Reef Ramblings

January 11th 2013

Harking back to recent coverage of the public aquarium ‘Big Fish Campaign’ in UltraMarine and on Reef Ramblings, here is a good example of the potential problems caused by fish that grow to a size too large for the average aquarium.

Back in late December spear fisherman, Greg Caterino, caught what was initially a mystery species of fish, off North Key Largo, Florida.

Greg Caterino with the humpback grouper that he speared off North Key Largo.
Image: Wayne Grammes / KeysNet.com

This image helps put into perspective the potential size of this species.

On closer examination the 6.8 kilo (15 pound), 0.7 metre (27 inch) long fish was identified as a specimen of Chromileptes altivelis. Common names for this fish include: Humpback Grouper, Panther Grouper, and in Australia the Barramundi Cod.

Juveniles of this species are often found in the UK aquarium trade sold under the name Panther Grouper. As juveniles, at length of around 10 cms, these fish are attractive to inexperienced aquarists owing to their striking colouration of black polka dots on a white background.  Unfortunately they don’t retain their distinctive appearance and, as they grow, so does their appetite with any tank mate that can fit into their mouth becoming a potential meal.

Image: Tim Hayes

Example of a ‘cute’ juvenile Panther Grouper.

Although not directly relevant to the UK because of our cooler climate, in addition to the ‘Big Fish’ issue, there is the secondary issue of invasive species to consider. This is an Indo-Pacific species, almost certainly released into the sea by an aquarist whose tank it had outgrown. According to Lad Akins, Project Director for the Reef Environmental Education Foundation,  “This is not the first time these have been sighted in Florida, there have been five or six reported as far back as the 1980s, but all from different parts of the state.”

With one Indo-Pacific species, the Lionfish, Pterois volitans, well on the way to being established in the region, the fear in this area of the US is of another foreign invader joining it to the detriment of the local marine ecosystem.

Click here to learn more about the the Big Fish Campaign.

Tim Hayes

Reef Ramblings

©2013

The International trade in live corals may help preserve wild  corals and coral reefs.

In the wake of the recent proposal by the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to list 66 species of coral under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Sea Shepherd adding the elimination of the aquarium hobby to its aims, it is heartening to see a study published this week showing that the reef aquarium trade may be having a positive influence on coral reefs.

The study, ‘Long-term trends of coral imports into the United States indicate future opportunities for ecosystem and societal benefits’ by Rhyne, Tlusty, and Kaufman, was published in the December issue of the journal Conservation Letters. The team of researchers from Roger Williams University, Boston University, Conservation International, and the New England Aquarium, suggest that the trade in live corals may help to preserve wild corals and coral reef ecosystems.

Whereas trade in corals was once primarily a trade of dried skeletons as curios, it is now concentrated on supplying live corals for the reef aquarium hobby in a trade that is continually evolving, with the introduction of species new to the hobby.

The authors analysed 21 years of US import data, finding that the coral trade had increased over 8% per year between 1990 until the mid-2000s, and has since reduced by 9% annually. The timing of the peak and decline varies between species, and is a result of the rising popularity of the reef aquarium hobby, global financial issues, and an increase in domestic aquaculture production, with the decrease mostly owing to the current economic climate.

The live coral trade is viewed by some critics as a threat to the high biodiversity ecosystems that make up the coral reefs, however, supplying the aquarium trade with locally cultivated corals offers opportunities for reef conservation, provides sustainable economic benefits to coastal communities, along with an incentive to protect the reefs from which the mother colonies are obtained.

Recent changes in the trade of live corals for the reef aquarium hobby are resulting in new opportunities for conservation. “The trade has moved from a wild harvest to mariculture production, a change sparked by long-term efforts to produce a sustainable income to small island countries such as the Solomon Islands and also by the government of Indonesia,” says Andrew Rhyne, lead-author and Roger Williams University assistant professor of marine biology and research scientist at the New England Aquarium. This shift from a wild fishery to a mariculture product poses new opportunities and challenges for conservationists.

The rapid evolution of the trade with new species waxing and waning in value makes effective management difficult. “New species in the live coral trade initially command high prices, but as they become common the price drops with feedback effects to the trade,” said Les Kaufman, Boston University professor of biology and research fellow at Conservation International.

“The live coral trade offers opportunities for coral reef ecosystem conservation and sustainable economic benefits to coastal communities,” says Rhyne. Michael Tlusty of the New England Aquarium, adding that “the realization of these externalities will require effective data tracking.”

Coral reefs are subject to numerous anthropogenic threats including the global threat of warming oceans that are becoming more acidic, and local threats such as improper land use resulting in increased nutrient loading, and over-fishing, which can trigger an ecological cascade resulting in blooms of seaweed that inhibit coral growth.

Trade can be a strong incentive for conservation, but this emerging local conservation tool may be at risk from well-intended restrictions to trade such as ESA listing, and similar prohibitions, intended to protect corals and coral reefs. Restrictions such as these may eliminate the benefits of the trade revealed by the study. These benefits include putting a value on intact coral reefs, and providing a greatly needed income for many in the island nations where hundreds of millions of people rely on the reef for subsistence. A more selective regulatory approach that allows local efforts to sensibly manage reef resources may be preferable.

Editorial comment

It is refreshing to see a study that emphasises the value of the reef aquarium hobby to those living in supply countries who rely on the reefs for their meagre livelihood. Putting greater value on the reefs locally would, hopefully, bring about a reduction in destructive fishing methods such as dynamite fishing and the use of cyanide

In recognising the value of the trade in corals as a positive tool for reef conservation it would seem appropriate if some way could be found for these mostly poor, subsistence fisherman to gain greater benefits from the aquarium trade, acknowledging their role in managing the reef environment.

As an aside, it’s interesting to see that the decline in trade varies species to species and the comments regarding new species, suggesting that species popularity may be subject to fashion and whim rather than an desire to recreate a realistic portrayal of the wild reef in the home aquarium.

Tim Hayes

Reef Ramblings

©2012

The recent appointment of Robert Wintner to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society’s Board of Directors heralds a new threat to the reef aquarium industry and hobby.

Wintner, also known as ‘Snorkel Bob’, has been an outspoken opponent of the collection of fishes for the aquarium trade in Hawaii, campaigning for an outright ban on the collection and exportation of Hawaiian reef fishes. His description of the reef aquarium hobby is full of negative hyperbole and questionable facts, painting an over-the-top picture of the hobby as being tremendously destructive of reef life.

With his appointment to the board of Sea Shepherd he is extending his opposition to the reef aquarium trade to one of worldwide elimination.

Sea Shepherd

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, initially named “Earth Force Society”, was formed in 1977, after its founder, Paul Watson, was expelled from the board of Greenpeace over disagreements about his direct action activism.

Over the years Sea Shepherd has engaged in various campaigns opposing Drift-netting, Seal hunting, Whaling, Shark-finning, and Dolphin hunting, these have often included direct action which has led to some critics describing their actions as piracy or terrorism.

For more about the organisation see: http://www.seashepherd.org/

See also the Wikepedia entry for Sea Shepherd, which details its history along with a record of the organisation’s various campaigns.

Sea Shepherd’s Position on the Aquarium Trade

Since his appointment Wintner has issued a statement on Sea Shepherd’s position on the aquarium trade, entitled, “Wildlife Species are a Public Trust, Not Disposable Trinkets”

“The aquarium trade serves a dark hobby, confining coral reef wildlife and destroying reefs around the world. Stripping reefs for an amusement industry is theoretically no different than capturing cetaceans for commercial shows. 98% of aquarium fish are wild caught. Many people may not reflect on the colorful fish in glass tanks used as furnishings for offices, bistros, waiting rooms, or homes—and some people may assume those fish are bred in captivity. The fact is that 2% of those fish are captive-bred and 98% are taken from the wild. This devastating practice results in severe mortality rates from the point of capture through handling, shipping, and acclimation. Coral damage is well documented and often witnessed with viewers observing anchors, chains, and nets in the coral and collectors breaking coral in pursuit of a few more bucks.

The aquarium trade is covered in verbiage, but trafficking in reef wildlife for the pet trade is not sustainable or “captive-bred whenever possible.” 40 million reef fish and invertebrates supply 1.5 million aquariums around the world, annually. Wildlife species are a public trust, not disposable trinkets. Marine reef systems are intricately balanced, with each species performing a role in reef maintenance and balance. Multiband Butterflyfish do not leave their reef by choice. Once stripped of Multiband Butterflies, the species is lost to that reef indefinitely. The Hawaiian cleaner wrasse is a charismatic, vital species endemic to Hawaii. They set up cleaning stations where many species gather for grooming in a social setting. Hawaiian cleaner wrasses die in thirty days of captivity without 30-40 other fish to clean, yet they ship out daily for retail sale. Many reefs in Hawaii are now vulnerable to parasite loading. Yellow tangs are herbivores, grazing on algae dawn to dusk to prevent reef suffocation, yet they ship out by the millions to enhance aquarium trade profits. Hawaii’s Director of Natural Resources should not be an aquarium collector. Nor should reef species be sacrificed to support any amusement industry, including sales of tanks, stands, lights, tickets, or decorative trinkets. Under pressure worldwide from acidification, climate change, and associated events—like crown of thorns starfish invasions triggered by warmer water—coral reef systems must maintain optimal immune systems with a full balance of species.The staggering death rate of captive reef wildlife occurs mostly in the 30-day span between capture and chemical error in a home aquarium. Many of these species live for decades in the wild, providing reef function and reef balance.

Hawaii is the third largest supplier of reef fish in the U.S. aquarium trade, accounting for empty reefs and vanishing reef species. Florida takes millions of reef individuals annually, even as society scapegoats the invasive lionfish, a voracious predator introduced by the aquarium trade to east coast and Caribbean reefs. Lionfish did not reach the Atlantic on their own.

Aquarium trade trafficking leaves reefs unbalanced, degraded, and depleted. No factor in reef decline can absolve any other factor- acidification, runoff, climate change, or any other negative impact on reef health cannot justify aquarium extraction. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society seeks to stop global trafficking in live fish for hobby or display markets.”

What should the reef aquarium hobby do in response?

The reef aquarium hobby and industry needs to demonstrate that they are not wantonly destroying reef animals. Fishes and corals can, and do, live out their natural lifespan, in reef aquaria, free of the danger of predation. In the case of corals this can be a lifespan stretching into decades during which time many additional colonies may be created through asexual reproduction, which can in turn, be distributed back into the trade, reducing the quantities harvested from the wild.

The aquarium industry is an important source of income for some of the least well off peoples in the world who live in the supply countries. Increasingly corals are being maricultured for the trade in the supply countries, reducing the impact on the wild.

Indeed, as I try and point out whenever I can, the reef aquarium hobby has an important role in educating people about the dangers of climate change. Most people are never going to visit a tropical reef; by bringing a small slice of the reef into the home we can show non hobbyists the marvellous animals that we are in danger of losing to higher water temperature and acidification, helping to bring awareness of the realities of mankind’s affect on the planet

The aquarium hobby is not perfect but neither is it anywhere near as dark as Sea Shepherd would like to make out, if aquarium losses where anywhere near as high as suggested the hobby would have shut down long ago.  Doubtless we can improve the lives of the fishes, coral, and other invertebrates that are central to the hobby and prevent any unnecessary losses through education.

Organisations such as SAIA, the Sustainable Aquarium Industry Association, exist to help educate both the hobby and the trade by offering information on ‘Best Practises’ to ensure high standards of husbandry.

Do your bit for the hobby, show off your reef aquarium to as many non-hobbyists as possible, research potential new acquisitions before purchase, learn as much as possible about the reef animals that you keep to ensure their long-term survival, and support SAIA in its efforts to educate and inform.

Additional references:

Wintner’s statement on Sea Shepherd’s position on the aquarium trade.

Sea Shepard board of directors.

Tim Hayes

Reef Ramblings

©2012

Coral Gobies are those Goby species that live in association with stony corals, often branching Acropora species, in a relationship that up until now has been described as commensal.

New research from the Georgia Institute of Technology reveals that the relationship between coral gobies and their coral hosts is more complex than previously believed. Coral gobies are small fishes, around 2.5 centimetres long, that spend their entire life living amongst the branches and crevices of their coral host, protected from predators.

This paper, published in the latest issue of the journal Science, ‘Corals Chemically Cue Mutualistic Fishes to Remove Competing Seaweeds’, seems to demonstrate that the relationship between the fish and the coral is a mutualistic one, benefiting both parties. The researchers found evidence that coral gobies respond to chemical signals from the coral, generated when the coral was under threat from toxic algae, stimulating the fish to remove the invasive seaweed.

The study revolved around Acropora nasuta, as with other Acroporids, an important reef building coral, and 2 species of coral goby, Gobiodon histrio – a popular aquarium species, and Paragobiodon echinocephalus. G. histrio was shown to consume the invasive seaweed whilst P. echinocephalus removed it.

Gobiodon histrio

Coral-dwelling gobies in the genus Gobiodon posses toxic skin secretions believed to act as a chemical defence against predation by larger fishes, this study also showed that the gobies eating the toxic seaweed increased the toxicity of their skin secretions.

Commensalism versus Mutualism

Commensalism is defined as a class of relationship between two organisms where one organism benefits without affecting the other. In view of this new research it would seem that this relationship should be redefined as one of mutualism, a relationship in which both organisms benefit. Given that this relationship has been described for two species of coral goby it seem likely that most, if not all, of the small fishes in this group are engaged in a mutualistic relationship with their coral hosts and hence should be provided with a suitable coral species in captivity.

Which Coral Host?

FishBase lists 20 species under Gobiodon ranging from 2.1 to 6.6 cms total length (TL) and 5 species under Paragobiodon ranging from 3.0 to 3.5 cms TL. I’ve done a quick cross reference between information from FishBase and the book Reef Fishes of the East Indies by Gerald Allen and Mark Erdmann, and come up with a list showing which fish species coexist with which coral.

(GA) source = Reef Fishes of the East Indies

In the Reef Aquarium

In light of the research revealing coral gobies to be in a mutualistic relationship with their coral host I would propose that, from an aquarium point of view, these coral goby species should be kept with a branching coral host to replicate their natural association. Although it would be next to impossible to define the exact species required for each individual fish imported, the provision of something close to their natural habitat may go a long way to reducing stress levels and improving their quality of life in captivity.

In many ways coral gobies are the perfect fish for the reef aquarium. They have little requirement for swimming room so their small size and sedentary lifestyle puts little load on the filtration system. Fed appropriate foods, these small fishes should be able live in captivity in a manner that mirrors their natural existence, noticing little difference from their life in the wild.

It is interesting to reflect that for very small fish, coral gobies can have an unusually long lifespan, living up to ten years in captivity. By contrast, the slightly smaller gobies in genus Trimma may have a lifespan measured in weeks.

See also, ‘An Introduction to Gobies for the Nano Reef: Genus Gobiodon and Paragobiodon – Coral or Clown Gobies.‘

Tim Hayes

Reef Ramblings

©2012

On September 13^th the Center for Biological Diversity filed a formal petition with the US National Marine Fisheries Service seeking Endangered Species Act protection for the Percula clownfish, Amphiprion percula, and seven similarly coral-dependent damselfish threatened by climate change, ocean acidification and the marine aquarium trade.

© G.R. Allen.

The eight Pomacentrid species covered by the petition are:

• Amphiprion percula, Orange or Percula clownfish.
• Chromis atripectoralis, Black-axil Chromis.
• Chromis viridis, Blue-green damselfish.
• Dascyllus albisella, Hawaiian damselfish.
• Dascyllus reticulates, Reticulate damselfish or Two-stripe damselfish.
• Microspathodon chrysurus, Yellowtail damselfish or Jewel damselfish.
• Plectroglyphidodon dickii, Blackbar devil or Dick’s damselfish.
• Plectroglyphidodon johnstonianus, Blue-eye damselfish.

Arguably only four of these species are desirable aquarium fish:

• Amphiprion percula, Orange or Percula clownfish.
• Chromis atripectoralis, Black-axil Chromis.
• Chromis viridis, Blue-green damselfish.
• Dascyllus reticulates, Reticulate damselfish or Two-stripe damselfish.

The other four species can be aggressive and, in the case of the two Plectroglyphidodon species, difficult to feed in the aquarium, having a coral based diet. None of these four fish feature to any extent in the UK hobby.

How threatened are these fishes?

An examination of the IUCN Red List revealed that none of these species has yet been evaluated. A search of FishBase revealed that with the exception of two of the species these fish are rated as having a high resilience and low vulnerability, with a minimum population doubling time of less than 15 months.

The exceptions were:

Plectroglyphidodon johnstonianus, which was rated as having a high resilience with a minimum population doubling time of less than 15 months, but a vulnerability of low to moderate

 and

Microspathodon chrysurus, rated as having a medium resilience with a minimum population doubling time of 1.4 – 4.4 years and vulnerability of low to moderate.

FishBase lists 385 species of Anemonefishes and Damselfishes in the family Pomacentridae. It is difficult to see why these eight species in particular have been picked for this petition when much of the reasoning behind them being considered endangered applies to the entire family.

To see the petition in full, Clownfish-and-damselfish-petition-2012.

To learn more about the Centre for Biological Diversity, click here.

If the petition were to be granted it would prevent collection of these eight species from US waters and would also prevent them from being traded in the US regardless of their geographical origin.

Captive breeding.

Of the eight listed species only Amphiprion percula, the Orange or Percula clownfish, has been successfully bred and commercially raised in captivity. It may be argued that if we can breed a species in captivity that it may no longer be appropriate to collect it from the wild.

Previous petitions affecting the reef aquarium hobby.

It’s worth noting that the Center for Biological Diversity has a history of seeking Endangered Species status for organisms trade in the reef aquarium industry.

In 2009 the Center petitioned to protect 83 species of stony corals in the Caribbean, Hawaii and the Indo-Pacific. The National Marine Fisheries Service determined that 56 of these corals are likely to go extinct by the end of the century, primarily because of ocean warming, ocean acidification and disease. The Service will decide whether these corals merit protection under the Endangered Species Act in December 2012. See, ‘The Beginning of the End for Stony Corals in the Reef Aquarium Hobby‘

In April 2011 the Centre also petitioned to list the Dwarf Seahorse, Hippocampus zosterae, as a threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. See, ‘Center for Biological Diversity Seeks Endangered Species Act Protection for the Dwarf Seahorse’

See also: US May Ban 66 Stony Coral Species.

Tim Hayes

Midland Reefs

©2012

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC) made several changes and clarifications to marine life management, defined as tropical ornamental species, at its September Commission meeting in Tampa on Wednesday, including a three-year ban on the collection of the giant Caribbean Sea anemone, Condylactis gigantea.

Photo Robin Hayes ©2012

The prohibition of the collection the giant Caribbean Sea anemone was at the request of the Florida Marine Life Association (FMLA), the organisation of collectors that supply fish and invertebrates to the aquarium industry, and has the aim of letting their dwindling population recover and rebuild. The FMLA said that the anemone has suffered a sharp decline in the past few years, possibly from excessive collecting and partly from the cold weather that blanketed southern Florida in 2010.

The ban takes effect on 1^st November. Up until now commercial divers have been able to take up to 200 anemones per trip, and recreational divers could take up to five per day but it has taken more effort for divers to reach these quotas over recent years. In the early 2000s Commercial divers noticed a decline in the number of anemones in the Middle and Upper Keys. Landings of the giant anemones dropped from 227,238 in 1994 to 28,656 in 2011.

The FWC will return to the issue within three years with a proposal for future management of this species.

Management is important given the central role of Condylactis gigantea in the local ecosystem, where it provides shelter to a variety of commensal species including fishes and Periclemenes species cleaner shrimp, and serves as fish cleaning stations. The decline in numbers of this anemone might have a knock-on affect adversely influencing many other species.

The ban will prohibit collection in Florida waters, but Condylactis anemones should still be available from other locations, as it has a wide distribution in the Caribbean Sea and the Western Atlantic Sea, ranging from southern Florida through the Florida Keys to as far south as Brazil and east as Bermuda.

Other changes and clarifications by the FWC include:

• Removal of unicorn filefish, sand perch and dwarf sand perch from what is considered marine life, which will allow these species to be harvested with traditional fishing gear, such as hook and line and cast net, and without the requirement that they be kept in an aerated live well. The recreational bag limit of five of each species per day will no longer apply.
• Clarifying that size limits for angelfish extend to any hybrid forms of the species.
• Clarifying that commercial size limits for angelfish and butterfly fish apply to all harvesters, including recreational.
• Clarifying that the reefs built by Sabellarid tubeworms are live rock and, therefore, cannot be harvested.
• Prohibiting the harvest of black corals, which are already prohibited from harvest in federal waters.
• Expanding the definition of snapping shrimp to include all marine life snapping shrimp species.

Further information:

Concern has been raised as early as 2001 about the status of Condylactis gigantea and its collection for the aquarium trade. see:

Chiappone M, Miller SL, Swanson DW (2001) Condylactis gigantea – A giant comes under pressure from the aquarium trade in Florida. Reef Encounters 30: 29–31.

More recent information on collection for the aquarium trade can be found here:

Crawling to Collapse: Ecologically Unsound Ornamental Invertebrate Fisheries

Tim Hayes

Midland Reefs

©2012

”

3rd September 2012

Over the last few days, starting Thursday 30^th August, we’ve been experiencing what appears to be a run of daily ostracod spawning events. I say ‘appears to be’, as I’ve been unable to find much in the way of details about marine Ostracod reproduction but have found reference to eggs hatching into nauplius larvae which already have a hard shell (Barnes). Otherwise descriptions of ostracod reproduction seems to be vague, describing eggs as being laid in the water as plankton or being attached to vegetation or to the substrate, with some species brooding the eggs inside the parent’s shell. With thousands of species of ostracod it makes identification difficult for anyone other than an ostracod specialist.

Each morning we’ve encountered large numbers of ostracods floating on the surface of a single tank, part of a 1000+ litre, 12-tank critter system. Roughly one millimetre in length and half a millimetre in depth they are forming what I’d describe as an egg raft, with up to a couple of hundred individuals clumping together.

Ostracod ‘Egg Raft’
Midland Reefs ©2012

To be more precise, I should say that they are floating on the surface of the water. This is odd as most small organisms in this size range often have difficulty at the water surface owing to surface tension, a boundary that they are unable to cross, either water to air or air to water. Without intervention small organisms remained trapped by surface tension; localised stirring can breakdown this boundary enabling small organisms to penetrate it and enter the water column.

What is difficult to understand is why these ostracods are on the airside of the water surface as the feed to the tank is below the surface and I can see nothing about the layout of the system that would allow them to be just ‘poured’ onto the surface.

In the reef aquarium ostracods are most commonly seen close to the viewing pane moving around on (and in) the top layer of the substrate. Once harvested from the surface of the water of this single productive tank on the critter system, and mixed into the water column, they quickly settle to the substrate exhibiting the commonly observed behaviour as above.

If we can find out how to intentionally harness this form of reproduction it may prove to be useful in mariculture as another natural food for larval fishes or early juveniles.

I’ve been feeding a proportion of each day’s harvest to our resident population of young clownfishes who are eagerly consuming them.

If anyone out there has an explanation for what is occurring or has had any experience of this phenomenon, please get in touch.

To learn more about ostracods, see Reef Ramblings ‘Zooplankton in the Reef Aquarium – Ostracods’

Tim Hayes

Midland Reefs

©2012

Announcing two new foods for the discerning reefkeeper.

Midland Reefs has just added two new foods to its Reef Scientific range, extending the available range of copepods, RS Frozen Pod-Mix fish & corals and RS Frozen Pod-Mix corals & fish

• RS Frozen Pod-Mix fish & corals, a 700 micron sized copepod mix suitable for most reef fishes and for LPS corals. Roughly equivalent in size to CyclopEeze.

• RS Frozen Pod-Mix corals & fish, a copepod mix containing ‘pods sized from 500 – 700 microns, suitable for feeding finicky corals such as Sea Fans and Gorgonians, Goniopora, and SPS corals, along with smaller reef fishes such as Dragonets or Mandarinfishes. Especially useful for use with fish breeding projects to feed early post larval juveniles, roughly equivalent in size to 2 day old enriched artemia.

A Natural Diet.

The Reef Scientific range of frozen copepods is the nearest thing currently available to the natural diet of the majority of the fishes in the reefkeeping hobby.

Fishes in the hobby tend to be smaller species, say less than 20 cms adult size, with diets mainly comprising copepods along with other small prey items such as fish eggs, fish larva, invertebrate larvae, faeces, etc.

To learn more about copepods and their role in the food chain see: Copepods for the Reef Aquarium. Part 1.

Reef Scientific frozen Calanoid Copepods – The highest quality frozen natural marine zooplankton available anywhere!

High Nutritional Value – High in protein, in omega3, Phospholipids, DHA & EPA, and Astaxanthin.

This range of marine zooplankton is rich in phospholipids, essential fatty acids and proteins along with the caratanoid Astaxanthin. The fatty acid, DHA, is only produced in marine algae and is accumulated in zooplankton as they graze in a process of natural enrichment.

Non-polluting! 100% clean. Needs no pre-rinsing before use. The product is pasteurized for bio-security and sealed, using natural components from crustaceans, minimizing nutrient leakage in the reef aquarium. Can be thawed and kept in the refrigerator for up to 14 days.

Suitable for all saltwater and freshwater fish, corals, and crustaceans.

A number of different species are present in each sizing, providing a rich variety of different nutritional profiles; species include: Temora longicornis, Acartia clausi and Centropages hamatus, Pseudocalanus spp., Paracalanus spp., Microcalanus spp. and early copepodites of C. finmarchicus

Breeding

The smaller-size food particles have a documented positive effect on fish and crustacean larvae.

In co-feeding experiments, clownfish have shown 100% higher growth compared to a diet solely with enriched rotifers and artemia. Survival has increased by 50%.

Dr. Ike Olivotto at the university of Ancona, Italy, has published a paper showing this food to be superior to live feeds such as rotifers and artemia. His research involved comparing two groups of clownfish larvae, one group fed a standard rotifer/Artemia nauplii, diet, the other fed a combination of rotifers/copepod nauplii and Artemia nauplii/copepodites-copepods.

His research showed 100% higher weight along with 30% length increase in clownfishes 10 days post hatching, compared to fish given a diet consisting of enriched rotifers and Artemia. 15 days post hatching, larvae fed with the copepod enhanced diet had a 62% survival rate compared to larvae fed a conventional rotifer/Artemia nauplii diet with a 41% survival rate.

We have used these foods to great success, here at Midland Reefs, raising healthy, well-pigmented, clownfishes, on a diet consisting of rotifers and copepods, whilst completely excluding artemia.

Tim Hayes

Midland Reefs

©2012

27th July 2012

At the time of writing the UK is going through a period of very warm weather so it’s a good time to remind you about the danger that overheating can present to your reef tank. At this time of year reef aquaria can often reach potentially dangerous temperatures, bringing with it two distinct problems: heat induced coral bleaching and depleted oxygen levels.

Saltwater has a lower capacity for carrying dissolved oxygen than freshwater, as temperatures increase this carrying capacity reduces, in a reef with poor gas exchange the level of oxygen in the water can easily drop low enough for animals such as fishes and mobile invertebrates to asphyxiate.

I’d suggest checking that all pumps are working properly and efficiently and making provision for increasing your water movement in case of a prolonged period of hot weather. Making sure that the surface of the water is sufficiently agitated will both enhance gas exchange and aid temperature control via evaporative cooling. I’m currently recommending around a centimetre of “wave height” on the surface of the water, you’ll find that this will also enhance the effect of glitter lines, especially in an aquarium lit with fluorescent lamps.

Although you can mitigate the effects of high temperature induced oxygen depletion by increasing gas exchange, this will only go part way to helping corals to survive. This additional water movement can greatly enhance your corals chances of survival at higher temperatures and may be all that’s needed in some reefs, but ultimately you need to control the upper temperature reached in your aquarium.
It’s unfortunate that the cost of cooling a reef can often be as great, if not greater, than the cost of lighting it. Some reefs may need some form of cooling for the best part of the year owing to the way they’re lit. Your choice of methods of temperature control includes: refrigerant based chillers, evaporative cooling chillers, fans, air conditioners, and extractor fans.

Refrigerant based chillers and evaporative cooling chillers are the most expensive options.

Air conditioners are also expensive but they do have the bonus of controlling room temperature, which you and your family may well appreciate (it may also be a selling point to ”the significant other”, who may well have objected to the purchase of that expensive aquarium chiller!).

Extractor fans are useful to a degree but may make little difference once the room temperature is the same as outside.

Fans can be usefully employed to blow along the surface of the water to promote evaporative cooling, they’re cheap but do remember to take care in their placement as the last thing you want is a mains fan ending up in the aquarium! If possible choose a low voltage fan for safety.

Fans can also be extremely useful with enclosed aquariums and may improve how the tank runs on a daily basis, rather than just at times of high temperature, by improving gas exchange at the surface.

Don’t be tempted to turn aquarium heaters down or off as this will have no influence on water temperature during a warm period, indeed it can be detrimental to your reef when normal temperatures resume if you forget to turn them back on; if you see that a heater is turning on when your tank is running at an elevated temperature it is faulty and needs to be replaced.

Tim Hayes

Midland Reefs

©2012

Up until now I’ve pretty much ignored stories about sharks, not seeing their relevance to coral reefs and reefkeeping, the core subjects of Reef Ramblings; but research presented at ICRS 2012 demonstrating how sharks are an integral part of coral reef communities, has caused me to reassess this view.

Declining shark populations owing to over fishing are having an adverse affect on reefs; the removal of the apex predator is allowing an increase in the populations of medium size predators such as emperors and snappers resulting in a corresponding decrease in the populations of smaller herbivores such as parrotfish and damselfish that are vital to coral growth because of their role in keeping algae under control.

Research by Dr Mark Meekan, principal research scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) shows that the parrotfish that tend coral reefs are in decline in regions where sharks have disappeared, proving the apex predators are vital to reef health. His research looked at reefs northwest of Western Australia where shark stocks have been devastated to meet the Chinese demand for shark fin soup.

“We’ve really ignored sharks as a component of reef communities,” he said, “they’re a key component of the system and even in the best managed places, such as the Great Barrier Reef, we have situations where stocks are declining.”

Shark populations need to be preserved as part of coral reef management, grey reef and white-tipped sharks populations on the Great Barrier Reef are dropping at an alarming rate, Dr Meek said the finding was a call to action to preserve shark populations and “If we’re going to ensure our reefs are around for generations to come, we need to start at the top and with the apex predators”.

Additional research from James Cook University’s Prof Sean Connolly shows that there can be up to 90 per cent fewer reef sharks in fished zones compared with no entry zones.

What can you do as a hobbyist?

One reason that I’ve tended to steer clear of writing about sharks is that I don’t advocate keeping any species of shark in a home aquarium unless you have the resources to provide a system equal to that of a public aquarium.

As a hobbyist the best thing you can do to help conserve sharks is to sign up to a pro-shark campaigns, particularly an anti-finning campaign. There are many organisations out there but as a starting point I’d suggest the Shark Trust, a UK charity for Shark Conservation.

The Shark Trust describes shark finning for the shark fin soup market as: “… the wasteful practice of removing shark fins at sea and discarding the carcass, often still alive, overboard. Tens of millions of sharks are caught each year for their fins. An upper estimate proposes that the fins of as many as 73 million sharks are traded annually. Finning is illegal in many parts of the world including Europe. Despite this in most countries it is still legal to buy and sell shark fins. However, weak legislation and ineffective enforcement often undermines shark-finning regulations. The high value of fins further encourages the exploitation of regulatory loopholes.”

Tim Hayes

Midland Reefs

©2012