide range of light intensity. This species does take small zooplankton.<<

Case in point for different diets among the many species.

>>The past few years a very beautiful bright red species, Goniopora cf. somaliensis has been imported from Indonesia with some regularity, and it is popular owing to the fact that it is among the hardiest species. It fares well both in low light low flow aquariums and bright light strong flow aquariums. With strong water flow and stronger light they develop longer, fatter polyps with stringy tentacles and acrospheres on the tips of the tentacles. This species does take small zooplankton.<<

Many of the red Goniopora are free-living and do not correspond to G. somaliensis. I believe (or hope) it will be a new species or two. Doug Fenner and I will be looking at several colonies of these red species in the new year, branching, and free-living, as the color morph and habitat appears to be consistent enough and the corallite diameter variant from known species with similar skeletal arrangements.

Interesting observations, but I think there are far too many inconsistencies among the species and the “wasting syndromes” that are reported here. I look forward to seeing the experiment and results with iron, but would suggest that the mechanism might be difficult to establish with aquarium studies and would also suggest that the iron limitation, if it exists, might be due to maintenance, growth and reproduction of zoox in providing razor-thin energy budgets in low-light species that cannot tolerate less than a full complement of zoox rather than in the postulated bleaching/wasting correlation that I don’t see as being evident in theory or practice in captive husbandry. The SOD thing might be relevant in terms of bleaching, but again, I don’t think it’s necessarily related to the wasting since too many wasting Goniopora retain normal pigmentation. Zoox counts would need to be done to see if this is indeed the case. Maybe quick mitotic indices as an assay?

Also, if the hypothesis concerning iron in Goniopora as a genus is relevant, then how do the exceptions (such as the “hardy” species) occur? Species-specific iron limitation? I doubt it. Rather, I think that those species more adapted to prey capture can manage without the iron from nutrient intake. So, once again, we are back to starvation – either from appropriate prey items or from zoox production. Either way, its starvation. Even with a full complement of zoox, these corals will be N limited, and low light species probably C-limited, as well. So, input of those elements must be acquired via some sort of uptake – dissolved, particulate, or planktonic. Whether iron as a dissolved compound might be able to short circuit the more natural means of uptake might be useful, but it still, I think, is treating the symptoms and not the root cause. And, needless to say, dissolved iron supplements may, depending on the tank, allow for all sorts of thigns to happen in organisms more iron-limited and more efficient at iron uptake than corals – ie..bacteria and algae. Still, worth looking at. Perhaps if it turns out well, and that phytoplankton are a substantial portion of sensitive species nutient uptake, then iron enriched phytoplankton would provide a bound source less exploitable than the dissolved form?

Overall, I think this idea shows promise, but the article as it is seems to vascillate between using conjecture to support or not support the specificities of species of Goniopora as a genus, and then turns 180 degrees and supports or not supports the same for all species in the genus. As with most speciose genera, there are wide varieties in habitat, and likely behavior and physiological and ecological requirements. I suspect that no one solution will be a perfect one for all species.

 

[Eric Borneman]

Also, here are some photos of some "troubled" wild Goniopora - some of these rather look like "wasting", some like bacteria, but in no case can anything really be said about the similarities - just some photos.

 

[HK StYle]

hi there,

My green Goniopora is like healthy and is multiplying, i now have a baby Goniopora about 1cm in diametre.

stephen

 

[tinycrazycrawler]

Nice reply Eric!
I read the Sprung article and your answer with a lot of interest. Hope that Sprung will answer!
More, another time I ask to Sprung: what kind of Fe and manganese supplement you are using?

 

[Adam1]

Stephen,

I have heard Eric comment that you Aussies don't have any trouble keeping Goni's.

Bastards!

Just kidding! Seriously though, is Fe and Mn supplementation popular with Australian reefers? My hunch was that you guys get differents species than we do (with better collection, handling and shipping)........

since most of your stuff comes from the GBR.

Bastards!

Kidding again

Adam

 

[Jasonpb]

Adam,

I wouldn't take much notice of what Stephen says as he has a tendancy of killing things. As for the Goniopora, we are faced with the exact same problems as you people in the US have. Not everything comes from the GBR infact ~90% of my corals come from the top end of WA and the other ~10% from NT.

I have only ever purchased one Goniopora myself and it lasted around a year before wasting away so it is not something I will rush out and purchase again and hopefully others (Stephen) will stop buying these corals.

cheers
Jason