Electric Flame Scallop

[manny]

Got this electric flame scallop from www.liveaquaria.com Most people I've talked to about haven't ever seen one. Here's a series of pics I took that show the "electricity" bein made. Pretty neat animal

electric flame scallop 1 (http://www.maast.org/modules.php?set_albumName=manny&id=1101_0174&op=mo dload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.p hp)
electric flame scallop 2 (http://www.maast.org/modules.php?set_albumName=manny&id=1101_0175&op=mo dload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.p hp)
electric flame scallop 3 (http://www.maast.org/modules.php?set_albumName=manny&id=1101_0179&op=mo dload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.p hp)
electric flame scallop 4 (http://www.maast.org/modules.php?set_albumName=manny&id=1101_0183&op=mo dload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.p hp)
electric flame scallop 5 (http://www.maast.org/modules.php?set_albumName=manny&id=1101_0190&op=mo dload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.p hp)

Oh yeah, gotta say thanks to Alex for gettin it for me!

[Yano]

I have always wanted one of those, very nice!

[MikeP]

Very neat. Make sure you give them lots of particulate food as they are filter feeders. They have a poor survival rate in captivity. Here is a link to a column on the closely related flame scallop that has some good information on them.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/july2002/toonen.htm

[manny]

Good info Mike. Right now I'm feeding DTs every other day by just pouring it in the tank. I'm gonna start pippette feeding it from now on. Live Aquaria (http://www.liveaquaria.com/product/prod_Display.cfm?siteid=23&pCatId=1525) recommends feeding Selcon or Marine Snow. Anybody know if I should feed that too?

Also, when you guys add DTs, do you turn the skimmer off?

[Nano_Steve]

umm.....ok yeah, uve officially made my next purchase decisiion for me :P what in the world is it doing??? that is incredibly awesome lookin manny! is it just a piece of flesh that its waving back and forth with that blue edge or what??? very very kewl lookin!

take kare, steve

ps when i used to feed dts i would turn off my pumps for about 15 min and use a syringe to target feed everything.

[manny]

Steve, thanks man. It is pretty cool lookin. I'm not quite sure what it's doin but it really does look like electricity whatever it is. I need to read up on it. If you're ever in SA you can come check it out.

[Henry]

Manny, I usually turn everything but my closed-loop off when I feed. I leave my return pump off for about 30min or so.

[brucedittmar]

I BELEVE THE ELECTRIC PART ARE CELLS THAT GLOW ON THE EDGE OF THE MANTLE. BIOLUMENEE

[GaryP]

The bioluminescence works the same way as in fire flies. Actually an enzyme called luciferase is what specifically causes the light production. I used to use luciferase many years ago for counting bacteria in oilfield injection water. I'll spare you the biochemistry details.

Gary

[manny]

How come it doesn't show up in the dark? I can only see the "electricity" with the lights on

[GaryP]

Just a guess here, but maybe the bioluminesence in this species only occurs in the presence of light. I don't know enough about scallops to say authoratatively. Maybe someone else does.

The other compound besides luciferase required for bioluminescence is called Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP). ATP is a high energy compound produced by metabolism. I know that some deep sea organism have symbiotic bacteria that actually do the bioluminescence. I'm wondering if that is the case with scallops and the bacteria need the light to produce ATP. Larry, help me out here.

Gary

[Instar]

ADP and ATP are present all the time. The conversion to excite the cells is triggered by particles actually hitting the filter combs. If there are enough particles (algaes, plankton, etc) to excite enough cells, that side of the comb will light up. I do not know if light plays a role in these flames. I didn't think it did. Do you feed them during the daytime?

[manny]

Larry, I feed em in the morning. Sometimes during the day. I've searched all over the internet but haven't found anything that explains how this happens

[Instar]

Well, it could help to tell if they are getting enough particles (plankton, algae cells, detritus, sand, junk that is not what they need), but, you will only know if its the correct type of food and if the trace elements are correct if the luminescent quality remains. If it fades or dies out, then something is missing or in too limited a quantity. They are very dependant on living simple algae cells that are usually quite limited in a captive system. If you feed during the daytime, then thats why you see it then. If you fed them at night, even though the phosflorescence may be quite faint, I would expect that you could see it. You will also have to keep the simple things right, such as iodine and low phosphates, low nitrates, low amines.

[manny]

I don't think it's that though Larry. I know you're not supposed to do this, but in the daytime, without feeding him or anything, if you flip the lights off, you can't see the blue "electricity", but as soon as you turn em back on, you can see it clearly

One other question:
I was feeding DTs but the other day I ran out so I went to Alamo Aquatics to get some more and they were out. Bought some Kent Phytoplex instead. Will this be good enough for the time being?

[Instar]

No. Kent phytoplex is useless. It will tint your water green, thats about it. There are very few particles in there of any kind. You'll get more from scraping the side of your tank.
Texas Tropical usually has some DT's. Quite often those scallops end up hanging upsidedown in a cave or overhang. They do not need light. Light may trigger the ability to florese, but, those pictures you have clearly show that it is intermittent. Even if light does setup the ATP, I believe its still the particulate contact that excites those cells. There are cells in there even if you don't feed them.. there are a number of marine animals that florese like that. It is very difficult to see it if the room is not pitch black. It has to be so black you can't see anything at all. I had an animal in my 75 that would emit light from time to time at night. It makes you crazy trying to see things like that clearly These scallops are intriguing though, the way you describe the light. .

[manny]

I'll have stop by TX Tropical early today before I leave. And if you want Larry, you're welcome to come check this guy out whenever you're in the area. As is anybody else. It would make understanding how this guy "lights up" a whole lot easier.

[GaryP]

Manny, as was stated in the article they require a lot of food. You might want to set uip a green water system and grow your own. I'm planning on setting one up this Spring. Here's a link to a great site with info on how to set one up. It would sure be cheaper than buying DT's to keep this and other filter feeders happy.

http://www.sjwilson.net/reef/

Gary

[GaryP]

Larry,

I'm starting to like this. I just come along and throw out some wild haired theory and then you come along and clean up after me. Thanks.

Gary

[Inno]

Since Instar mentioned Iodine I thought this reply to a post Shimek made would interest everyone in regards to Iodine, Strontium, and others :

"Hi

(not arguing) then why are they sold and recommended for reefs?

They are sold because, as Ben Franklin once observed, "A fool and his money are soon parted." People will buy a lot of things on the say-so of manufacturers.

First, iodine.

Iodine is a great disinfectant and preservative. In fact, Lugol's solution was developed (in the late 1800s) by Lugol, as way to preserve tissues. It works better than formaldehyde for many tissues. Some very small amounts of iodine are necessary for animals. However, in a single standard feeding of a tank (see my article in the March, 2002 issue of Reefkeeping Magazine, the average hobbyist adds enough iodine to a tank to raise the iodine level from 0 to NSW concentrations. The problem with iodine in tanks is not that it needs to be added, but rather how to remove the excess.

my clams are growing despite my additions of strotium and iodide.

"Despite" is the operative word here.

The following is a long answer, and for that I apologize, but there really is no short answer.

My reasons for considering Strontium a weak toxin are given below. There is no ambiguity for that conclusion. It is supported by several research papers all published in peer-reviewed professional journals. The only reference suggesting that strontium benefits corals is Swart’s 1980 paper, and it is this paper which is cited by Delbeek and Sprung as evidence that corals need strontium. Unfortunately, Delbeek and Sprung must have missed Swart’s 1981 "follow-up" article where he explained that his 1980 conclusions were incorrect and based on incomplete research - the “publish or perish” syndrome strikes again. Delbeek and Sprung have also missed all of the other references on strontium and corals.... Good literature researchers, these guys ain’t...

There is no specific book on the biochemistry or physiology of coral reef animals, and will not likely be, as most physiologists consider them as perfectly normal invertebrates, so why do something specific for them? Probably the most widely used text on the physiology of invertebrate animals is:

Prosser, C. L. 1991. Comparative Animal Physiology, 4th ed.. Environmental and metabolic animal physiology. Wiley-Liss, New York, 578 pp.

There are a lot of papers investigating the concentration of strontium in coral skeletons. Without exception, these papers were looking at the relative amount of strontium as an indicator of temperature. If this could be done, then paleontologists could use the Sr/Ca ratio in fossil corals to determine the temperature of ancient seas. Unfortunately, after a lot research, it has become evident that this ratio is simply too variable to be of much use.

Relatively few papers have looked at Strontium metabolism in corals. Only the one research paper, by Swart, published in 1980 has shown any beneficial attributes of strontium.

Swart’s 1980 study indicated that strontium supplementation enhanced skeletal formation. He added large amounts of several chemicals, including strontium and calcium, to sea water elevating their relative ionic concentrations significantly above those found in normal sea water. When he added enough strontium to raise the strontium concentrations by a factor of 10, from 7 ppm to 77 ppm, he found that this massive addition of strontium caused a significant increase in skeletal growth. Interestingly, he found an identical increase with the addition of calcium.

The results presented in Swart’s 1980 paper indicate that strontium stimulates the formation of coral skeletons. Unfortunately, such a conclusion would be in error. These data were published prematurely, and were from the initial phase of a longer study. In the final results, Swart(1981), noted that increases in three factors: total strontium concentrations, strontium/calcium ratios, and increased calcium concentrations, ALL caused a growth increase. Additionally, there was a concentration level (approximately 100 ppm above the local ”normal” sea water concentrations, or about 520 ppm) above which the increase of calcium ceased to cause an increase in growth.

Here are the references - I suggest you read them.

Swart, P. K. 1980. The effect of seawater chemistry on the growth rates of some scleractinian corals. In: R. Tardent and P. Tardent (Editors). Developmental and Cellular Biology of Coelenterates. Proceedings of the Fourth International Coelenterate Symposium. Interlaken. pp. 203-208.

Swart, P. K. 1981. The strontium, magnesium and sodium composition of recent scleractinian coral skeletons as standards for paleoenvironmental analysis. Palaeogeogrraphy, Paleoclimatololy, Paleoecology. 34:115-136.

These results indicated that there appeared to be an unutilized potential for skeletal formation in natural seawater in the area of his studies. If additional ions of a chemically suitable nature are present, either calcium or strontium, the coral will use them to form the skeleton. .

Swart’s work indicated that either calcium or strontium will cause increases in skeletal growth provided the total of both ions is less than or equal to about 100 ppm above normal, or a total of 520 ppm. It is important to note that in the results from this study, strontium did not stimulate additional skeletal formation, it simply substituted for ”missing” calcium ions. At the time, what was presumed to be necessary was simply an ion of the right size and shape. In effect, strontium was an acceptable substitute for an unrealized calcium potential and simply substituted in to the skeleton in place of the calcium.

That simple explanation, however, has subsequently been shown to be in error (see the last few paragraphs of this post).

An examination of the scientific literature subsequent to Swart’s work shows that there is NO other evidence for any beneficial effects of strontium by itself to the corals.

Swart also stated the skeleton formed in the solutions containing higher than normal concentrations of strontium show decreased calcification (Swart, 1981), which he thought was simply due to the substitution of strontium for calcium. In fact, there is a small, but growing body of evidence that indicates that strontium REDUCES calcification rates in corals (Chalker, 1981; Swart, 1981; Ip and Krishnaveni, 1991; Wright and Marshall, 1991).

Here are those references - again, please read them.

Chalker, B. E. 1981. Skeletogenesis in scleractinian corals: the transport and deposition of strontium and calcium. In: Handbook of Stable Strontium. S.C. Skoryna (Ed.) Plenum Press. New York, pp. 47 63.

Ip, Y. K. and P. Krishnaveni. 1991. Incorporation of strontium (90Sr2+) into the skeleton of the hermatypic coral Galaxea fascicularis. Journal of Experimental Zoology. 258:273-276.

Wright, O. P. and A. T. Marshall. 1991. Calcium transport across the isolated oral epithelium of scleractinian corals. Coral Reefs. 10:37-40.

Wright and Marshall (1991) showed that strontium significantly reduced the transport of calcium ions across coral epithelial tissues. All calcium used by corals for either metabolic processes or for calcification comes from within the animal’s tissues, not directly from the sea water surrounding it. So, it has to pass through the epithelium. Thus a reduction in calcium transport into the animal will directly reduce all of these processes, including calcification. The presence of significant amounts of strontium could significantly inhibit and alter all calcium requiring processes, such as muscle contraction, tissue differentiations, growth, and injury repair) by reducing the calcium uptake from the surrounding waters.

Additional calcification reduction may be due to the substitution of strontium for calcium in the enzymatic pathways necessary for calcification. Strontium (and other doubly charged positive ions such as magnesium, barium and zinc) will occasionally substitute for calcium in the chemical processes that a coral uses for skeletogenesis. The substitution of strontium for calcium by corals, mollusks, and fishes appears accidental (Sadovy and Severin, 1992). However, strontium is not a twin of calcium and reacts somewhat differently than calcium, and may significantly slow down the calcification process. Thus, if the conditions are otherwise good for the corals, the addition of strontium would inhibit calcification. However, the deposition of strontium in the coral skeleton may not be due to simple substitution, see below.

Any strontium found in the coral skeleton is tightly bound into that skeleton. Such binding means that the chemical is not available to be utilized by, or influence the animal. Many invertebrate animals deposit wastes or toxins in crystalline matrices as a way of detoxifying their environment (Kozloff, 1990). It is possible that those corals whose skeletons contain relatively large amounts of strontium are selectively depositing it in the skeletons. This would remove that strontium from the metabolic pathways, as materials that are deposited as crystals are unavailable for biologically mediated reactions. In this way, any deleterious aspects of strontium ions in solution would countered. This type of elimination of “problem chemicals” is fairly common.

(See almost any issue of the journal, Marine Pollution Bulletin, for references to such pathways).

There is also some work indicating that strontium is rapidly and efficiently removed from the coral polyp and deposited into the skeleton (Ip and Krishnaveni 1991). They found that strontium was deposited into the skeleton of the coral Galaxea fascicularis by a pathway that appeared to be different from that used by the coral to deposit calcium. This pathway appeared to function when the calcification pathway was not working. This could indicate that natural selection has favored the development of an additional metabolic pathway to remove strontium from the solutions bathing the coral. Such a pathway would ameliorate any toxic effects due to this chemical, and would facilitate across membrane transport of calcium and subsequent skeletal calcification.

Finally, more recent work, in this article
Greegor, R. B., N. E. Pingitore Jr and F. W. Lytle. 1997. Strontianite in coral skeletal aragonite. Science. 275:1452-1454, shows that strontium is not actually substituting for calcium in coral skeletons, but is actually being deposited as a different and distinct mineral.

The bottom line is this: Coral physiology is adapted to remove strontium from the interanl coral environment and place it into the skeleton (where it is insoluble and therefore harmless). Strontium interferes will all sorts of normal physiological responses (calcium is used for everything from the production of eggs and sperm to the relaxation of muscles - and strontium interferes with these repsonses). Corals have adapted to the strontium concentrations in sea water by developing specialized chemical reactions specifically to remove the strontium from their tissues.

By adding strontium to aquaria, hobbyists are simply adding a burden to their animals that in some cases can be enough to cause deleterious effects.

And they are poisoning their animals on the advice of manufacturers selling the poisons...."

[Inno]

I hope you found that last post interesting? :) Anyways, Flame Scallops are gorgeous and will probably look for a suitable place to park it's shell within a week or two. I had a scallop for 2 years (had to move) and it did just fine with no addditions of phyto whatsoever. However, I did use regular tap water, which I believe provided the replenishing aspect of what it needed to grow and flourish. The tank did not have an abundance of algae either, but I instead tried to keep just enough for my algae eaters (not an easy task when playing with algae breakouts, it's like playing with fire lmao). I have helped others keep scallops in the same manner and they have always done quite well...gotta love them!

[manny]

That water system doesn't look too expenive to build Gary. I don't know if I'd have enough room though in my apartment. Maybe my laundry room? If you do set one up let me know. I might try it also.

[Instar]

Inno, no contest there. Iodine does do that. And no contest with the strontium either. Adding it is a waste of time.
However, iodine is necessary as a trace, not as a load or in too high an amount. The federal government has mandated iodine in your salt for decades to prevent deficiencies. This is well known amoung my generation. And, its well known amoung people who raise shrimp and shelfish. Shrimp do not molt when fed. They do molt when the appropriate amount of iodine is in solution. If you go from 0.0 to 0.2, or 0.2 to 0.4 you will see it happen. Same thing with a water change. If its not necessary, then why is it measurable in all freshly mixed sea water mixes? It gets used, thats why it ends up 0. Its also a great oxidizer. If you run long enough at 0.0 iodine in solution in your tank water, things will die and your fish will live on because they get it bonded with their food. That kind is not soluable and not usable to all the reefs animals. Notice "despite the long answer" he completely avoids the iodine part. I don't have nor have I seen any iodine soaked or saturated foods. That would be like a death wish. Perhaps he had too much in one tank. Iodine test kits are notoriously poor at proper recovery. The bottom line is that a trace of soluable iodine is necessary.

You may not have to add phyto if you grow enough naturally. They are filter feeders and in tanks that don't produce enough, you do have to add. What is their actual life span when phyto is used as a supliment vs not using any?

You use tap water? I just killed a bunch of stuff trying that. What part of the country do you live in?

[manny]

Well, I thought it was dying for about two weeks cause it wouldn't open it's shell. It would only poke its tentacles out a little bit. I kept feeding it like crazy though. I finally decided to move it from it's spot, which was between a couple of rocks, even though the article said not to mess with it. It opened right up after that and looked kinda puny. I think it had jammed itself between the rocks and couldn't get loose :shock: It's doin better though now after a TON of feeding. :D

[Inno]

Inno, no contest there. Iodine does do that. And no contest with the strontium either. Adding it is a waste of time.
However, iodine is necessary as a trace, not as a load or in too high an amount. The federal government has mandated iodine in your salt for decades to prevent deficiencies. This is well known amoung my generation. And, its well known amoung people who raise shrimp and shelfish. Shrimp do not molt when fed. They do molt when the appropriate amount of iodine is in solution. If you go from 0.0 to 0.2, or 0.2 to 0.4 you will see it happen. Same thing with a water change. If its not necessary, then why is it measurable in all freshly mixed sea water mixes? It gets used, thats why it ends up 0. Its also a great oxidizer. If you run long enough at 0.0 iodine in solution in your tank water, things will die and your fish will live on because they get it bonded with their food. That kind is not soluable and not usable to all the reefs animals. Notice "despite the long answer" he completely avoids the iodine part. I don't have nor have I seen any iodine soaked or saturated foods. That would be like a death wish. Perhaps he had too much in one tank. Iodine test kits are notoriously poor at proper recovery. The bottom line is that a trace of soluable iodine is necessary.

You may not have to add phyto if you grow enough naturally. They are filter feeders and in tanks that don't produce enough, you do have to add. What is their actual life span when phyto is used as a supliment vs not using any?

You use tap water? I just killed a bunch of stuff trying that. What part of the country do you live in?

Hey Instar :) The post doesn't necessarily state that Iodine is not present, but that it is not necessary to add in excess per manufacturer's directions.

I used to live in Cali (1.5yrs ago) and all I ever used for my reef and my customers was tap. There was never an algae problem (unless I created one on purpose) and everything grew just fine. I personally think the algae problems due to tap water have been exagerated...I've seen a bandwagon effect since then, but then again all products succumb to the bandwagon soon or later and eventually forgotten XD

[Instar]

Tap water is very different from place to place, thats for sure. And unless you have a complete water compliance test set, there is no way for you to know what heavy metals and insecticides you are getting in the tap water. The water here has cyclomethohexane in it and copper. Enough to do damage to reef animals. Maybe you live in a certain locality where you can get away with cutting the RO corner, but, recommending it to others is not safe for them or any delicate, sensitive things they may choose to keep. Recently there was a post on here about someone trying Austin tap water and having all kinds of serious troubles.

As far as iodine goes, I like the population explosion in my refugium cultures when I add just a very small amount of iodine. Less than the manufacturers recommendations too. Other people like the xenia response and the mushroom response with a trace of iodine. But then its possible that most authors don't have the true concept of what a trace is? I've decided what I'm going to do, as have you. I don't follow the hype article recommendations, especially when people say ridiculous things that I know are not true. There is a list of them that ranges from peeing in your tank to feed it, to the idea that hermits are dangerous to the environment, adding phosphate for some crazy reason, and that iodine is not necessary. We know all that is false from a very long history of scientific studies and good experiments that were conducted over years, not a couple months as is the trend in this hobby. I do agree with your statement that it is not necessary to add iodine in excess of the recommendations. Doing that (in excess) is a death sentence to the tank or parts of the system for sure. And its easy to be in excess of a trace amount if a person is not careful, thats for sure. When it comes to traces, if there is one that is used up that a reef keeper is trying to keep stable, then it is far better to under dose for that one than to over dose even a little.

[Inno]

I agree whole-heartedly on the tap issue, which is why I always suggest aquarists get a reading from their local water supplier and take the issue from there on :) I did not recommend just tap in this thread, I simpy relayed my experiences with it.