I've been holding back here for years on this subject, finally had to let it all out.
You should have let that out long time ago mate.
Whats the big deal about soft water cichlids in hard water. Rant
- Thread starter duanes
- Start date
You should have let that out long time ago mate.
Hello; Species adapt - individuals not so much except maybe for behavior. Classic example is large body size as an adaptation for cold. An individual, it is my understanding, is conceived with a particular genetic makeup. Within the range that nutrition, illness and other environmental factors allow an individual has a pre programed body size. That individual may have the potential to pass on a genetic pattern for large body size and it does now seem possible that the environment might trigger a better chance for that particular trait to be passed on in the ongoing genetic lottery.
I also think its a lot more complex than that. It appears that fish are capable of novelty genes, gene duplication, division of original function of the gene, turning genes on and off. What scientists are suggesting is that the genome is quite extensive, and for example in relation to african cichlids, originated from times when all fish thrived, allowing for genetic variation to accumulate, later leading to selective diversification of species, rather than species creation through survival of the fittest. What is not quite clear is how the gene expression is triggered and why.
Hello; While I can follow the wording I do not exactly get what is being suggested. I get that genomes are quite extensive and that there seems to be a lot of archived (unexpressed gene sequence) in the genome of most if not all species (families and orders).
My knowledge is getting dated as I did my formal genetic graduate studies back in the late 1970's. I did keep up to a degree while still teaching but have slacked some the last decade or so.
I have figured the crucible of harsh environmental conditions over millions of years was how surviving species built up a store of genetic variation. How can a gene sequence for adaptation to cold develop unless some living things had at some point actually had to survive the cold?
I also get that gene sequences get scrambled (mutated) in various ways that are essentially accidents. Most times these scrambled genes are fatal and thus dead ends. Those that either enhance survival or are at least not too much of a burden may get passed on. But I do not see how actual survival of the more fit can be side stepped.
( Note- I do see a way currently. That being we humans have been creating lots of artificial gene combinations which carry on despite not being likely to survive under natural conditions. I can imagine a case where we tinker around and develop an organism artificially that might also be viable if it ever got out but would not have come about naturally.)
I think we are talking apples and "crab" apples here,
Being considered secondary fish (originally ocean dwellers) the ancestors of cichlids (Wrasses)are obviously plastic in adaptability, perhaps some of the most adaptable fish out there.
We've only to look at the lakes of Africa to see adaptations to food supplies, water type, or terrain.
By becoming or radiating into new species.
Some like the Alcolapia of Natron, or the sponge eating Pungu of Barubi Mbu in a relatively short period.
Again evolving into entirely new species, to successfully cope with the changes they face.
Or one in my back yard, the Cichla (P-bass) of Lake Gatun, allowed to escape in the 1960s, now usurping the native cichlid population to the point many endemics have disappeared from the lake altogether.
The lake sometimes reaches a pH of 9, way out of the ordinary for Cichla, and one adaptation may be, that they seems to only reach half the size of those same species in the softer waters of South America.
It still seems to me to be successful with certain fish, (especially if inexperienced) whether it be spawning them, getting the best color, or just keeping them healthy, is getting species that fit ones actual tap water type may be a major consideration.
As in one recent post....
If your pH is 8, you may go thru 20 dead wild caught cardinals before you find that one with an adaptation gene for your water.
Being considered secondary fish (originally ocean dwellers) the ancestors of cichlids (Wrasses)are obviously plastic in adaptability, perhaps some of the most adaptable fish out there.
We've only to look at the lakes of Africa to see adaptations to food supplies, water type, or terrain.
By becoming or radiating into new species.
Some like the Alcolapia of Natron, or the sponge eating Pungu of Barubi Mbu in a relatively short period.
Again evolving into entirely new species, to successfully cope with the changes they face.
Or one in my back yard, the Cichla (P-bass) of Lake Gatun, allowed to escape in the 1960s, now usurping the native cichlid population to the point many endemics have disappeared from the lake altogether.
The lake sometimes reaches a pH of 9, way out of the ordinary for Cichla, and one adaptation may be, that they seems to only reach half the size of those same species in the softer waters of South America.
It still seems to me to be successful with certain fish, (especially if inexperienced) whether it be spawning them, getting the best color, or just keeping them healthy, is getting species that fit ones actual tap water type may be a major consideration.
As in one recent post....
If your pH is 8, you may go thru 20 dead wild caught cardinals before you find that one with an adaptation gene for your water.
Survival of the fittest is to do with increased reproduction and passing on inherited genes, it is not about the ability to live longer or be a healthier species,i.e.
"if an organism lives half as long as others of its species, but has twice as many offspring surviving to adulthood, its genes become more common in the adult population of the next generation.
".....A distinction must be made between the concept of "survival of the fittest" and "improvement in fitness". "Survival of the fittest" does not give an "improvement in fitness", , it only represents the removal of the less fit variants from a population. "
Natural selection - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Modern science explores evolution by gene duplication.
A classic view, owing to Susumu Ohno,[1] which is known as Ohno model, he explains how duplication creates redundancy, the redundant copy accumulates beneficial mutations which provides fuel for innovation. Knowledge of evolution by gene duplication has advanced more rapidly in the past 15 years due to new genomic data, more powerful computational methods of comparative inference, and new evolutionary models.
Evolution by gene duplication - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The study below on African Cichlids supports the evolution by gene duplication, rather than survival of the fittest.
"the results of this study support the hypothesis that gene duplication, particularly of genes related to immune response, ATP metabolism and detoxification, is a characteristic of the Lake Malawi adaptive radiation. "
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3944005/
Hello; yes of course this is true. The gene package we each carry around is not much interested in our individual length of life or health. If we survive long enough to pass along our genes that is the main goal. living a long and healthy life is secondary but can have some positive influences.
Much will depend on the reproductive strategy of the species. For a species that reproduces and abandons the offspring it matters little how long the parents live past the act. I figure the ones who survive to reproduce the more often increase the chances of their particular sort of gene package over time. This is why I like the fish and game rules that protect the biggest individual fish from harvest and allow the medium sized individuals to be taken. Those big old boys and gals at the very least have what it takes to survive.
For species who protect and nurture offspring there is value in the parents and grandparents living around two life cycles. Say for people that will be about 30 to 40 years. We can start reproducing at around 13 to 14 years old so could have two generations in that time. I say 40 because that was the age I first began to see a difference. For those who are not yet 40 that is the number to be aware of. The decline is not always abrupt but looking back that is where things started going south. Sometime past 40 you will see a doctor about a mystery ache, pain or some such and you will hear for the first time the comment - you are just getting older.
What an informative thread here. Heavy hitters coming on to educate and debate. Thank you
neutrino
,
duanes
, and
RD.
I’m hoping MFK comes back. Threads like this will certainly do a lot to change the direction of the dialogue on this site. It’ll take it back to the days where everyone came on to learn something new about this hobby.
As for the topic here, I’ll weigh in with my own experiences. I’m in agreement that most tap water works for most fish. It’s funny since I’ve found wild discus to be hardier than domestics. After having mixed results with store bought domestics, I started dabbling with wilds and had much more success. My challenges always came when I became lax with canister filter maintenance as my water change schedule and stocking levels were always good. I’ve since moved away from canister filters whenever I can avoid it. It’s too easy to put off the maintenance with them. Sumps and HOB’s are much easier to regularly maintain.
Most issues arise from a weakness or gap in the maintenance regime. Either tanks are overcrowded, water changes are insufficient, filter maintenance is overlooked, fish aggression, or diet is poor.
neutrino
,
duanes
, and
RD.
I’m hoping MFK comes back. Threads like this will certainly do a lot to change the direction of the dialogue on this site. It’ll take it back to the days where everyone came on to learn something new about this hobby.
As for the topic here, I’ll weigh in with my own experiences. I’m in agreement that most tap water works for most fish. It’s funny since I’ve found wild discus to be hardier than domestics. After having mixed results with store bought domestics, I started dabbling with wilds and had much more success. My challenges always came when I became lax with canister filter maintenance as my water change schedule and stocking levels were always good. I’ve since moved away from canister filters whenever I can avoid it. It’s too easy to put off the maintenance with them. Sumps and HOB’s are much easier to regularly maintain.
Most issues arise from a weakness or gap in the maintenance regime. Either tanks are overcrowded, water changes are insufficient, filter maintenance is overlooked, fish aggression, or diet is poor.
I tend to agree that most issues are poor maintenance, even if not intentional.
Canister filters tend to be used as siphons and the issue is that they're also prone to low oxygen levels. Clogged media+low oxygen leads to the wrong type of bacteria establishing. Anaerobic zones form and in turn instead of nitrification, the filter performs decomposition and denitrification. This leads to further oxygen issues, spikes in nitrite, plus array of other toxin build up.
For the same reason I personally have pre-filters on all my intakes and they are placed mid water to avoid them collecting the detritus around the tank. I also have emersed plants in all tanks as a redundancy mechanism for potential toxin build up between water changes, which are regularly performed. To be fair I can't imagine having a tank without emersed plants, having seen their benefit for a number of years.
Although not a sump user myself, I am pretty certain they're better filters due to the tendency of the owners to clean them more often, plus the exposure of the media to higher oxygen levels.
Artificial selections, such as breeding for colors and size is also much more inferior to natural selection. We've seen again and again how popular fish that are bred by humans on a mass scale become weaker and more sensitive species. In the big scheme of things, I'd rather see wild populations intact but on a personal level I've been drawn at keeping wild caught fish simply because they're more robust. I avoid breeding fish for the simple reason I do not have the knowledge to select for the best outcome and I don't want to breed more weak individuals that pass on the wrong mixture of genes.
Even majority of my other pets throughout my life have been mongrels either from the streets or the animal welfare centers because they're healthier animals
I have mixed experience with soft water fish.
I tried my first Geos many years ago: jurupari, surinamensis, and hump head. They all came up with bad HITH. My water is only mildly alkaline, around 7.7. I confess that I didn’t keep up with WC at that time, no more than a large WC every 3 to 4 weeks in a heavily stocked tank.
I gave up keeping soft water SA for decades until last year I tried Severum: red spot, red shoulder and turquoise. This time they are all happy and healthy, but one difference is that I keep up with 75% WC weekly, rain or snow.
Interestingly, in a lfs near me, there is a show tank with half a dozen adult jurupari. I notice that they all have a mild form of HITH. I don’t know the WC schedule in this tank, but I know the lfs does not make RO water.
So the verdict is inconclusive to me. Is it cleanliness or soft water hard water issue?
I admit that I also encountered difficulties with certain hard water CA and Tanganyikans with bloat or bacterial infection, but never with HITH. Malawian haps are one fish that I have not run into disease problem for a long time, except during my early hobby years in the 80s.
I tried my first Geos many years ago: jurupari, surinamensis, and hump head. They all came up with bad HITH. My water is only mildly alkaline, around 7.7. I confess that I didn’t keep up with WC at that time, no more than a large WC every 3 to 4 weeks in a heavily stocked tank.
I gave up keeping soft water SA for decades until last year I tried Severum: red spot, red shoulder and turquoise. This time they are all happy and healthy, but one difference is that I keep up with 75% WC weekly, rain or snow.
Interestingly, in a lfs near me, there is a show tank with half a dozen adult jurupari. I notice that they all have a mild form of HITH. I don’t know the WC schedule in this tank, but I know the lfs does not make RO water.
So the verdict is inconclusive to me. Is it cleanliness or soft water hard water issue?
I admit that I also encountered difficulties with certain hard water CA and Tanganyikans with bloat or bacterial infection, but never with HITH. Malawian haps are one fish that I have not run into disease problem for a long time, except during my early hobby years in the 80s.
