# Will a "cage" style tank control parasites?



## Rain_Frog (Apr 27, 2004)

You know, when I hear about parasites and dart frogs, sometimes I wonder if the numbers get out of control because we never clean our vivariums. Meaning, we rarely throw away the soil and feces.

I almost never hear about major parasitic infections in other anurans, minus the Gastroteca incident Ed Kowalski brought up. I hear more about bacterial infections in nonPDFs. 

So, could we control parasites by...

1. keep plants in pots (flush the pots with water occasionally when watering them)

2. rinse sphagnum moss (or throw away/ bake soil) once a month

The problem though, this could thwart attempts to breed frogs. I don't think pumilio would like it if we took them out to rinse the moss or change soil when they have a clutch of tads in the potted bromeliad.

Adult tincs also hate to be moved.


----------



## Julio (Oct 8, 2007)

what type of caging are you refering to? there many types and styles, glass, screen, bird..... and so on. i sincrely doubt that the type of caging will have any control of parasite as when and if an animal is infected unless treated in hospital enclosure will almost certainly not sure the parasites as tehy drop fecal in a regular enclosure they can easily be reinfected.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

I think it is more like an intermediate disturbance question. More likely parasites numbers peak at some point and then decline as the system matures and parasite pathogens and other enemies find their way into the system. This is very similar to the way natural ecosystems work anyway. So you have two choices, one is to try to maintain a relatively sterile and controlled environment, or let the system mature into a diverse and dynamic ecosystem with natural checks and balances. My gut feeling is that it takes at least two years to mature a vivarium. There are costs and benefits to both methods. The natural system requires less work because it pretty much manages itself, but it takes control away from the keeper and the end result may not always be the desired one (e.g. your mature system could still support unnaturally high parasite loads). It also requires the keeper to leave a vivarium alone and give it ample time to develop its own self regulating system which isn't always practical.

The other method provides more control but is more labor intensive. It also tends to disrupt beneficial natural processes and may yield an environment that is different from what the frogs are naturally adapted to. Also, reducing biodiversity (by baking soil etc.) makes the system prone to wide population swings of bacteria, parasites, etc. because you are constantly resetting the system. Diverse ecosystems are more stable than low diversity systems.

A major drawback I see to periodically cleaning the system is that it destroys the nutrient processing mechanism. Keeping plants in pots removes a major component of the nitrogen processing system of a vivarium. And removing substrate, flushing it out, and baking it, removes the other part. So you might wind up with a system that maintains a low parasite load, but where toxic nitrogenous waste is at unacceptable levels. It seems a little akin to relying on dialisis in preference to natural kidney function.

I also wasn't aware that major parastitic infections were all that common in pdf. It seems like the vast majority of froggers never experience any major infestations but I could be wrong.

P.S. I got carried away and forgot to make my main point. It is the middle ground between the two systems that can get you. A sterile setup that is not maintained properly, or a natural system that is not allowed to mature and diversify, are the most likely conditions to cause problems.


----------



## Devin Edmonds (Mar 2, 2004)

Simple enclosures work well for many dart frogs. We over-complicate things for aesthetics. Here is a shot of a ten year old breeding pair of tincs that produce good eggs regularly. They're kept in a ten gallon tank, paper towels, breeding hut, and shallow water dish. The towels are changed daily, and I believe a bleach solution is used to clean everything else during that changing too. a la Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago










As far as parasite control goes, running fecals and treating frogs prior to tossing them in an eloborate terrarium is good practice, that way you don't have to rip everything apart and clean them out when you find out you're having a problem down the line... Keeping them in a simple setup that's cleaned regularly can prevent a lot of common parasites from getting out of control. I think the catch is that if simple, hygienic setups are used they need to be maintained often, there is no room for neglect without all the benneficial bacteria/microfauna.



> I almost never hear about major parasitic infections in other anurans


I think largely that's because people aren't looking. the dart frog hobby has taken frog husbandry to a different level.


----------



## allanschon (Mar 25, 2007)

While I can't say that I've raised other frogs, but it has been my impression that PDFs tend to be more sensitive to stress than other frogs. I would imagine that certain species would be virtually impossible to raise this way (retics for example).

Not to mention the eggfeeders... You'd have a tough time sanitizing a tank without disturbing the feeding behavior of the mother or the health of the eggs/tads.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Devin Edmonds said:


> Simple enclosures work well for many dart frogs. We over-complicate things for aesthetics.


I would modify this statement slightly. It's not just for aesthetics. We also complicate things for laziness (for lack of a better word). As you said, simple systems require freqent maintenance while a properly complicated system does not. Each has its place.


----------



## Dancing frogs (Feb 20, 2004)

bbrock said:


> It is the middle ground between the two systems that can get you. A sterile setup that is not maintained properly, or a natural system that is not allowed to mature and diversify, are the most likely conditions to cause problems.


Couldn't agree more...

The problem with a so-called sterile set up is that there is no competing micro-organisms competing, so the first one that gets there (and it will get there fast) will immediatly boom, until either it runs out of nutrients, or something else comes along and eats it, or out competes it.

I think my vivs would benefit from some air circulation, other than that, I think they function just fine, though I would like to have more variety of microfauna (the "good" kind :wink: )


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

With this discussion just a few comments,

There are larger scale aspects of flow through enclosures.. the potential introduction of non-endemic infectious agents to the local enviroment (and the sewers are not a good solution as many older municiple systems when hit with a heavy rainfall can have it bypass the full treatment system) is a major issue. 

I am less concerned by a potential reduction in the ability to process nitrogeneous waste as depending on the rate of flow through the excess nitrogenous waste should be removed from the system by the flushing. 

With respect to the parasites.... the actual formal study of parasites in captive populations isn't going to get a lot of interest by various communities as there isn't really any money in it. (Unlike commercial farm animals etc) just like virtually all (if not all) medications used for frogs are a "off label" use usually based at least initially on a best guess dosage by an inventive vet) this is going to affect the documented reported actual parasite loads. 
It is possible that if large numbers of hobbyists sent thier frogs in for necropsy that a better picture could be obtained but this would require the hobbyist to have an accurate knowledge of the history of the frogs (for example, if purchased did the previous owner (or owners) ever treat the frog) and would need someone to review all of the necropsies and documnet the incidence of infection and publish it. 
For example this is one of the few studies 

Poynton, S. L. and B. Whitaker. 1995. Protozoans and metazoans of poison dart frogs (Dendrobatidae): identification and clinical significance. Proc. 5th int. symp. Pathol. Rept. Amphib. Alphen a.d. Rijn, 31-3-02-04. 79-80. Amphibia, anura, dendrobates, infection, protozoa, systematics. [Poison dart frogs, Dendrobatidae, are native to the neotropics. These small, brightly colored frogs, are unique for many reasons, including the production, by certain species, of poisonous alkaloids from the skin. The frogs are currently the subject of much interest because of their unique biology, and their value as exhibit animals and for medical research. Despite the decline of some dendrobatid populations in the wild (two genera are protected by CITES appendix II listing). and the increasing numbers that are maintained in captivity, very little is known of their health status, including protozoan and metazoan infections. The National Aquarium in Baltimore has a successful breeding program for dendrobatids, and is also engaged in a long term study of their health. Parasites of three groups of Dendrobates auratus are being studied in detail: a) wild caught frogs examined within 24 hours of capture from Central America, b) wild caught and maintained in captivity for up to two years, c) captive bred frogs. More limited studies have also been made on other species including Dendrobates pumilio. Parasites are identified by a range of light microscopy techniques including video recording of motility, and staining by protargol silver protein; and by scanning and transmission electron microscopy. The appearance of the parasites in histological sections is also being described. A wide variety of protozoans and metazoans have been observed including flagellates, ciliates, opalinids, nematodes, and acanthocephalans. Although the fauna is similar to that reported for other amphibians, several new species of protozoans have been observed, and there are differences in infections between host frog species. It is evident that protozoa and metazoa are normal component of the fauna of dendrobatids, however certain infections may become more evident in frogs when stressed. A restrained and judicious use of therapeutic treatments is appropriate. Animal Health, National Aquarium in Baltimore, Pier 3, 501 East Pratt Street, Baltimore, MD 21202, USA]

Ed


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Ed said:


> I am less concerned by a potential reduction in the ability to process nitrogeneous waste as depending on the rate of flow through the excess nitrogenous waste should be removed from the system by the flushing.
> 
> Ed


I may have misunderstood Doug's proposal but I didn't interpret it as a flow through system that is constantly flushed. Rather, it was removal and cleansing of substrate and then reuse. True, nitrogen would flush during the cleansing but it would be the equivalent of tearing down an aquarium every few weeks and starting over with an uncycled aquarium. And who knows whether solid fecal matter would be flushed in the process so there could be a chance for accumulation.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Brent,

I was referring to the comment on the pots above.. . 

If the tank was set up with a some substrate that drained over a false bottom and the water then was drained from the tank on a daily basis, it would flush the system and as long as the tank didn't dry out it wouldn't disrupt the microbial action... This would be similar to the soil staying moist and the excess water draining down to the water table. 

An alternative would be to use a clay substrate that then drained via a slope down to a drain or if the mix's particles would allow it to drain to a false bottom and then down to a drain. 

If the tank was plumbed correctly this could be set up to mimick a rain storm as occurs with a certain frequency in the wild and can be adjusted to mimick the dry and wet seasons. 

As for the fecal material, does it matter if it doesn't get washed down on day one instead of day 5? 
I doubt this would affect populations of parasites from species like Rhabdias as the free living adults and larva are going to be bound up in the substrate particles. 

Ed


----------



## rozdaboff (Feb 27, 2005)

Ed said:


> Poynton, S. L. and B. Whitaker. 1995. Protozoans and metazoans of poison dart frogs (Dendrobatidae): identification and clinical significance. Proc. 5th int. symp. Pathol. Rept. Amphib. Alphen a.d. Rijn, 31-3-02-04. 79-80.


I was never able to get a copy of these proceedings (even after what my library told me was "extensive" searches through Interlibrary Loan). However, Poynton and Whitaker published a similar paper (that is significantly longer) the previous year that I was able to get a hold of:

Sarah L. Poynton, and Brent R. Whitaker. 1994. Protozoa in Poison Dart Frogs (Dendrobatidae): Clinical Assessment and Identification. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 25(1): 29-39

If anyone is interested - shoot me a PM with your email.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Ed said:


> Hi Brent,
> 
> I was referring to the comment on the pots above.. .
> 
> ...


This is just different than what I thought was being proposed. I thought he was talking about a closed system where you pull all the substrate out and rinse and wash it once a month. I agree that a system with constant leaching would move nitrogen out of the system. 



> As for the fecal material, does it matter if it doesn't get washed down on day one instead of day 5?


It would matter if the system were closed and you removed, rinsed, and baked the substrate and reused it. Because you could, in effect be putting nitrogen contained in fecal matter back in the system at the same time you were reducing its nitrogen cycling capacity. Again, applies to a closed system which would depend on internal nitrogen cycling to control toxic buildup of nitrogenous waste. Very different from what you are talking about.


----------



## Rain_Frog (Apr 27, 2004)

sorry if I was being ambiguous, but I actually proposed both procedures as two solutions to improve husbandry- with an emphasis on a better control for parasites. 

I was modeling these methods off of Project Golden Frog's Atelopus manual: 


ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
The enclosures described above reduce the labor involved in maintenance as substrate can be easily rinsed through with fresh water. A keeper’s routine should involve the following:
• Misting: 1-2 times daily with fresh water; either an automated misting system or manual misting is sufficient.
• Cleaning cages:
o Rinse enclosure thoroughly and change water completely 2-3 times per week to remove nitrogenous wastes.
o Rinse filter media weekly (don’t change media completely unless too clogged to filter due to the beneficial bioload).
o Dismantling entire cage, disinfecting, and replacing moss substrate and organic decorations every 4-6 months.

According to the manual, Poole says that parasites will always be present, but (like Ed said) they should be checked biannually for worms. The goal is to keep the level of parasites constant to prevent a super high load, but also enough in case there are symbiotic relations in the gut flora.

Devin, I have noticed that you can easily keep baby tincs in very simple tanks. However, once moved into a "real" vivarium, they begin to tolerate less change in their surroundings. I think it's possible that tincs get so used to being in a vivarium, that they begin to view austere surroundings as stressful. 

When I talked to Burley Lilley of Xenopus Express, they have a continuous flow through system to change water in their clawed frog tanks. It is much less stress he says than complete sterilization of tanks every few days like some labs do.


----------



## Rain_Frog (Apr 27, 2004)

> think it is more like an intermediate disturbance question. More likely parasites numbers peak at some point and then decline as the system matures and parasite pathogens and other enemies find their way into the system. This is very similar to the way natural ecosystems work anyway. So you have two choices, one is to try to maintain a relatively sterile and controlled environment, or let the system mature into a diverse and dynamic ecosystem with natural checks and balances. My gut feeling is that it takes at least two years to mature a vivarium. There are costs and benefits to both methods. The natural system requires less work because it pretty much manages itself, but it takes control away from the keeper and the end result may not always be the desired one (e.g. your mature system could still support unnaturally high parasite loads). It also requires the keeper to leave a vivarium alone and give it ample time to develop its own self regulating system which isn't always practical.


Are you referring to nermertean worms? I believe they are predators, but not sure if they will actively prey on parasitic rhabdias, hookworm, etc. larvae.


----------



## Otis (Apr 16, 2006)

couldn't the disruption also hurt the frogs by stressing them out? it would stress them and then weaken their immune system and then the parasites they allready have would take over more. i think some sort of balance is needed.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Institutions typically have a more conservative approach that is in part made possible by having rapid (and usually nearly immediate) support by vet staff. At work, if I note anything odd, I can get the vets down to look at the frog often within a couple of hours if not minutes. 
This is a different approach to husbandry that is also in part made possible by the ability to tear down and redo enclosures at will. The enclosure are disinfectable, an option that is not possible in an enclosure where you have glued peat or other organic substrates to the enclosure. This is also one of the major differences seen in institutional enclosures when compared to hobbyist enclosures. You would design and maintain an enclosure in a different fashion if you have to tear it down every six months or so than if you are planning on setting it up for years. 

Stress is a different and complex subject. I have kept tincts on paper towel substrates at work for long periods of time without any problems. One of methods I used at work to rear froglets to adult size was to place 2-4 in a rubbermaid sweater box with a peat substrate. Each frog would have its own hidebox and there was always at least on shallow water dish for extra moisture as a backup system. Food items were added in a shallow plastic tray to prevent contamination of the substrate with the vitamins. The plastic tray was removed and cleaned daily. 
If there is interest in the complex issue of stress I would suggest Health and Welfare of Captive Reptiles (see http://www.amazon.com/Welfare-Captive-R ... 215&sr=1-1 ) as many of the captive stressors are the same for amphibians. 

Ed


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Rain_Frog said:


> > think it is more like an intermediate disturbance question. More likely parasites numbers peak at some point and then decline as the system matures and parasite pathogens and other enemies find their way into the system. This is very similar to the way natural ecosystems work anyway. So you have two choices, one is to try to maintain a relatively sterile and controlled environment, or let the system mature into a diverse and dynamic ecosystem with natural checks and balances. My gut feeling is that it takes at least two years to mature a vivarium. There are costs and benefits to both methods. The natural system requires less work because it pretty much manages itself, but it takes control away from the keeper and the end result may not always be the desired one (e.g. your mature system could still support unnaturally high parasite loads). It also requires the keeper to leave a vivarium alone and give it ample time to develop its own self regulating system which isn't always practical.
> 
> 
> Are you referring to nermertean worms? I believe they are predators, but not sure if they will actively prey on parasitic rhabdias, hookworm, etc. larvae.


It could involve any number of things. Including bacteria, virus, fungi, and other species that either compete with, or prey upon, the parasites. You know the old crop rotation practice in agriculture that is geared to switch fields to new crops to avoid a buildup of pathogens. Well, it turns out that the same process of pathogen buildup that harms monocultures, is actually an important ecological process for maintaining biodiversity because it prevents any one species from dominating the system.

So it is pretty well established that diversity in natural systems creates stability, but I think we are just beginning to explore the limits of this concept within vivaria.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Rain_Frog said:


> Devin, I have noticed that you can easily keep baby tincs in very simple tanks. However, once moved into a "real" vivarium, they begin to tolerate less change in their surroundings. I think it's possible that tincs get so used to being in a vivarium, that they begin to view austere surroundings as stressful.


I use to raise P. vittatus froglets in similar setups and also had problems when moving them to a planted vivarium. But it was easy to remedy by slowly adding an increasing amount of leaf litter over the period of a couple weeks to transition them from simple environments to more complex ones.


----------



## Rain_Frog (Apr 27, 2004)

Brent, interesting.

Do you think that stability can be increased if we greatly enlarge the size of our enclosures? I'm not saying like make a small greenhouse (unless we're trying to propagate free ranging egg-feeders that need a lot of space).

However, I wonder if our soil substrates are too shallow, and our plant choices are not effective. In nature, rainforest trees will suck up most of the nutrients out of the already leached, poor soil. 

I guess I'm somewhat hinting at the use of "Live Sand" in a saltwater tank, but live sand is mostly for biological filtration, and not necessarily for balancing out pathogens.

What if we introduced "live rainforest soil" in our tanks? The drawback to importing actual, non-sterilized rainforest soil is pathogens like chytrid, tropical diseases, etc.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Check out the clay substrate thread.. a good soil mix is very efficient at converting nitrogenous wastes. With respect to the conversion of nitrate to N2, this actually can occur in soils just as readily all you really need is the anoxic gradient. 
I'll let Brent discuss the immobilization of nutrients as his understanding is much more through than mine. 

One of the ways to deal with the extra nutrients is to flush the enclosure on a semi-routine schedule. 

Ed


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Rain_Frog said:


> Brent, interesting.
> 
> Do you think that stability can be increased if we greatly enlarge the size of our enclosures? I'm not saying like make a small greenhouse (unless we're trying to propagate free ranging egg-feeders that need a lot of space).
> 
> ...


Absolutely! I've said it before but I think the next advancements in viviculture will be related to vivarium volume (particularly floor surface area and substrate volume), substrate mixes, and UVB lighting. In addition to the redart clay thread that Ed mentioned, there is a parallel thread on husbandry improvements in the Science and Conservation board that started as a discussion on tank size and has settled into one on substrate. Also, there is an article I wrote in Leaf Litter that discusses the potential role of substrates in nutrient cycling.

As for N immobilization, I'm not sure there is much more to say. There are 3 basic modes of dealing with nutrients. chemical, mechanical, and biological. Ed already mentione the first two - the ability of substrates to bind nutrients and facilitate conversion to less harmful forms - and flushing with water to mechanically leach soluble nitrogen from the system. Nitrogen is relatively soluble and moves freely through, and out of a system with water. While phosphorous tends to be less soluble and thus more tightly conserved. Biological immobilization is simply taking mobile (aka available) nutrients and making them unavailable by locking them up inside of living tissue. So uptake of nitrogen by plants or bacteria immobilizes nitrogen by locking it up inside of plant or bacteria proteins where it can do no harm. Of course, when the tissue dies, the nitrogen is released and made available again. Basically, by keeping the vivarium system hungry for nitrogen, you can pretty much guarantee that any nitrogen waste will be either immobilized, or voided from the system by some combination of these three methods.

There are also issues with organic matter and carbon to nitrogen ratios but I wouldn't worry about those.


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

And then people want to fertilize their vivariums.

I'm lost here as to what the issue is in regards to Nitrogen accumulation? Unless you're reffering to some far out situations there should be no time/reasom for it to actually "accumulate". Conditions I can't even come up w/ unless considering a "sterile" enclosure left neglected, way small tanks, packing frogs, over feeding, old/unproperly set-up tank, or a "simple" enclosure where there is nothing for the Nitrogen to regulate/release, giving no purpose for the Nitrogen making it a deffinite waste product in such applications. 

With sterile or unbalanced set ups you lose the nitrifying organisms and along w/ it their ability to convert something like 9/10 of Nitrogen compounds back into its perpetual state. That alone would be enough of an incentive for me to not work against but only better what it is I have to work w/. Everything should be comfortable for the frogs to be completely comfortable.

In nature there are no "waste" products because something else developed that advantage to reap what bounty. Something to go by if you're not into making things impractically difficult (and maybe not just for yourself).


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

stchupa said:


> And then people want to fertilize their vivariums.
> 
> I'm lost here as to what the issue is in regards to Nitrogen accumulation? Unless you're reffering to some far out situations there should be no time/reasom for it to actually "accumulate". Conditions I can't even come up w/ unless considering a "sterile" enclosure left neglected, way small tanks, packing frogs, over feeding, old/unproperly set-up tank, or a "simple" enclosure where there is nothing for the Nitrogen to regulate/release, giving no purpose for the Nitrogen making it a deffinite waste product in such applications.


That's pretty much the point I think. Basically that nitrogen waste doesn't dissapear on its own so regardless of whether it is a simple, sterile viv, or a complex naturalistic one. Nitrogen has to be removed by at least one of the three basic modes. If it weren't for naturalistic vivaria have multiple modes of dealing with nitrogen cycling, and plenty of excess capacity to handle the load, they would suffer the same problems as neglected sterile setups.


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

Well yes of course a garbage heap of a natural set-up isn't any better than a sterile left dirty. I was trying to be as reasonable as I could in thinking anybody who would go to the trouble of reading this trying to gain the best ways of caring for frogs should never even come close to conditions as that. If this problem ever arises to the point it causes noticable afflictions/stress then it would be time for who ever that person is to take a few steps back. Something I might expect to find in a pop up "pet shop" but to go to the bother to have that in your home.


Three modes I'm trying to think...


bbrock said:


> > That's pretty much the point I think. Basically that nitrogen waste doesn't dissapear on its own so regardless of whether it is a simple, sterile viv, or a complex naturalistic one.


But now you have two w/ one, naturalistic vivaria DO dissapate Nitrogen (if actively working). Simple/sterile free next to no nitrogen


----------



## Rain_Frog (Apr 27, 2004)

It makes me wonder now how effective it would be to introduce other soil invertabrates, other than a culture of springtails.

Earthworms and woodlice come to mind. I do not recommend snails because in the past, large numbers would cover my mantella egg mass and produce low hatch rates.


----------



## Rain_Frog (Apr 27, 2004)

Brent, I read in the other topic that you are using earthworms. How much better have the earthworms helped the soil? I think they would be very good at composting dead plant material and frog waste, however, there are reports that nightcrawlers have destroyed much of the ecology because they deteriorate excess leaf litter.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Rain_Frog said:


> Brent, I read in the other topic that you are using earthworms. How much better have the earthworms helped the soil? I think they would be very good at composting dead plant material and frog waste, however, there are reports that nightcrawlers have destroyed much of the ecology because they deteriorate excess leaf litter.


Here's a thread on soil inverts that my interest you:
http://www.dendroboard.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=31026

I couldn't tell you how much the earthworms have affected the soil because I added them when the soil was first added. I added them because earthworms improve soil texture by cementing together particles to form aggregates as it passes through their digestive tracts. These clay pseudo-sands will likely break down into fine clay over time if there aren't some aggregating processes to counteract them. Matt Mirabello can certainly chime in here if that's wrong. In nature, I believe that earthworms, fungi, and bacteria are the 3 main agents that produce cements that bind soil particles together.

You are right that earthworms have caused a lot of problems when introduced in areas not co-evolved with them. It sucks to be a trillium in those places.


----------



## Matt Mirabello (Aug 29, 2004)

bbrock said:


> I added them because earthworms improve soil texture by cementing together particles to form aggregates as it passes through their digestive tracts. These clay pseudo-sands will likely break down into fine clay over time if there aren't some aggregating processes to counteract them.


I have a love hate relationship with earthworms. They are important to the ecosystems they naturally occur in AND in time the areas devoid of earthworms in the US due to glaciation would eventually get back species that were once native or at least US natives. I see the destruction they cause to the leaf layer in soils in NY, exposing the mineral layer beneath; my favorite part of soil (However getting joy from this is like an osteologist getting excited when he seems a broken bone coming out of someones skin). 
Earthworms destroy macroaggregates and help for microaggregates. In reading up on soil aggregation for my PhD work I found out some interesting things. Macro aggregates that are destroyed to frequently cause microaggregate break down, marcoaggregates that are destroyed to infrequently have internal microaggregate break down. In a soil with no microaggregates the macroaggregates for first THEN microaggregates form. This last part has direct bearing on which of my soil recipes you use, the one which requires raw ingredients and boiling will not have any microagregates.



bbrock said:


> In nature, I believe that earthworms, fungi, and bacteria are the 3 main agents that produce cements that bind soil particles together.


Exactly, you touched on the main groups of agents binding soil aggregates together in the temperate region (Bacteria, fungi, roots, fauna). In the tropics, or specifically areas with older soils, there is also what are described as physico-chemical aggregate formation caused by mineral interactions.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Matt Mirabello said:


> Earthworms destroy macroaggregates and help for microaggregates. In reading up on soil aggregation for my PhD work I found out some interesting things. Macro aggregates that are destroyed to frequently cause microaggregate break down, marcoaggregates that are destroyed to infrequently have internal microaggregate break down. In a soil with no microaggregates the macroaggregates for first THEN microaggregates form. This last part has direct bearing on which of my soil recipes you use, the one which requires raw ingredients and boiling will not have any microagregates.


Okay Dr. Dirt. I've read this a few times now and am still not sure what it means for my viv. Is this saying that the earthworms in the viv would help, or hurt? And I will remind you that I added earthworms based on YOUR suggestion ;-)


----------



## Matt Mirabello (Aug 29, 2004)

bbrock said:


> Okay Dr. Dirt. I've read this a few times now and am still not sure what it means for my viv. Is this saying that the earthworms in the viv would help, or hurt? And I will remind you that I added earthworms based on YOUR suggestion ;-)


An ecological response: 
Not knowing all of the components of your system AND more importantly there not being sufficient research on how all these components interact I cannot give you a definitive answer.
Keep a watch over the system and see how things go! The "terrarium soil" movement, though based in important pedologic principles, will still require copious observations to meet the specific management goal!

Once I get some time I will set up two identical soils in tanks and include worms in one but not the other. 

have any preliminary observations/results (which can be hard without a control)?

Matt


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Matt Mirabello said:


> An ecological response:
> Not knowing all of the components of your system AND more importantly there not being sufficient research on how all these components interact I cannot give you a definitive answer.
> Keep a watch over the system and see how things go! The "terrarium soil" movement, though based in important pedologic principles, will still require copious observations to meet the specific management goal!


Lame, really lame.... but good answer. But could you tell me if breaking down macro aggregation and building micro aggregation is desired? I'm not really familiar with those terms so am having a hard time putting a size to them.



> have any preliminary observations/results (which can be hard without a control)?
> 
> Matt


All I can say at this point is that the soil is holding its porosity/drainage properties but does seen to be starting some level of disaggregation. It's too soon to know how far that will go and whether other processes will serve to maintain the texture. As for worms, I can see tunnels through the viv side and can find castings on the surface. At night, you can often catch them on the surface foraging under the leaf litter. Last weekend a worm apparently found the 1/8" wide hole at the between the sliding doors and wiggles its way to freedom. Not a good long term plan to wiggle into a 20% RH room on a concrete floor.


----------



## Rain_Frog (Apr 27, 2004)

Brent, what type of earthworm are you using? nightcrawlers, native earthworms, or red wrigglers?


----------



## Matt Mirabello (Aug 29, 2004)

bbrock said:


> Lame, really lame.... but good answer. But could you tell me if breaking down macro aggregation and building micro aggregation is desired? I'm not really familiar with those terms so am having a hard time putting a size to them.


A macroaggregate is a "large" piece of soil, in the large sand size category or larger. Microaggregates are smaller sand sized particles that are built around an organic core (but not always). Macroaggregates are composed of microaggregates in the "end state." BUT initially they are just chucks of soil with no microaggregate structure. Over time they break and reform typically they reform from smaller microaggregates. Over a long time the original structureless macroaggregates are gone replaced by macroaggregates made of microaggregates.
I would classify the soil "units" in the IAD tank (http://www.frognet.org/gallery/mineralsoil/DSCN1222) as large aggregates with low microaggregate structure. They are ~1/8 inch or smaller in diameter.

Microaggregation is key to good macroaggregation. Macroaggregates are great for creating stable channels that invertebrates can navigate. When macroaggregates break apart and microaggregates form a solid structure the macropores that invertebrates can use become much less abundant



bbrock said:


> All I can say at this point is that the soil is holding its porosity/drainage properties but does seen to be starting some level of disaggregation. It's too soon to know how far that will go and whether other processes will serve to maintain the texture.


The "IAD tank" is also showing some degree of change. I need to get a god picture of it, but here is a description. The aggregates in the upper layer seem to be holding up ok, it seems that clay is moving down the profile and filling the spaces toward the bottom (a process known as lessivage or elluviation/illuviation). They actually managed to form a "perched water table" where there is a layer of water in the soil (can see the air holes filled) that will not drain despite being over a false bottom. This may be due to the initial instability of the soil when it was created OR could be an ongoing process whereby in enough time I will loose the structure entirely. 

I do not have earthworms but do have copious nemerteans, they dig holes as earthworms do but do not eat it. Not sure if their exudates lead to aggregation or not. Its one big experiment!
The soil core/center of the tank has local unmodified soil in it, I am interested to see how it is doing but do not want to disturb the tank


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

I would suggest not using red wrigglers (Eisenia)> 

Ed


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

I have had tanks that had what I believed to have earthworms in it. I didn't find the soil to be all that great - it was very saturated and I felt broke down too far too easily. I think though that is primarily a function of it being 100% peat moss, and not a more suitable substrate to begin with.


----------



## Rain_Frog (Apr 27, 2004)

why Ed? Wouldn't they decompose dead feeder insects and fresher vegetation than nightcrawlers?


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Doug, the earthworms a just what I found crawling on my driveway after a rain. All I know is that they are European since we have no native earthworms here.

Matt, excellent info. That makes much more sense. Interesting about the perched water table because I'm not getting that despite having an underlayer of uncosolidated redart clay which was added before I had worked out the latest recipe.

Mike, I'm not surprised you had bad results with the peat-based mix. "Soil" got a really bad rep as a substrate because people were calling soiless potting mixes "soil". But the soils Matt and I talk about are real, mineral based soils. They may contain organic matter but the bulk of the mass is silica or alluminum oxides I believe (Matt can correct that). Regardless, the structure may change over time but they don't decompose, not in our lifetimes anyway.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Rain_Frog said:


> why Ed? Wouldn't they decompose dead feeder insects and fresher vegetation than nightcrawlers?



For a couple of reasons... 

1) the secretions of the Eisneia are toxic to vertebrates (see 
Kobayashi H et al Toxicity of coelomic fluid of the earthworm Eisenia foetida to vertebrates but not invertebrates: probable role of sphingomyelin. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology C Toxicology and Pharmacology 128(3): 401-411 (2001) )

2) these worms are very very active feeders and will eliminate any leaf litter in the enclosure and will foul dripwalls with soil... 

Ed


----------

