Tank aqua scaping help

[Coralgurl]

Originally Posted by ScubaSteve

For me the scaping usually just turns out how the rocks fit together but there are a few rules I aim for:

1) use negative space (google the concept). In our tanks this would be bare sand, open swimming areas and view of the back of the tank. This gives the tank an open, clean, uncluttered feeling.

2) use the rule of thirds to distribute the rocks. For example, create a valley in the middle of you rocks about 2/3 of the way along the tank... So 2/3 on one side, 1/3 on the other. Have bare sand in between to highlight the divide. Or pile all your rock on 2/3 of the tank (and piled up to 2/3 of the height high) and slope it down continuously to the sand at the 2/3 point. Have bare sand on the other 2/3. Or try making two islands with one island 2x the size of the other.

3) do not make a wall of rocks

4) try to create tunnels and holes to swim through. Overhanging ledges are great spots for corals and provide the fish with places to hide, especially when the main lights are on.

5) if you want to get really crazy, you can drill your rocks and strap them together to create all sorts of interesting designs. Google bonsai reef tanks.

I've tried 1, 2, and 4 and end up with 3....not sure if you've some of my posts, I am not good with tools and equipment so haven't even attempted drilling or strapping rocks.

I'll keep looking at others and trying to put something together.

I've got approx 150 lbs of rock give or take, is it as beneficial to have some in the sump? That would give me more room.

[Aquattro]

Originally Posted by Coralgurl

I've got approx 150 lbs of rock give or take, is it as beneficial to have some in the sump? That would give me more room.

My tank only has a little over 100#, makes it easier to get that open look. I don't have any in my sump, but it can't hurt.

[albert_dao]

Originally Posted by Aquattro

My tank only has a little over 100#, makes it easier to get that open look. I don't have any in my sump, but it can't hurt.

I'd argue against putting rocks in the sump. They just become detritus traps down there unless you add a bunch of powerheads. And really, why?

[Aquattro]

Originally Posted by albert_dao

I'd argue against putting rocks in the sump. They just become detritus traps down there unless you add a bunch of powerheads. And really, why?

I'd tend to agree, but most people do it, and I'm tired of arguing anything about rocks Like I said, no rocks in my sump. Well, one little one, it's for the crab to hang in

[smokinreefer]

Originally Posted by albert_dao

I'd argue against putting rocks in the sump. They just become detritus traps down there unless you add a bunch of powerheads. And really, why?

if you have the room for it, wouldnt it allow for a heavier bioload? heavier feedings?

[Aquattro]

Originally Posted by smokinreefer

if you have the room for it, wouldnt it allow for a heavier bioload? heavier feedings?

Shao, I think if you have a sand bed, that provides more than enough extra surface area for bacteria. I have a fairly high load and feed heavily, and only run about 1/2 pound of rock per gallon. If no sand, then extra rock may allow heavier stocking, but I would suggest that it would need cleaning every now and then..

[Coralgurl]

This is my first sump set up, I've heard the argument of rock in the sump and detritus build up in the past. I do have a bit that I try and clean out with water changes, but find the filter socks do help with this. I also have some lr in there already, smaller pieces that I couldn't make work in the dt. I have an 86 gl sump so loads of room.

I've treated the tank with chemiclean for cyano and lights are now off for 3 days. Once the cyano clears I'm going to rearrange the rocks, likely power heads as well. when I change out the water this weekend, it'll go in bins so I can pull the rocks out to work in the tank.

The way I initially laid out the rocks was to cover up the corner overflows and tried to have an open scape in the middle, but I love the islands so am going to work towards that look.

[Aquattro]

Originally Posted by Coralgurl

but I love the islands so am going to work towards that look.

We're all waiting for the pics

[Coralgurl]

Once it's done I will post!

[albert_dao]

Originally Posted by smokinreefer

if you have the room for it, wouldnt it allow for a heavier bioload? heavier feedings?

No, this is a false pretense.

Think of it this way, bacterial masses are governed by the same ecological constraints of any living population. That is, population = resources (in this case, food) x available real estate. In our tanks, resources, not real estates, are the limiting factor. More surface area does not ≠ more bacteria. More food does.

To illustrate the point, let's use the example of bioballs and why they are generally regarded as a detriment to reef systems: Nitrate.

But why? Why is liverock, which is just a big load of surface area not a NO3 factory, while efficient, human engineered substrates are?

Think of it this way, bioballs have a higher surface area to volume ratio than the average piece of liverock, which is denser due to the crystalline nature of aragonite and how it is deposited by corals. Additionally, bioballs have the added advantage of being highly porous or "open", so all the surfaces are readily exposed to oxygen during operation.

Going back to liverock. While it is true that liverock has a lower surface area to volume ratio, it also has a big thing going for it: "closed" surface area. Water permeates through the rock via diffusion. As it passes to the core of the rock, the aerobic bacteria along the way strip it of its dissolved oxygen. By the time water gets to the core of the rock, it is oxygen poor, allowing for anaerobic processes to take place (chiefly, mineralization of NO3).

Back the idea of resource limitation -- if you add a porous, man-made substrate to the system, the populations of aerobic bacterias are naturally going to shift towards surface areas which are more ideal to their aerobic metabolisms. In essence, bioballs "steal" these aerobic populations, shifting them from the rock. This eventually allows oxygen laden water to penetrate deeper into the core of of the rock.

So now we have a problem, resource limitation has reduced our system's capacity to mineralize NO3 (reduced anaerobic zones) while retaining it's NH4 and NO2 processing power. The end result? A rise in NO3 with no means to process it.

Don't think the math works? Add a biofilter to your tank and watch your NO3's start to climb. Remember, NH4 is the limiting factor for NO3, and it was at zero before....

Anyway, segueing back into our initial statement (I know, I know, it was a long digression)...

IF YOUR TANK HAS ZERO NH4, YOU HAVE LIKELY HIT THE LIMITING RESOURCE POINT FOR NH4 AND NO2 AND THE RESULTING AEROBIC BACTERIAL POPULATION DENSITY OF YOUR SYSTEM. ADDING MORE ROCK TO YOUR SUMP WILL NOT IMPROVE YOUR SYSTEM'S BIOLOGICAL CAPACITY ONE BIT.

But Albert, won't the extra space allow me a buffer in case I accidentally overfeed or kill something?

In a word, no. Why? for the same reason it took you a month to cycle your tank in the first place. A sudden influx of organic waste may be a bonanza for bacteria, but not one that they can capitalize on fast enough for your water parameters not to be affected. In addition, it is likely that you have more than enough unoccupied real estate in your system.

Hint: Sand has HUUUUUGE surface area and can accommodate for many times more bacteria than the tank is probably supporting.

But Albert, those guys with no rock and no substrate, how do they do it?

Magic and vodka. But that's another topic for another class

HTH