• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

A tentative plan for self sufficiency

I'd read that about the Ecospheres, but that seems to be as a result of such a limited food/biomass supply which they set those up with initially. I expect they have to do it that way to keep algae from quickly covering every surface and becoming unsightly, so you'd have to control for that in a different manner. Perhaps with more food available, as well as the appropriate amounts of buffering compounds including some crushed coral/dolomite, they'd nevertheless be able to thrive.

A very hardy plant such as Java Moss is probably best, and I have some of that, as well as some Pellia, and just received some Christmas Moss and Flame Moss, which for the time being still however look like heck...

You don't think Dario dario wouldn't keep Endlers in check? Well scrap that ideal then, unless I was to limit it to males.

This is the spherical 'bowl' I was considering trying this with eventually. http://www.ebay.com/itm/18-GLOBES-HALLO ... 2296wt_952
 
Mxx said:
I'd read that about the Ecospheres, but that seems to be as a result of such a limited food/biomass supply which they set those up with initially. I expect they have to do it that way to keep algae from quickly covering every surface and becoming unsightly, so you'd have to control for that in a different manner. Perhaps with more food available, as well as the appropriate amounts of buffering compounds including some crushed coral/dolomite, they'd nevertheless be able to thrive.

A very hardy plant such as Java Moss is probably best, and I have some of that, as well as some Pellia, and just received some Christmas Moss and Flame Moss, which for the time being still however look like heck...

You don't think Dario dario wouldn't keep Endlers in check? Well scrap that ideal then, unless I was to limit it to males.

This is the spherical 'bowl' I was considering trying this with eventually. http://www.ebay.com/itm/18-GLOBES-HALLO ... 2296wt_952
I'm sorry but you're fundamentally wrong, a closed system can never thrive, infact a lot of research still disputes whether they're even possible to create because of a phenomena called entropy, it's a universal truth, simply put this means that matter will always decrease to it's smallest form and that available nutrients too, will also ever decrease, forget this notion of self sustainable or some perfect representation of an eco-system because all these notions are fundamentally floored because we do not live in a closed system and there's no notion that it will fall into balance, because simply put the world just doesn't work that way.
 
Sigh... okay, so why and how?

Your opinion is that this doesn't work, but I'm finding the reasoning rather dubious. A specific thermodynamic property is a very different thing from a universal thing applicable to everything, and entropy in ecological terms refers just to the aspect that the amount of energy density in an area will tend to level.

With all due respect, I must express my own opinion that your interpretation seems a simplistic over-generalization, and were it true then life would not exist anywhere.

As for closed systems that thrive, go to Wikipedia and see Earth, or our solar system in case sunlight is necessary to include in your calculations. But I'm pretty sure I can get algae, bacteria, and perhaps some invertebrates to successfully live for a decent while in a jar, and maybe even some java moss while I'm at it. If there are specific parameters that you believe would become problematic in time then I'm happy to discuss those.

Perhaps it's the case that some years down the line the entirety of some compound necessary to perpetuate the circle of life will have been bound into a form which such a small system can't itself reformulate, but I've yet to hear of anything to that effect, so perhaps it's best to have experiments test that out.
 
Really to answer it requires much more in depth study, I can assure you the earth is not a closed system, it's refereed to as a closed system when one talks about transportations of water or so on but it's not a closed system, if it were a closed system life would be impossible to created let alone thrive, this is because we live in a permeable atmosphere and all supplies are finite right down to freshwater.

The reason for me saying you cannot create a sealed "ecosphere" type environ is justified by entropy and the break down of matter ever decreasing, each generation of life will deplete the amount of nutrients contained and all you will create is a system where the suitability of conditions for live ever decrease until the hardiest critters can't survive any longer, each successive generation of life decreasing in numbers and vigour because the energy supply is totally depleted of it's usable compounds. Also decomposition isn't a complete cycle that can take place at a speed to release nutrients back for the next generation, it's a long and drawn out process, the net energy of which decreases because all living reactions produce heat which will deplete available nutrients and will not return, otherwise what would be created would be akin to a perpetual motion machine. The other matter to point out is that the atmosphere is extremely important in almost all earth systems even the seas, without a atmosphere carrying more nutrients into the system it ultimately fails.

If you were however to not seal the "jar" it's another story entirely and these non-sealed minimal input systems like those that Tom created are very successful and can survive for a much greater period but you must remember that they are not a closed system and a net gain will be vital to their longevity.

For a much more in-depth study I can suggest the works of A. G. Tansley who discusses why our notions of order and system within ecology are mostly wrong.
 
It seems we're going to conclude in disagreement on this topic. For while I believe I do see more where you're coming from now, I still think the comparison is in gross terms valid. And not to be argumentative, but I do happen to enjoy this topic as well as testing the philosophies of it.

Your description of entropy unfolding in an ecosphere cut off from all external inputs and eventually running out of energy would be correct. However, the moment we put an ecosphere on a windowsill it would receive a substantial input of energy daily in the form of light, and the plants and algae would be transforming that into other forms of energy which continually replenish the system. Similarly, think of the earth as just a big planet sized jar, which keeps water and gases in, but lets light and heat both in and out. And so long as the sun doesn't burn out, both will continue to receive the necessary energy input to fuel life.

I'd been in part inspired by Diana Walstad's book in this regard, which basically boils down to animal inputs and outputs = plant inputs and outputs. And life in our little 'jar' seems to have been perfecting that for about the last four billion years, with at least a reasonable level of success achieved finally in the last billion years, apart from one invasive species now - Homo sapiens - which are currently threatening to severely disrupt the system's stability.

I'm unsure though what nutrients you suggest are being replenished via our atmosphere, and the decomposition of organic compounds is something which is happening continuously and supplying a constant recycled supply of those nutrients, regardless of how long it takes but at least for the nitrogen cycle doesn't happen to take very long. There are however certain other nutrients and compounds, such as potassium for one, which I'm not quite sure of how it works through the system and in what forms.

I'm more concerned with whether the life processes will tend to produce gases and increased pressure over time, turning my ecospheres literally into timebombs...
 
To apply an engineering slant to the project, I think it all comes down to scale. Keeping a shrimp in such an environment would be like locking an elephant inside the biodome at the Eden Project and expecting the plants to reproduce at a rate that would keep the elephant well enough fed to live a long happy life. If you look at the earth the individual organisims are tiny compared to the system. I wouldnt expect to be able to keep anything you dont need a microscope to see alive for any length of time. The other issue is time, scale things down and they speed up. Look at a forest, leaves are dropped every year(or at a slow constant rate in an evergreen forest) and provide decaying matter to turn into nutrients for the system. You would need to keep a fast propagating and short lived plant to replicate this as the lifeforms present may not last long enough to wait 6mths for a leaf to die and fall off.
I think for an ecosphere to work you may have to stick substrate and a plant in there and see what appears. Even then a form of alage would probably work better.
Just my 2p
Regards
Ollie
Your description of entropy unfolding in an ecosphere cut off from all external inputs and eventually running out of energy would be correct. However, the moment we put an ecosphere on a windowsill it would receive a substantial input of energy daily in the form of light, and the plants and algae would be transforming that into other forms of energy which continually replenish the system. Similarly, think of the earth as just a big planet sized jar, which keeps water and gases in, but lets light and heat both in and out. And so long as the sun doesn't burn out, both will continue to receive the necessary energy input to fuel life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system
The Ecosphere would be a closed sysem not an isolated system
 
Mxx said:
But I'm pretty sure I can get algae, bacteria, and perhaps some invertebrates to successfully live for a decent while in a jar, and maybe even some java moss while I'm at it. If there are specific parameters that you believe would become problematic in time then I'm happy to discuss those.

I have done a lot of experimenting with open topped containers (never felt an urge to seal them up) over the last couple of years.

The most extreme I have done is, an ikea vase with:3 dwarf shrimp, 1 litre of water, a piece of frogbit, and a clump of moss.
The shrimp lived about 1 year in the vase. I suspected they died of old age as they were already adults when they went in.
The moss slowly dwindled, the shrimp shrank in size after each molt, they started off healthy adult shrimp, and died looking like lethargic colourless juveniles.

I felt cruel doing it, but wanted to see how far things could be pushed. Once the shrimp started shrinking I had to put the vase out of direct sight to allay my guilt. I do not know what sealing the vase would do, I guess I would expect similar results, as long as you choose critters that would not die of asphyxiation first.


On most other occasions, a productive balance has been sought and achieved.

eg. Algae coated moss and a couple of ramshorns in a 5l tub, hide tub behind curtain, wait 3 months, clean moss and several more ramshorns out. Snails can be swapped for shrimp, but lots of floating plants are needed to keep the water quality up. Do not add any substrate or hardscape or they will forage their instead.

eg. Keeping a rare moss alive with zero maintenance for a length of time, by adding water, and some daphnia and putting it in a heavily shaded spot. Do add substrate\hardscape to provide more bacteria\biofilm.

and so on.

Experimenting with basic combos of shrimp\snails\moss\plants\wood\water\placement (amount of light)\inputs (amount of plant\animal food\light)\outputs (taking things out as they breed\grow) has taught me a lot about balancing out 'low maintenance no tech' systems.

I could keep going on, but am aware I am going off on a tangent so will stop there :)
 
I could keep going on, but am aware I am going off on a tangent so will stop there
Please do. Im really interested In what you've tried and how it worked out. If you feel it will throw the thread off track then please start a new one if you've got the time :thumbup: .
My wife would kill me if I left a load of experiments like that around the house not to mention what the kids would do if they found them :crazy: so I've got no chance of doing any myself. Im getting quite interested in the idea of a self sustaining tank and any experiences no matter how small can help the rest of us understand the system better.

Regards
Ollie
 
Hi Matt, thanks for the input. Were your vessels receiving direct sunlight? I'd perhaps prefer to put mine in a north facing window to avoid direct light and so to not cook the thing, but almost all my windows face east/west. I wasn't sure quite how much light would be best though and maybe some direct sun would be beneficial. They're getting some sun right now

With my 5 litre vessels I've put flourite substrate into two, flourite capped soil in one, and left the bottom of the other bare for the moment. I'm guessing the capped soil vessel would have sufficient nutrients to keep it going for quite a long time. Only the two flourite ones are going right now with a fair bit of moss in each. One is developing some green algae and the other has none. I'm particularly wondering which will fair better, the soil vessel which has a store of nutrients, or the bare vessel which has albeit quite a decent amount of java moss.

With these I mostly just want to try and work out the kinks and how exactly I want to do that before I try it with a larger 8-13 gallon bowl/sphere, which might be large enough to appropriately feed and support dwarf shrimp if it contains sufficient nutrients at the outset. I'd certainly be happy to therefore hear your recommendations.

Wait a sec, this isn't my thread, but I'm afraid I may have been hijacking it... I suppose this is still somewhat relative to the original discussion though.
 
If you are familiar with the idea of a pyramid of biomass it gives an insight into why long term small sealed jars are only able to support small numbers of animal life and probably only small microscopic animal life. The sealed jars would need to be of certain minimum sizes to support animals such as shrimp and snails long term and even larger to support fish - I think the idea is summed up nicely by OllieNZ idea of the elephant in the Eden project dome..


I'm thinking aswell although I'm not sure about my facts but would Nitrogen eventually become limiting? Nitrogen compounds would eventually end up as N2 gas. Fixing N2 requires specialist plants and bacteria (and requires alot of energy). I would expect long term in a 1 lt jar starting with mosses, plants, shrimp and snails etc, that you would end up with just a few forms of algae including quite a bit of blue green algae (that can fix N2) and various bacterial films. I don't think long term there would be enough N to support higher plants.

Adding a soil layer with rooted plants could sustain a system a lot longer as it would provide a large reservoir of nutrients and a larger surface area for bacteria to colonise but i think the same problems still apply.

If you are interested in this kind of thing you might also be interested in large scale experiments like Biosphere2.
There are also aspects of ecological redundancy ie the theory that larger more diverse ecosystems are more stable - something that a jar on a windowsill would suffer from is a lack of ecological redundancy see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem_services
 
I appreciate that the 'eco-vessels' would need a proportional flora density to support fauna. As invertebrates seem to have a lower metabolism compared to say fish, I thought a small few might nevertheless be well fed in a reasonable sized vessel given enough nutrients to start with.

I was also wondering whether shrimp might be better off in a vessel with plants such as moss, or with algae alone. It seems they can eat decaying but not live leaves of plants, and I was worried that if there isn't sufficient growth/decay of the moss/plants then they might be hungry, while the plants might suppress algae growth. So I could do a vessel with just algae and a shrimp or two to see if that'd work better. But I might need to leave in a magnetic algae scraper if that's the case, and if I didn't want snails competing with shrimp while they're keeping the vessel surface clean.

I'd looked into the nitrogen issue recently as well. Agreed that blue green bacteria would perhaps do that, but that doesn't sound ideal of course. Azolla caroliniana is the nitrogen fixing floating plant I was thinking of using. There are six other species but that one seems to be the one most commonly available, with plenty of it cheap on Ebay. And with some Azolla contained and subsisting ,then that should complete the nitrogen cycle and enable it to continue in perpetuity?

I'd always been fascinated by The Biosphere2 project, though something of that complexity is certainly a tricky thing to achieve a balance with.
 
Mxx said:
Hi Matt, thanks for the input. Were your vessels receiving direct sunlight?

I've tried with all sorts of light.
Direct sunlight in summer meant you had to be a bit more savvy when balancing the system so as not to get algae.
At this time of year it is not so much of an issue though.
On the whole I put them in shaded spots, purely for aesthetics (I want them out of the way, I look like a nutter with pots everywhere!)


Brenmuk said:
something that a jar on a windowsill would suffer from is a lack of ecological redundancy see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem_services

I found this.
We all know that substrate contains bacteria, and hardscape can support biofilm, but in such small (<5l) unfiltered systems, these can be a make or break difference to health\success.


Shrimps do better with moss than without.
They do even better with moss and algae.
They prefer hair algae.

Snails will hoover up the slimy algae that grows in sheets over surfaces (I forget the proper term for it). I find without snails after some time (months) you can not look through the glass. Moss has a very low fert requirement so is my plant of choice. Some mosses have a lower requirement than others (I'd avoid Fissidens and liverworts).

Daphnia are good to stop green water developing.

My moss holding pots often have a couple of daphnia, one snail (added when absolutely tiny to avoid the possibility of breeding, so that when i use the moss elsewhere I can remove the single snail and be confident it is snail free), and if it is going to be there for some time, a single shrimp and some amazon frogbit. I can then feed the shrimp a pellet a week and his poop is moss fert, and the frogbit sufficient filtration. (Or you can flip it around, feed the plants, and let the critters feed on them.)

There is a key difference with my setups, they are not sealed. If I was doing a sealed one, I would probably add the biggest wedge of moss I could get my hands on and stuff it full of it. I would make sure the moss had as many different algae on it as possible. I would add no more than one of snail and shrimp, as if they breed they will use up all the food. and then add a mix of different tiny things (daphnia, cyclops, etc). Some substrate, some hardscape - both from an established tank so that they bring something to the party.
 
This initial thread was a bit old anyway, with the owner moving to a new journal. So I think I'll be a squatter here with this discussion unless told to bugger off! ;)

I actually tried such a one gallon eco-vessel for the first time in my junior high science class, but I didn't then have access to a decent variety of flora and fauna to seed it with after my hunt for Gammarus shrimp came up empty handed. And after unfortunately getting cooked pretty thoroughly on quite an exposed sunny window sill it of course became an algal mess devoid of fauna.

And I meant to try it again this time at the start of summer, but being busy didn't get around to it until just now. I'm picking up a reptile heating strip probably tomorrow which should hopefully keep things at a decent temperature through the winter in my not necessarily heated summerhouse/home office. And come to think of it, I could build a shelf there on either the south facing window, or for the north facing window to get indirect sunlight once the leaves fall off the trees. Right now they're on my desk receiving eastern light, but I'm not at all sure which aspect would be preferable. A bit of algae is okay, but I don't want too much. And I think I'll stick a small nerite snail in each to try and keep the vessel's surface manageable. At least for these eco-vessels to be hidden away in my office they hopefully won't make me look too much the part of the nutter I am...

So I'll aim for both moss and algae in each I guess. I realize that certainly in the absence of current, any substrate will tend to host denitrifying bacteria, thus producing nitrogen gas. Would I perhaps be better off trying to have the moss and algae convert the ammonia produced directly and not have a substrate, in case that minimizes the production of nitrogen gas? I'm going to try the Azolla in at least some of the vessels, but am concerned it will completely smother the surface quite quickly.

I could however intervene if need be. The lids on the vessels would be mostly to prevent evaporation and any need for ever topping off, but if shrimp or snails overpopulated then I could always take the extras out of course. A major issue of course is what amount of fauna is necessary to provide sufficient CO2 for the flora. I have no idea whether one shrimp and snail plus the assorted microfauna would be enough to sustain a huge clump of java moss. That's not necessarily a problem though, as that would result in some of the moss fading away until the right balance is achieved. Too variable of light amounts from day to day could make that a little tricky though. And perhaps a small fauna population will result in decently high CO2 levels and therefore more rapid moss growth than would otherwise be possible. Speculation...

Does anyone have a brew of Daphnia/Cyclops they could share a little bottle of though? I've yet to hear back from one friend I know that had a batch going earlier.
 
Hi all,
If you really want a semi sealed container, I'd go for a large glass bottle, the best would be an old fashioned green glass carboy that were formerly re-used for bottle gardens. Personally I don't think that you have any chance of succeeding with a sealed system, and even with a semi-sealed system I think it is "the bigger, the better". Even a small opening will allow the exchange of CO2/O2.

I'd definitely have a thin layer of substrate and I'd be tempted to use the cat litter from this thread <http://www.ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=8572&p=17952>, with a minimal amount of leaf mould added. I think you are right Azolla will be much too vigorous, and as Cyanobacteria and Actinomycetes are free living, as well as being symbionts, I don't think you will need it. I can't think of an alternative "floater" with a slow enough growth rate.

I would stick to just moss as your submerged flora, this allows you to use low light levels, I think you will get Ostracods, Rotifers etc from the moss. I'm willing to donate some moss to the experiment.

I'd try a fern as an emergent, Java Fern, Trichomanes spp. and Bolbitis heteroclita all do well in bottle gardens. Another option would be an Aroid like Anubias.

I'm not sure that a Nerite is a suitable Snail for a small water volume, although I can't think of a suitable snail that won't proliferate. Asellus might be better than a Decapod shrimp like RCS as well, but Gammarus spp. are a non-starter due to their high oxygen demand.

cheers Darrel
 
I'd never seen carboys before, despite searching Ebay extensively for large glass containers. It seems they're between 5 and 15 gallons. I saw a number of new ones online for about £30 for a 6 gallon container, and I'm not sure how many gallons the vintage style ones hold. Thanks for the tip.

I posted earlier that this was the container I was eventually thinking of using, http://www.ebay.com/itm/18-GLOBES-HALLO ... 2296wt_952, and those at least don't appear to have much distortion.

My current 5L trial containers have lids, but they're not what I'd call waterproof. If they were then I'd prefer to flip them over. I'd thought of trying to glue them but am not yet sure of any glues that would work which I'd be happy putting on the lid of a container containing living organisms. Though I suppose I wouldn't want to flip my MTS vessel over...

I might try the Azolla, but it might come back out if it takes over excessively. And I was going to get some Java Ferns, so doing them as emergent might be a good idea. Not that I'm worried about these necessarily being pretty either.

You'd be willing to send me some microfauna? That'd be great if so!
 
Update, picked up some Azolla yesterday, which I got for free at World of Water where it was growing invasively in their outdoor troughs of pond plants. And it came with quite a load of Daphnia and other fast little guys, so it seems I don't need any seed stock after all, but thanks for the offer!
 
Back
Top