Rural Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 hello y'all, As someone who values academic discovery and also reefing, I have a simple question. While I do value anecdotal observations and people's opinions... Where/What is our peer reviewed academic journals/publications? I am not interested in the "top 10 lists" or " must haves". I am looking for real science. Thanks. Link to comment
brandon429 Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Thats a fair call, there are aspects of our work nobody has written about pico reef dynamics for ex, all anecdotes albeit rather good uns just found some formal peer reviewed work on peroxide use in the reef aquarium i didnt know existed, google scholar has a lot of German works as they were building oxydators long ago not much formal review on nano reefs either, we pretty much drive all there is unless you consider those who were already scientists keeping these uncharted reefs and then ascending to a higher level of anecdote. peer reviewed nano reef stuff, i know of none. somebody post up. Link to comment
HecticDialectics Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Real science on what, exactly? There are no peer reviewed journals on reefkeeping. Link to comment
picoreef78 Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 There are scientific journal about light and feeding needs. There is one on survival of A. cervicornis after fragging and 1.5 inch frag seems to have the best survival and growth. Link to comment
HecticDialectics Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 There's a journal on it? Or just a paper? Link to comment
lkoechle Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 You'll find a lot of this hobby (especially on the small end) is experimental as it is. So, not a whole lot of peer reviewed stuff that is still holding true. However, for the broader spectrum of reef keeping, Advanced Aquarist usually has decent peer reviewed articles. Pretty heavy stuff as far as lighting or water chemistry. But, like others have said, most of this stuff is experimental. But don't count out discoveries by hobbyists just because it isn't peer reviewed. Many hobbyists have greatly contributed to it through forums like this like Matt Pedersen and his fish breeding. Link to comment
tibbsy07 Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Real science on what, exactly? There are no peer reviewed journals on reefkeeping. HD nailed it. Tim Wijgerde does a lot of coral work and writes for Advanced Aquarist. I'd look his stuff up. It's relevant, and it applies a lot to the hobby, but I have noticed some biases that are quite evident in his works. There are a number of papers on corals, or growth/biology/etc of cyanobacteria and things we either keep in our tanks or things that are important, but they are done in relation to the actual wild and not our specific hobby. There are a number of papers that lay out methods for coral growth, for example, the coral labs here at the university I work at publish that they use PC 10k/6.5k bulbs with a PAR of 250 and a 12 hour photoperiod, 10 gallon tanks, 200 gph powerhead and a 100 gph filtration set up (~250-300 gph total), 82.4 degrees F, standard IO salt with 75% weekly changes. Other than that, though, it's pretty vague. Science costs a LOT of money to conduct. I mean LOTS. The hobby doesn't make enough money to do the kinds of research you are asking for. If you want any information, search google scholar for a marine topic and look through their methods. Link to comment
jedimasterben Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Other than that, though, it's pretty vague. Science costs a LOT of money to conduct. I mean LOTS. The hobby doesn't make enough money to do the kinds of research you are asking for. If you want any information, search google scholar for a marine topic and look through their methods. So much this. Link to comment
tibbsy07 Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 So much this. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) gives out a number of different grants, the pinnacle being the R01. This awards $250,000/year for research. That BARELY covers the cost (salary/benefits/tuition if applicable) of the professor, a graduate student, and either another graduate student or a postdoc, plus a few thousand left over for actual research supplies and work. Seriously. Then factoring in that everything we use costs an arm and a leg... Money dries up REAL quickly. Link to comment
porkchop-rob Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 I can appreciate "real science"....but what really matters to me, is that my tank is healthy, and the inhabitants are thriving. This hobby has come a long way on the backs of hobbyist. I don't take their anecdotal knowledge lightly. That said, there are a number of "heros" of the hobby who you can look up to get more formal information from. Albert Theil and Mike Paletta are some you may start with. There were some peer review type papers back in the day (Paletta mentioned them in his MACNA address about reefing history), but I believe that they have disappeared. Link to comment
markalot Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 hello y'all, As someone who values academic discovery and also reefing, I have a simple question. While I do value anecdotal observations and people's opinions... Where/What is our peer reviewed academic journals/publications? I am not interested in the "top 10 lists" or " must haves". I am looking for real science. Thanks. Look for most scientific papers to be focused either on living reefs or coral propagation, but most not hobby specific. One I like to link to for coral feeding is this: http://www.academia.edu/1647139/Coral_farming_effects_of_light_water_motion_and_artificial_foods There have been some research on phosphates and reef corals that might be applicable to the hobby, but the target was water pollution and how it effects reefs. Link to comment
Rural Posted March 25, 2015 Author Share Posted March 25, 2015 Thanks to all. First let me clarify #notatroll Second thanks for the quick responses Thirdly, expensive research is not always better and science does not have to cost. you simply test a hypothesis, record reproducible data, and form a conclusion. Then your peers verify/analyze/critique. Fourthly, thanks for the reminder of the expensive stuff... Made me remember it's our tax dollars paying for it so it is public data now. Which lead me to pubmed. A research database site. I'll surf around here for a while. Any other data collections marine biologists may be more familiar with? Example of the "real science" - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12115931 How sponges move - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3404107 albeit it is old data... Bleaching (One novel mechanism) - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25759327 Porite bleaching with tissue loss - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25667337 Note this is in a journal called "diseases of aquatic organisms". Surely other dz has been addressed... Genomic changes from stress, maybe their methods detail what their "stress" thresholds were? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25467196 Why sometimes sponges rebound better after you fail removing them from a system http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25780772 Fragging acropora http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10958900 Propagating anemones, why you should cut in half opposed to quarters. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25314131 I now realize , reframing my question, external validity? Can these be applied to our systems? I believe some can and others cannot, hence our continued experimentation. But this doesn't mean we should just say this data isn't out there and this is all "art" not "science". We must blend both. KCCO, Rural ps guess we just need some help cherry picking what we need out of this massive amount. thats why my initial question was "Where/What is our peer reviewed academic journals/publications?", guess i should have put emphasis on OUR. pss tibbsy07 thanks for the methods idea and pubmed idea as well. Link to comment
tibbsy07 Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 It would still cost a lot of money to get any reliable data. You cant just set up 1 tank and see what happens. You'd need multiple tanks with multiple conditions and controls, and you'd have to do the same experiment multiple times (at least 3). Research is expensive. Peer review only works if it's people who actually know what they are doing review the work. And even with the papers you linked and we can find online, the real ocean is a far cry from the artificial systems we have set up. There is no way to replicate the ocean 100%. Probably never will be. It's too big, too complex, and there is still so much we do not know. I pretty much do a google scholar search for the livestock I am interested in and see if there is any in-lab conditions the scientists used, and if so, how can I mold my tank to fit that methodology to achieve success? As for places to search - web of science, google scholar and pubmed are all great options. Pubmed, though, is a part of the National Institutes of Health, and they fund medical research. Not everything on pubmed is medical, but most of it is. You may have to look other places for more information. Link to comment
brandon429 Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Thanks to all. First let me clarify #notatroll Second thanks for the quick responses Thirdly, expensive research is not always better and science does not have to cost. you simply test a hypothesis, record reproducible data, and form a conclusion. Then your peers verify/analyze/critique. Fourthly, thanks for the reminder of the expensive stuff... Made me remember it's our tax dollars paying for it so it is public data now. Which lead me to pubmed. A research database site. I'll surf around here for a while. Any other data collections marine biologists may be more familiar with? Example of the "real science" - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12115931 How sponges move - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3404107 albeit it is old data... Bleaching (One novel mechanism) - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25759327 Porite bleaching with tissue loss - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25667337 Note this is in a journal called "diseases of aquatic organisms". Surely other dz has been addressed... Genomic changes from stress, maybe their methods detail what their "stress" thresholds were? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25467196 Why sometimes sponges rebound better after you fail removing them from a system http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25780772 Fragging acropora http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10958900 Propagating anemones, why you should cut in half opposed to quarters. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25314131 I now realize , reframing my question, external validity? Can these be applied to our systems? I believe some can and others cannot, hence our continued experimentation. But this doesn't mean we should just say this data isn't out there and this is all "art" not "science". We must blend both. KCCO, Rural ps guess we just need some help cherry picking what we need out of this massive amount. thats why my initial question was "Where/What is our peer reviewed academic journals/publications?", guess i should have put emphasis on OUR.[/size] pss[/size] tibbsy07[/size] thanks for the methods idea and pubmed idea as well. imo if it wasnt conducted in an aquarium setting, huge variable change. outcomes change in aquaria to the point of being a new experiment I think still lacking peer reviewed specifics on aquarium science... i also consider the retail nature of the word pico... How many products now use that as an aquarium descriptive came from us, from posts and is now mainstream the total revision of what was previously assumed about coral allelopathy came from pico reefs as well, web posts. Link to comment
Rural Posted March 26, 2015 Author Share Posted March 26, 2015 yeah that variable change has to do with: can the data presented be applied to our setting... of course somethings can, but i see the point of aquaria being a smaller closed system. i agree; the majority cannot be applied. guess i'll keep sifting through the other listed sources. it just seems someone is almost always "sponsored" or won something in a giveaway or such. in the beggining 8 or so months ago i didnt care that much, given this was as the little mermaid said "a whole new world". but since i've been doing for a while now, i am gaining a scientific interest and generally more interest in this hobby. thanks again to all! and keep the ideas coming! we could make our own, case/study type reports? i mean we basically do that with TOTM anyways. Treatment studies Randomized controlled trial - would never happen in a reefing world i believe, i think we are a little too passionate to blindly add "substance x" or use "product y" blindly.Double-blind randomized trial Single-blind randomized trial Non-blind trial Adaptive clinical trial Nonrandomized trial (quasi-experiment) We do this a lot with our data logs already, would just need to arrange a database?Interrupted time series design (measures on a sample or a series of samples from the same population are obtained several times before and after a manipulated event or a naturally occurring event) - considered a type of quasi-experiment Observational studies Cohort studyProspective cohort Retrospective cohort - probably the best for us i believe, TOTM is an example, Anydatabases of their parameters been made? Time series study Case-control studyNested case-control study Cross-sectional studyCommunity survey (a type of cross-sectional study) Ecological study above taken and edited from wiki, nonscience i know... so i guess i reframe the question again: any collection of parameters/practices by TOTM or such been performed? also, any known collections of reefers using one practice with recorded data? thanks again. Link to comment
brandon429 Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 what if all totms had to be running 5 yrs before they were submitted, wonder what the field would look like just a quick side thought Edit Mines a messy crap load of red mushrooms but a few yrs ago was purdy Link to comment
Rural Posted March 26, 2015 Author Share Posted March 26, 2015 they would look like yours! but i like the thought as well, that would definately be a stable closed system. anybody else know of any collections or analysis? there has to be some marinebio's around here with data! Link to comment
HecticDialectics Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Most marine bios are probably not off work yet at the grocery store. There are a good handful of engineering and chemistry nerds on most reef forums where you can learn as much technical as you'd like. Read every article from Advanced aquarist and reefkeeping mag and look through every TOTM article. You'll learn way more than some journal article on sea cukes. I think your best chance of being successful at reefing is to look at what other reefers have done. Very quickly you'll learn that the most important factors are parameter stability and nutrient control. Virtually everything else is a toss up and great TOTM have no single way of doing things. Metal halides, Leds, ways to dose, types of skimmers and refugiums, salt brands, really not as important if you can keep the tank parameters stable and nutrients under control with powerful enough lights of any type. Link to comment
Nano sapiens Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 I believe that many experienced reefers review the scientific study material relevent to our hobby. The information may, or may not, directly translate to our little glass box 'reefs', but the knowledge is useful none-the-less. I have yet to find peer reviewed scientific resarch that specifically reviews the inner workings of a Nano or Pico system in relation to either larger aquarium systems or the natural reef. BTW, we all know that Nano and Pico systems auto-self-destruct before the 5 year mark (tongue-in-cheek humor) Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.