# Mixed species?



## dufus (Feb 20, 2007)

Yea, the title was to bring interest to the thread.

IN light of alll the frowning going on about mixed PDFS, i have a predicament.

I'm building a 29gallon viv for my grandparents. the Foam is done, silicon everything. it's the bottom half of a half a tree with butresses(hmm, that is a mouthfull)

Anyway, my grandma doesn't want a bunch of one frog, she wants 2 each of green and black auratus, leucs, and azueres.

SO, i have this idea.

Instead of risking possible hybrids and stress, why not do something else?
I think i'll let her choose her favorite PDF of the three, and then get a pair or group of them, and a pair of clown or reed tree frogs.

Also, neon day geckos, they stay small, under 3 inches. 2 or so, to eat ff escapes and add interest.

MAYBE, add some other thing such as the pygmy leaf chameleon.

So, i prepare for a beating, and would like to know what you guys think of this.

(I've had experience w/day geckos, chameleons, and green tree frogs before, soo to have some auratus for my 10g)


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

Yeah, I think you are going to get beat-up on this one.


----------



## MrGerbik (Dec 18, 2006)

My experiance with chameleons (jacksons) is that it would be way too humid in a dart tank for them. Also although there is some agreement that pygmy chams can be housed in glass tanks i personally think it is unwise. Chameleons really need mesh enclosures to thrive.


----------



## johnnymo (Jul 20, 2007)

if you are talking about phelsuma klemmeri they have different requirments than darts. same with the pygmy cham. so it wouldnt work unless your tank was much larger( atleast 6 feet long 3 feet deep 4 foot high). The clown tree frog might work though since i believe they are from south america also and have similar requirements. I would read a bunch of caresheets first though and ask people who have kept them. Someone actually asked the same question as you not to long ago so heres a link to that convo. it will answer your questions. 

http://dendroboard.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=30279



If you are so set on mixing species then you should do alot of research and mix only animals that actually occur in the same habitat and give them a large enough tank. 29 gallons is a way to small tank to mix species in. All the animals are going to explore every last inch of that 29 so its really not a good idea.


p.s. Whos going to be taking care of the animals? In my experience as a herp keeper and petshop employee,pets make horrible presents unless the person recieving them knows how to care for the animal properly and is actually willing to care for them.


----------



## dufus (Feb 20, 2007)

I'll be taking care of it, my grandma agrees to feeding them ffs daily, and misting if we don't get an auto system.

Funny, i thought the geckos would be more compatible with darts than the clowns.

I know she won't settle with a single species, and if i decide to do a mixed PDF tank, i won't even try to get any pairs, it would be strictly a show tank.

So, out of Auratus, azueres, leucs, and tincs, which 2 are the most compatible for mixing?


I read somewhere about putting a small day gecko in the viv to control ff escapees.
I'll find the link later.

I actually ruled out the pygmy cham, but it was late last night, i was tired, and i posted it.

I would think with a more terrestrial PDF, the only times the pdf would contact any other animals is when the others come down, and from my experience with Hawian day geckos, is rare.

SO, what are you guys thoughts on the Clowns with PDFs?


----------



## Conman3880 (Jul 8, 2007)

dufus said:


> I read somewhere about putting a small day gecko in the viv to control ff escapees.
> I'll find the link later.


A lot of people put phelsuma in their frog room to control fruit fly escapes... Is that what you're thinking of? I dont think FF escapes inside the vivarium would be a concern...

And 29 gallons is far too small to mix different genus, but if you have some experience up your sleeves, you might be able to pull off different species. Be prepared to lose a couple frogs, though.


----------



## slaytonp (Nov 14, 2004)

dufus said:


> I would think with a more terrestrial PDF, the only times the pdf would contact any other animals is when the others come down, and from my experience with Hawian day geckos, is rare.


"Terrestrial" dart frogs do not remain on the ground, but will explore all over the tank. In a small enclosure, the term is meaningless. Even in my largest tanks, 135 and 180 gallon, so called "terrestrial" galactonotus and auratus utilize all of the space from top to bottom. D. leucomelas, P. terribilis and P. vittatus can be found in any portion their 80 bows, as can D. azureus. On the other hand, all of my "arboreal" thumbnails may spend time on the ground. 

Patty


----------



## dufus (Feb 20, 2007)

Ahh, that may be it.
So, maybe the phelsuma is out.
How about Hylas?

I'm looking into them right now. They seem pretty cool, my grandma may like them.

So maybe a couple of hyla, and a few dendrobatids.


----------



## raptorslovepuns (Jul 26, 2007)

I don't know man, I'm really new to dart frogs and the boards, but I've always caught hyla species in TX. I can't imagine them being very compatible. Why don't you ask your grandma if she'd like a fishtank instead?


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

General rule of thumb, if they would not meet and hang out in the wild, don't make them do it in a small enclosed space. Different species of dart frogs would in most cases never come across each other in the wild. Even when dealing with other reptiles that might "inhabit" the same environment, you have to think in terms of scale. An auratus may live mostly on the floor, and although say a tree frog may inhabit a different niche in the exact same location, this nich in the wild would be possibly 20 or more feet above our little ground friend. Would they ever meet? Maybe. Would they ever live within a few inches for long periods? No. In your tank you will barley have 20". Patty is right, unless you have a tank that is very very tall, it makes no difference. In the wild we would not call a auratus 25" off the floor arboreal, it is still within it's natural area. And we would not expect a thumbnail only to live in 12" area and never come any lower. So most of our tanks are a subpar attempt at what they would actually inhabit in their native areas. Try to convince your Grandmother on a nice little group of auratus , she will enjoy the interaction. Or, TWO tanks, maybe a 10 gallon for a pair and a trio of auratus for the 29?


----------



## Don1 (May 27, 2007)

I think you should stick with one type of animal in a tank that size if you do want lots of colours go for the fish tank.
Azures would need that size tank to them selves for a pair as would tincs,
leucs probebly 3/4 at a push, auratus the same.
in the long run its really not worth it the frogs may be small but there personalities arnt, leucs are bolder than auratus so are likely to bully them for food,same with tincs all the frogs you mentioned are known for violence during breeding term,and would stress the heck out of each other.
then you have got hybridizing which you may not be intending on doing but it can happen,and befor you even notice you could have some little 'frankinstiens' hopping about.
as for clowns i wouldnt bother they have a larger food than the darts that would interfere with them.they are extreamly shy and nocturnal so you wouldnt see them at all in the day and probly wouldnt see them too often at night.
and that would be defeting the object of your grandma wanting something to watch.
IMO its not a good idea at all, its not a pick'N'mix( i'll have 2 of the green, 2 of the blue Ect...) they need there space to do well in a viv.
Im not trying to offend anyone.
Thanks Brendan.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

You shouldn't get beat up because you are approaching this the right way. Mixing genus is actually likely to be more successful than mixing species. It is all about niche overlap. A successful mix will have species that have similar environmental requirements but whose niches do not overlap so much that they compete with each other.

If by pygmy chameleon you mean Brookesia, I believe it has been done. I don't know if it is a good idea or not. Just don't introduce anything wild caught into a mixed vivarium. I also generally agree with the rule to not mix species from different geographic locations.

All of the dart frog species you mentioned are known to hybridize. Sorry to say, but all of them are some of the worst possible choices for a mix. One of the Dendrobates, and a small Phyllobates like vittatus would be a better choice. But as has been mentioned, that isn't a very large vivarium so you are pushing.

Given that these will be your grandparent's first frogs, you would be wise to start with only one species. Let them get use to those, and if they still insist on more diversity, I think your first inclination of finding some non-dart frog companions is a better route.


----------



## dufus (Feb 20, 2007)

Don't worry about offending me guys, i'll take it.

Ok, SOme answers to your suggestions.

We've got a 55 gallon aquarium, been going for 3 years, they're happy with it, don't want another one.

This is more of my tank i'm keeping at their house, same for the aquarium. only thing is, my grandma is extremely finicky about appearences. She said she wants more than 1 kind of animal.

Now, i have an idea that this is gonna be risky, if not dangerous. 
These will be my 2nd dendros, so i am definately not very familiar with PDFs, but very familiar with herps in general.

By hyla, i mean south american hyla, hourgalss and clown treefrogs, etc.

The Pygmy cham. is OUT, i decided against it.
I've pretty much ruled the Hyla out too because of nocturnalness.

So, either at least 2 kinds of PDFs(not necassarily all dendros), or a pair/group of dendro and the small day gecko.

Now, my turn.

Why is mixing different regions so wrong?

I mean, yes, malagasy day geckos are in africa, dendros in SA. But, in aquariums, you mix species all the time. my community has angels and gouramies, from SA and asia, yet they're fine together.
I understand how it is a bit different in that herps are a little more complex.....sometimes.

Now, space.
@ Mywebbed toes-
Yes, i see how they are very far apart in the wild.
BUT, do you think our Puny little glass cages are doing them justice AT ALL?
I mean, to house a pair of dendros closely to their natural terratories, we would need a viv bigger than a room, even a house in some cases. So we shrink their inclosure to a few inches. So in doing this, why can't we shrink the enclosure of two animals in the same space, but different niches to a smaller inclosure with the same niches, just less space?

It's the same with fish.
Let's take a 55 gallon aquarium for reference.

A nice biotope with amazon fish could be 5 angels, 12 cardinal tetras, 8 cories, 6 otocinlus algae eaters, and a few oddballs.
That's 6 cubic feet.

Now, in the wild, if you took 6 cubic feet of water from the amazon, without the fish knowing at all, you MAY get 1 fish, you MAY get, if you happened upon a school, 6 fish, btu that's it.

So, if you can put a pair of auratus in a 20g happily, and and a small day gecko in a 10 gallon happily, why couldn't you put that pair of auratus and the gecko in a 30 gallon?

I see, they can meet, but theoretically, they should have thesame amount of space to themselves.

And, in this viv, the gecko could take the top parts, coming down from time to time, and the dendros could take the terra, going up from time to time. So the occasions of them meeting would be short, i'm sure. but increasingly often. so do the dendros just hate everything, or are they just terratorial towards other things that look like, and compete with them?

Re: food.
i fully understand the dendros don't want crickets all over them, who does?

so, what's wrong with canned gecko food, frozen foods, and a few crickets from time to time?



Now, i fully understand the dangers of mixing species, mainly stressors and hybridization, but now what about genus'?

Like bbrock said, what about dendros and phyllos?
Since i'm aware of the issue of stressors, what about hybridizing?

How likely are the two genus' to hybridize,and would the offspring or eggs even survive?

Guys, i'll do my best to convince my gma towards a group, and the day gecko may be the bargaining point, but i'm not too sure she'll go for it.

I've got an idea that blue and bronze auratus or one of the multi colored tincs will be on the table soon.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

I would suggest reading through the thread linked below 

http://www.dendroboard.com/phpBB2/viewt ... highlight=


I have some comments on non-zoogeographic correct mixes in there... some of the items are because there are a number of diseases doing real harm to animals in captivity and the wild that are from mixing animals from disparate zoogeographic zones. 

Ed


----------



## dufus (Feb 20, 2007)

Wow, thanks for the link Ed.

It gave me alot of information, some encouraging and some discouraging.

I think i'm starting to get this thing sorted out.
From what i understand, One species of dendrobatid, along with a small hylid and possibly a small gecko from the same region could, in theory, be fine together, provided with their niches.

I beleive i can house the niches of a dendrobatid and hylid, but will have to research on a small lizard i geuss.

That really put the topic in an awesome understanding.
The first post had alot of the things i was trying to say but couldn't get from my head to the keys.


----------



## zBrinks (Jul 16, 2006)

If you have to have different kinds of frogs, why not go with some of the auratus morphs that are probably the same thing (blue and black, green and black, green and bronze, teal and . . .). Im sure you could contact some of the larger breeders and find fairly different looking frogs that came from the same parents.


----------



## johnnymo (Jul 20, 2007)

i never said it was impossible to house that day gecko with darts. You just need a larger enclousure. The success with mixed tanks comes from making diffrent climates in the tank and space. I really dont see how it would be possible to make diffrent climates in a 29 gallon tank. For the day gecko you should half of the cage covered in screen with a uvb and heat lamp on that side. A heat lamp on a 29 is really going to affect the ambient tempeture of the whole tank. beleive me, when i was setting up my first tank i was dieing for a pair of phelsuma to throw in with my darts. I talked to people who have kept both and it just came down to space. It could be done as long as there was enough space to have diffrent climates in the tank.


----------



## Conman3880 (Jul 8, 2007)

dufus said:


> So, if you can put a pair of auratus in a 20g happily, and and a small day gecko in a 10 gallon happily, why couldn't you put that pair of auratus and the gecko in a 30 gallon?


The problem with that is... Well, a single day gecko will also be perfectly happy in a 30 gallon. Just because it CAN be housed comfortably in a 10 gallon doesnt mean it will only occupy 1/3 of a 30 gallon tank. It will occupy ALL of the tank, and so will the darts.

Terrestrial frogs do not "occasionally" go to the top, they will spend just as much time at the top of the cage as they do on the bottom, and so will the gecko. The WILL interact MUCH more than you think they will.

I think the point that we're all trying to get at is that it is a BAD IDEA and you SHOULD NOT do it. A 29 gallon tank is just way to small to accomidate 2 different species. It just cant be pulled off by anyone other than the most savvy dart owners. But I think different colored auratus can be pulled off. If a green & black and a blue & black breed, it would be bad, but not as bad as an auratus/tinc hybrid. Just make sure the hybrid doesnt get released into the hobby, as it will muddy the bloodlines further.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Conman3880 said:


> The problem with that is... Well, a single day gecko will also be perfectly happy in a 30 gallon. Just because it CAN be housed comfortably in a 10 gallon doesnt mean it will only occupy 1/3 of a 30 gallon tank. It will occupy ALL of the tank, and so will the darts.


Why is this a problem? 




Conman3880 said:


> Terrestrial frogs do not "occasionally" go to the top, they will spend just as much time at the top of the cage as they do on the bottom, and so will the gecko. The WILL interact MUCH more than you think they will.



Define interaction. 




Conman3880 said:


> A 29 gallon tank is just way to small to accomidate 2 different species.


Based on what criteria?


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Ed said:


> Conman3880 said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with that is... Well, a single day gecko will also be perfectly happy in a 30 gallon. Just because it CAN be housed comfortably in a 10 gallon doesnt mean it will only occupy 1/3 of a 30 gallon tank. It will occupy ALL of the tank, and so will the darts.
> ...


I don't know if it is a problem in this case (I know nothing abot keeping day geckos) but I do agree that the logic is flawed. Volume needed to contain species cannot be segregated and added up like this. Say a day gecko does fine in a 10 gallon tank, and a vine snake does well in a 10 gallon tank. So I should be able to house them together in a 20 gallon, right? Oops! Where did my gecko go?


----------



## dufus (Feb 20, 2007)

Well, obviously we wouldn't want to house a lizard and a snake that almost primarily feeds on lizards in the same tank, but that's a bit different.

My day gecko wouldn't even take large crickets, i had to find small ones,. which my lfs had to special order.

and if PDFs take ffs, then i doubt either could eat each other.

I see how the climate issue could pose a problem. but there are some sacrifices that could be made.

Ventilation- 
Fans in the back to control humidity. i'd say 80-90% would be cool with both phelsuma and dendro i think.

heat- with the light i have,and the fans, i think the heat will stay in the top, while the bottom will be fairly cool.

if needed, adding aheat pad to the back of the tank will help tremendously.


I beleive what ed is trying to get at is the dendro wouldn't really notice the gecko much because it's not a dendro's shape. kindof.

the same with the gecko. if it isn't a direct competitor or predator in nature, it may not even notice it's there.

So what about mantellas and phelsumas?
they would be more compatible with phelsuma because they are in the same region right?

and can you house the different phases of mantella together? to me it sounds like housing auratus morphs together.


----------



## dufus (Feb 20, 2007)

Also, i've been reading for a while on this, and i've found that Azureus is a "form" of tinctorius right?

And leucs and auratus are of the same "complex" right?

so in theory, it would be safer to house auratus and tincs together or leucs and azureus together right?

All this is just as far as hybridizing though, not aggression or anything.

So what would be wrong with 2 leucs and 2 azureus? i see the hybrid problem, but obviously i wouldn't sell them, or even keep them, maybe just throw the eggs away.


----------



## Ben_C (Jun 25, 2004)

Hi Dufus,
I'm not sure I understand your post but...
azureus is likely a distinct population of Dendrobates tinctorius.
As for the 'complex' you're mentioning...
D. auratus, leucomelas, and tinctorius are all in the same group, yes.

As for your hypothesis that it would be safer to house auratus and tincs together or leucs and azureus together as opposed to auratus and leucs/azures or tincs and leucs/azureus, i'm not sure we could make the claim that it is 'safer' until we define what 'safer' means.

~B


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

> @ Mywebbed toes-
> Yes, i see how they are very far apart in the wild.
> BUT, do you think our Puny little glass cages are doing them justice AT ALL?
> I mean, to house a pair of dendros closely to their natural terratories, we would need a viv bigger than a room, even a house in some cases. So we shrink their inclosure to a few inches. So in doing this, why can't we shrink the enclosure of two animals in the same space, but different niches to a smaller inclosure with the same niches, just less space?


 I think this is my point exactly. There are a few set-ups that are so large and natural (the room size ones you were talking about), that the frogs maybe do not know the difference. But, considering most have tanks smaller than 50 gallons, ours are just small copies of a natural environment. In my opinion, I would not want to shrink that size down even more to have multiple animals. They are as you said puny in most cases, so why give your frogs even less territory to call their own? 

* froglet* had an interesting point in regards to large water features and waterfalls in tanks, ha said:



> The tanks we keep frogs in are getting smaller and smaller, and not only that now we make them smaller by adding something to the tank that could potentially kill the frogs.


 Now he was talking about water having potentially negative effects and making the usable area of the tank smaller. But with the points that have been raised about stress, diseases and such you have to accept that this could be of harm to all involved. And adding more animals does make the tank smaller.
If you fully understand the animals needs involved, and are up for the risk I say go for it. But just keep in mind, that every time the "mixed issue" gets brought up, there are pages of long time keeps saying "It is a bad idea, don't do it." And almost no one saying, "This works great, everyone should try it".

And a note on the 2 leucs and 2 azureus combo, they are all pretty big frogs, aside from the hybrid problem, they may need more room than 29 gallons.


----------



## Ben_C (Jun 25, 2004)

> So what about mantellas and phelsumas?
> they would be more compatible with phelsuma because they are in the same region right?
> 
> and can you house the different phases of mantella together? to me it sounds like housing auratus morphs together.


There is some overlap between some Mantella species and Phelsuma species. However, this does not necessarily imply compatability and in captivity, a Mantella could make a large meal for a Phelsuma (depending on species, of course).
Also, not sure what 'phases' youare talking about w/ respect to the Mantellas... can you post examples of the 'phases' you are talking about?
Either way, I suspect the majority of people will not recommend this sort of mixing because the vast majority of Mantellas are wild collected and are a declining, limited, valuable, natural resource that are not frequently available as captive bred individuals. 
I hope this helps,
B


----------



## dufus (Feb 20, 2007)

Yea, i wouldn't want to keep mantellas in a mixed setup, just because if they did hybridize, it would suck because they couldn've been purebred and helped the hobby.

So, i just found that auratus has a hawain morph. so that could mean that the hawain day geckos could inhabit the same areas of the auratus.

I think i have this figured out now.
If i can't get my grandma to go with one species, i'll try the auratus morphs, and if that doesn't work, bring in the gecko.

if she still doesn't like the plan, i may go for leucs and azureus, but reluctantly.


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

I think if like *zBrinks* said, you found some different looking auratus from the same parents that would be a really cool setup. I have read that one pair can produce offspring that are anywhere between green and blur, so if by chance you could find some that would look neat. Whatever you do, I hope you and your Grandma enjoy it, sounds like you will.


----------



## dufus (Feb 20, 2007)

i'll keep my eye out for some different auratus from the same parent.
We'll see, this thing is still a ways away from frogs.


----------



## Ben_C (Jun 25, 2004)

> So, i just found that auratus has a hawain morph. so that could mean that the hawain day geckos could inhabit the same areas of the auratus.


I wouldn't recommend it. The hawaiian day gecko that you'll probably end up with, Phelsuma laticauda will happily eat Dendrobates auratus tadpoles/froglets.
I hope this helps,
B


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Mywebbedtoes said:


> I think this is my point exactly. There are a few set-ups that are so large and natural (the room size ones you were talking about), that the frogs maybe do not know the difference. But, considering most have tanks smaller than 50 gallons, ours are just small copies of a natural environment. In my opinion, I would not want to shrink that size down even more to have multiple animals. They are as you said puny in most cases, so why give your frogs even less territory to call their own?



The size of the set-up is irrelevant depending on 
1) how it is set-up 
2) what is going into it. 

If you set up a room sized enclosure that only has one small patch suitable for the frogs then you could actually be providing less room that is available in a small aquarium. The set-up is often of equal or greater value than the size of the enclosure. 
What goes into the tank is also of importance. Territories are not absolutes. There are typically core areas that are defended more vigourously than out lying overlapping areas. 
Animals can have totally territories that are totally overlapped by other animals of the same species and still have a home range. 




Mywebbedtoes said:


> Now he was talking about water having potentially negative effects and making the usable area of the tank smaller. But with the points that have been raised about stress, diseases and such you have to accept that this could be of harm to all involved. And adding more animals does make the tank smaller.


Adding more animals does not necessarily make the tank smaller as it depends on many factors including the types of animals involved. If a Gonatodes from the same region was added to the tank the area available to the frogs does not change... See above. 




Mywebbedtoes said:


> If you fully understand the animals needs involved, and are up for the risk I say go for it. But just keep in mind, that every time the "mixed issue" gets brought up, there are pages of long time keeps saying "It is a bad idea, don't do it." And almost no one saying, "This works great, everyone should try it".


I am curious as to how many of the people saying not to mix species have ever really sat down and planned it out properly so it would work.... It can be a lot of effort to set up the enclosure before it is even planted to try and get the parameters right. 




Mywebbedtoes said:


> And a note on the 2 leucs and 2 azureus combo, they are all pretty big frogs, aside from the hybrid problem, they may need more room than 29 gallons.


The commonly offered opinion is "5 gallons/frog" and this fits well into that number. 

I think we have a disjunct going on here... this person is looking to set up a display tank that has some colorful frogs in it to enjoy as simply that part of it. They are not looking to breed the frogs or even necessarily enjoy some of the cool behaviors like the parents carrying around and placing tadpoles. They are interested in a colorful diurnal group of frogs that they can enjoy. 
The concerns about hybrids are valid but if the frogs are not provided with any tadpole deposition sites this becomes a moot point if eggs are laid... 

So we have concern that the frogs will stress each other out... what if they spend the extra money and get a couple of different tinct morphs (say giant orange (instead of leucomelas), and azureus or sipalwini but spends the money and gets adult males? 

Ed


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

Points taken Ed. There is certainly a lot to take into consideration.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

dufus said:


> Well, obviously we wouldn't want to house a lizard and a snake that almost primarily feeds on lizards in the same tank, but that's a bit different.


This was an extreme example to prove a point that you can't calculate suitable size/volume by adding up the minimum requirements of all of the inhabitants. The point is that you have to think carefully and try to predict the possible negative interactions that might occur between the species and try to figure out how to design the enclosue to minimize or eliminate those interactions. This is what Ed has been trying to say as well. In the extreme vine snake example, the negative interactions are severe (predator/prey) so even a house-sized greenhouse might not be large enough to prevent them (although I would be tempted to try). What a larger size does is provide more flexibility in providing functional separation between interacting species, or to eliminate the frequency, or reduce the intensity that the interactions occur.

I do think you are right though in that all of the pdf you have mentioned, auratus, leucomelas, tintorius, and azureus, are able to live together quite well. Like you said, it is only the hybrid issue. If you go this route, please, please, make sure your grandparents understand the importance of not distributing the offspring. It is easy to say you will destroy eggs and tadpoles now, but just as easy to have a change of heart when it is time to do the deed. Also, it is easy to go ahead and raise some froglets and decide later that they look so much like one of the species, that they must not be hybrids. There is no way to know for sure by looking, especially with a tinc/azureus combination. So follow Ed's advice and take precautions to prevent having to make these decisions later.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Ed said:


> The size of the set-up is irrelevant depending on
> 1) how it is set-up
> 2) what is going into it.


Oh goodie, I get to disagree with my good friend here. The size of the set-up is not irrelevent. I think what you are really saying is that with careful planning and design, you can make a smaller set-up function as well for a mixed species community than a larger one. That, I agree with. But there are limitations to how small you can go - regardless of good design. And providing more volume can compensate for potential negative interactions. It is all about reducing the frequency and/or intensity of negative interactions. Providing more volume provides a potential dilution factor. Simple chemistry Ed ;-)



> Adding more animals does not necessarily make the tank smaller as it depends on many factors including the types of animals involved.
> 
> Ed


Well, yes it does always make the tank smaller from an ecosystem perspective. You are craming more top order predator biomass into a confined space which does influence ecosystem processes. Okay, I took your comment out of context but it is so seldom I get to disagree with you. I couldn't help myself.

The point being that Ed is right about careful design compensating and, again, volume space in a vivarium is not an additivive thing. Niche overlap of the species involved is extremely important. You need a Goldilocks fit there. Enough overlap they have similar environmental requirements, but not so much that they compete with each other. But I was concerned that the way Ed's message read that it would seem that size doesn't matter. It does. Animals cannot occupy all locations of their territory all of the time. So increasing the volume can reduce contact between two animals even if their territories completely overlap.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

bbrock said:


> Ed said:
> 
> 
> > The size of the set-up is irrelevant depending on
> ...


I think the problem is because my message is about all possible inhabitants and people tend to think I am only referring to dart frogs. 

Even though more top level predators may be involved in the system, the food supply is not limited in most setups because of the feeding regimens so I am not sure how this effects the ecological processes when food is basically unlimited.. I know Plethodontid territories contract and population density shoots way up under this scenario..... 

Ed


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Ed said:


> Even though more top level predators may be involved in the system, the food supply is not limited in most setups because of the feeding regimens so I am not sure how this effects the ecological processes when food is basically unlimited.. I know Plethodontid territories contract and population density shoots way up under this scenario.....
> 
> Ed


I'll do everyone a favor and not get into it too deeply. But there is a finite amount of microbial capacity in the system. Adding more top order consumers and more food to feed them, could alter the carbon to nitrogen ratio of the system and have significant impacts on plant growth and nutrient dynamics. In addition, you create what we call in conservation "subsidized predators" which are more likely to drive organisms that might otherwise form sustainable populations into extinction. The ability to sustain things like isopods, springtails, and small beetles in a vivarium is dependent on the relationship between predation pressure and ecological capacity. The lower you keep the predatorrey ratio, the more likely your viv can support sustainable populations of arthropods.

So even if you are artificially supporting an increased population density of predators, there can still be significant influences on the ecological processes inside the viv. Those influences might not make the habitat unsuitable for the inhabitants, but there is a trade-off between population density and sustainability. It's just good to bear that in mind. And there is a theoretical point where the population will exceed the ecological capacity of the vivarium no matter how much food you add. Again, the larger the vivarium, the higher that threshold.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

I agree the number is going to be finite... 
(this ended up in your quote section so I don't know if you missed it..) 

snip "But unless the enclosure is properly set up for the animals in question then volume will not resolve any of the issues as the animals in question (depending on species, size etc) maybe forced into attempting to use the same spot to survive. All because an exhibit is large and "natural" (note few if any enclosures are natural due to a failure to consist of plants and animals (including invertebrate) and materials from the correct geographic region. They are typically a hodgepodge from all over) does not mean that it is appropriate in any sense of the word. 

Of course there are limitations on how small one can go (hence the use of the wording depending on... as regardless of how it was set up you would not be able to fit a goliath frog in a ten gallon tank (for an extreme example...)... "endsnip 

Most of the enclosures common in todays hobby are insufficient for supporting populations of the arthropods so we have to subsidize the predators. Given that most of the frogs are already offered food in excess of the daily metabolic needs one or more predators (depending on the size of the enclosure) may actually be a good thing..overall. 

How would the dynamics change if the excess nutrients were exported from the enclosure say via a one way flush through watering system?? 

Ed


----------



## Don1 (May 27, 2007)

And mixing leucs and azureus is a bad idea!!!
And heres the link its at the bottom of the page.
http://www.tracyhicks.com/Kfrogs.htm
This is all it says under it.
Leuc x azureus hybrid (female azureus, male leuc) 

Thanks Brendan.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

I think the person considering setting up the tank understands that they can hybridize and it has been acknowledged several times in the thread... 

Ed


----------



## Don1 (May 27, 2007)

was that aimed at me,
if so i know he knows about hybridizing,
but if you read his earlier post he thought that they wouldnt be cause they are not from the same group of frogs i was just pointing out that they are.
Thanks Brendan.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Yep... Brent also pointed it out in a post earlier today.. Didn't include the link to the picture but stated that the whole group of tinct, auratus, leucs would all hybridize. 

Ed


----------



## slaytonp (Nov 14, 2004)

Hey, Dufus--You didn't get beat up after all, but aren't you sorry you asked for information yet?  

Patty


----------



## Don1 (May 27, 2007)

Sorry must of missed that one,  ,
its 3am here and iv just finished work my eyes are getting lazy :lol: 
Anyway its an intresting thread.
Also im sure more than one person can point out the same fact,
its all info that can help the person.
No offence intended  
Thanks Brendan.
Also i just thought he could see it for himself.
rather than just having to take someones word for it.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Ed said:


> Most of the enclosures common in todays hobby are insufficient for supporting populations of the arthropods so we have to subsidize the predators. Given that most of the frogs are already offered food in excess of the daily metabolic needs one or more predators (depending on the size of the enclosure) may actually be a good thing..overall.


I'm not so sure. There has been a trend toward larger enclosures and the old standard 10 gallon set-up is not so standard anymore. As a result, we are seeing more vivs that can support at least sustainable populations of springtails. Many that can support isopods. I don't know if you had a chance to dig through the leaf litter in my pumilio viv but there is a nice assortment of things that have been living in there for many years. So I think we are on the frontier of being able to sustain more diverse communities in our vivs and moving our vivs to something more akin to a reef aquarium. We will always have to subsidize the predators though. I've posted before about how we simply can't support enough plant biomass to sustain predators like frogs and lizards in a reasonably sized vivarium. But sustainability is a continuous thing. There are many shades of sustainability.



> How would the dynamics change if the excess nutrients were exported from the enclosure say via a one way flush through watering system??


Flushing water through an open systems helps flush soluble nutrients like nitrogen out of the system. But I would suspect there would still be an decrease in the carbon:nitrogen ratio of the system as the predator population increases. If you have a high C:N ratio, microbial activity increases which allows microbes to immobilize (lock up) more nitrogen. Reduce the ratio and nitrogen availability to plants increases. Contrary to what the horticulture books tell us, keeping plants hungry in a vivarium is actually a good thing and keeps rampant growth in check while allowing for a greater diversity of plants to thrive. Granted, these may not be the top concerns on many vivarists lists but they are the kinds of dynamics that can make the difference between a vivarium as simply a container for plants and animals, and a vivarium that is a dynamic functioning ecosystem.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hey Brendan,

No problem... it just seemed a little hard on Dufus (must be the late night I get cranky too then as well...)


Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Brent,

A move to larger more sustainable enclosures would be a big improvement in the hobby but I think we are also going to be seeing more of two types of dart frog keepers emerging. Those who want to have a neat tank and are not interested in breeding or watching the cool parental behaviors and the more serious keepers who are going to set up that extra space etc. 
While it may grate on the more dedicated person's nerves there are going be those who just want a display tank. Some percentage of these are going to graduate into the more serious keepers and some are just going to be a population sink for the frogs and other animals. However I think we need to get the information up for those who want the display tanks because the more of those that are successful, the more of those who may graduate into the more dedicated group.. 

I didn't dig through your cage for a couple of reasons mainly because I have this belief that if its working don't mess with it... and the number of metamorphs strongly indicated how well it was working.... but I did look closely and see inverts crawling around which was a strong indication that there was a large population in there... 



Ed


----------



## dufus (Feb 20, 2007)

*Great news*

My grandma decided on a group of leucs, only leucs.
She wants to see them breed, cool.

thanks for all the help and opinions guys, especially ed, who's posts where very informed and backed bu knowledge.

That hybrid is a pretty frog, but i hoper the lady doesn't sell them 

There was no insulting taken on this end, i feel fine.

And i see where people would want displays over breeder tanks, much like the aquarium world. in fact, i see this hobby falling into the footsteps of the aquarium world, now, if we could only drive the price down on dendros.......


----------



## johnnymo (Jul 20, 2007)

dufas you took all the input quite well. i want to thank you for not throwing a hissy fit and getting offended like a lot of people do when they want to mix animals that arent appropriate and members try to explain to them why it isnt the best thing to do. This shows you really do care about the animals well being. 

p.s. post pics of the vivarium when its done!


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

Ah, that was a great thread! I bet you weren't expecting all of that. Your Grandma made a good choice, I think she will love them, and they may be even more interesting on their own.

To be honest, my favorite thing was people responding to you:



> dufas you took all the input quite well.





> Hey, Dufus--You didn't get beat up after all,


Made me laugh every time, but I'm sure you chose the name for that reason. And you didn't get beat-up. But you did get to watch other guys beat each other up (in a good way, not negative), and thats always fun, especially when you see the respect behind it and their concern for the hobby. Ed and bbrock know their stuff. And do post pictures when it is done.


----------



## gm_kevin (Apr 17, 2007)

I'm going to ask the question that I'm sure a lot of people are wondering (to the best of my ability):

Ed - I've read many of your posts on the boards, and you seem to know a lot about what you're talking about. Meaning, I respect you and many of your opinions, as I'm sure most people on the boards do. I'm just curious though, throughout this thread you've been talking around taking a stand by making people question their predisposed responses to all the mixing threads (as they should), but in the end what's your take on the situation? Do you really think within one of our tanks multiple species, morphs, whatever, can coexist, where all said inhabitants can *thrive* as they would alone?

It just seems easy to back something like this up, but in the end, is it really worth it? I just set up tanks for my aunt/uncle and my parents, they both wanted a little of this, and a little of that. I simply explained to them that if they wanted their animals to *thrive*, it's just not possible. Why is it so hard for people to accept that?


A side note, one of the predisposed responses that people use, "save it for the most experienced keepers", or something along those lines. With the exception of someone who jumps into the hobby with no experience, no knowledge, I don't see the difference an experienced frogger can make. Say, mixing thumbnails and tincs, in the same size tank, the frogs won't act differently because their caretaker has a few extra years under his/her belt. As long as you give them the time of day, they'll make it easy to see if they're getting stressed, and both the experienced frogger and new guy will simply pull stressed frogs. So, long story short, I don't think its right to tell beginners that mixed tanks are reserved for the experienced keepers only. The best response: No, they won't like it, *why make your new pets unhappy, just for your viewing pleasure?* If it were a dog or cat, people will do backflips to make them happy. Frogs aren't as important? A pet is a pet, you take responsibilities when you aquire them. Simple as that.


----------



## johnnymo (Jul 20, 2007)

well put kevin.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

gm_kevin said:


> Ed - I've read many of your posts on the boards, and you seem to know a lot about what you're talking about. Meaning, I respect you and many of your opinions, as I'm sure most people on the boards do. I'm just curious though, throughout this thread you've been talking around taking a stand by making people question their predisposed responses to all the mixing threads (as they should), but in the end what's your take on the situation? Do you really think within one of our tanks multiple species, morphs, whatever, can coexist, where all said inhabitants can *thrive* as they would alone?



The simple answer is yes. (Now for the complexities.) However this depends on a lot of forethought and consideration prior to setting up the enclosure. I think I have said this many times. 
It isn't as simple as setting up a aquarium and going out to the local pet store and getting "community" fish but it can set up properly and I think I have stood on that position for a long time. I started working with these sorts of issues a good period of time ago (well over 15 years now) and have seen where poorly thought out set-ups don't work and where well thought ones can and do... 
There are also the occasional suggestions of these sprinkled through the literature if people care to sift them out as well. (for one example see Wilkinson, John W.; 2004; _Dendrobates truncatus_: an often overlooked poison-dart frog; Herpetological Bulletin 88: 11-12 )




gm_kevin said:


> It just seems easy to back something like this up, but in the end, is it really worth it? I just set up tanks for my aunt/uncle and my parents, they both wanted a little of this, and a little of that. I simply explained to them that if they wanted their animals to *thrive*, it's just not possible. Why is it so hard for people to accept that?


But it is possible to get them to thrive provided the work is done ahead of time. I don't like telling people lies and if its is possible, I would prefer to tell them that it is possible but requires a lot more work than setting up a single species enclosure as that way they know what they are getting. It would be appropriate to tell them that you recommend it to be a single species enclosure as this would make it easier for them to help the frogs thrive until they gain experience but to simply tell them as a blanket statement that the frogs won't thrive is misleading at best. It depends on what you mean by is it worth it? If the person or persons does the extra work and sets the enclosure up properly and the animals do well and they and the keepers are "happy" (I hate using this word but its early and I'm shortcutting it) should we be the ones to say that it wasn't worth it? Why are we qualified to judge them? 




gm_kevin said:


> A side note, one of the predisposed responses that people use, "save it for the most experienced keepers", or something along those lines. With the exception of someone who jumps into the hobby with no experience, no knowledge, I don't see the difference an experienced frogger can make. Say, mixing thumbnails and tincs, in the same size tank, the frogs won't act differently because their caretaker has a few extra years under his/her belt. As long as you give them the time of day, they'll make it easy to see if they're getting stressed, and both the experienced frogger and new guy will simply pull stressed frogs. So, long story short, I don't think its right to tell beginners that mixed tanks are reserved for the experienced keepers only. The best response: No, they won't like it, *why make your new pets unhappy, just for your viewing pleasure?* If it were a dog or cat, people will do backflips to make them happy. Frogs aren't as important? A pet is a pet, you take responsibilities when you aquire them. Simple as that


I agree with some of this and disagree with some of this, I think they should be told its possible but requires a lot more planning and work. I think non-zoogeographicly correct setups should be discouraged due to the risk of pathogens (as we have seen with mycoplasma in Gopherus and Terrapene and chytrid to name a couple of examples). 

Kevin, your position makes it appear obvious that you don't believe it can work regardless of the amount of effort put into the enclosure and therefore it is okay to tell people that it doesn't work but this is not necessarily supported by the facts. I prefer to tell them the truth in that it can work but is more work to set up and there is a lot more to it than simply setting up a tank and putting animals in it until something lives..... 

So other than the hybridization issue explain why more than one morph of a frog won't work.... they are the same species after all.... 

Ed


----------



## Don1 (May 27, 2007)

Ed said:


> Hey Brendan,
> 
> No problem... it just seemed a little hard on Dufus (must be the late night I get cranky too then as well...)
> 
> ...


No probs mate, 
i think i should of worded it better.
I didnt intend to be hard on him.
 
Thanks Brendan.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Ed said:


> Hi Brent,
> 
> A move to larger more sustainable enclosures would be a big improvement in the hobby but I think we are also going to be seeing more of two types of dart frog keepers emerging. Those who want to have a neat tank and are not interested in breeding or watching the cool parental behaviors and the more serious keepers who are going to set up that extra space etc.


Ed, what I'm saying is that the hobby is already moving toward larger tanks. I don't know that many people who are still keeping most of their frogs in 10 gallon tanks anymore. A pair of frogs in a 20 gallon tank is approaching the volume where we can start to sustain invertebrate populations. Lot's of people on this forum are already at the stage where they maintain springtails and isopods in their vivs. I'm not just talking about huge displays.

An often stated goal/dream on these forums is developing self-stainable vivaria. The volume needed for such a thing would be huge, but even at the 20-100 gallon volume range, we already have the capacity to introduce elements of sustainablity. And when you start getting invertebrates living and reproducing inside the vivarium, you get internal nutrient cycling that can have benefits for the tank inhabitats. Even if your goal is not sustainability, I think it is important for people to understand that increasing the number of predators in a small volume may sacrifice some of these benefits. It is for the individual to decide if the sacrifice is worth it.



> While it may grate on the more dedicated person's nerves there are going be those who just want a display tank. Some percentage of these are going to graduate into the more serious keepers and some are just going to be a population sink for the frogs and other animals. However I think we need to get the information up for those who want the display tanks because the more of those that are successful, the more of those who may graduate into the more dedicated group..


There is nothing wrong with display tanks. I like them myself. I'm not arguing against them. What I am saying is that there IS a trade-off between the volume of the tank and the display you can have. How many people are keeping reef tanks that are only 10 gallons? I don't make up the rules of island biogeography, I just follow them. The bottom line is that if you want to have a diverse community display, the larger the space you can allocate, the greater the diversity you are likely to be able to accomodate. 

All I'm saying is that when you concentrate larger populations in smaller spaces, there ARE trade-offs. Larger volumes of space provide breathing room that can help compensate for modest mistakes or foresight in the design. Putting several predators into a small enclosure requires much more skill and planning than putting that same number into a much larger enclosure.

I'm not arguing that mixed species set-ups cannot be done is small spaces, I'm just saying that they are much easier in large spaces and there are going to be some benefits in the stability and diversity of the larger vivarium as well.

Personally, I feel much more comfortable mixing pdf with lizards and hylids in a 50 gallon set-up than I do in a 20.


----------



## Mywebbedtoes (Jul 2, 2007)

This is for Ed. This has been a fascinating thread, you and bbrock have really put a lot into it. I was think about what was being discussed in the _*continuous mixing*_ thread that you commented on. Mixing is oviously a question that is hear to stay. Because their is no YES or NO answer to it, I was thinking it would be a great idea if you, or you and some others, wrote an article on it doing what you have done here, laying out the fact, both good and bad. One of the problems with the mixing topic is the information can be confusing. Some say NO, but then we read about members who do it with success. And many of the threads on it tend to go a bit back and forth like this one. Would if there was a post we could all link to in the future that laid it all out (the basics anyways). *THESE ARE THE FACTS, POSITIVE, NEGATIVE. THIS IS WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BEFORE YOU CONSIDER THIS.*
Then people could say, "alright, I want to try this because I am willing to do this and that." Or, "I think I will not try this because of this or that." That seems better than, "Yes you can." Or "No, you can't so don't."
Just a thought.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

bbrock said:


> Ed said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Brent,
> ...


Hi Brent,

I am agreeing with you here.. but what I am saying is that I think with the upswing in popularity there is also going to be an increase in people who just want display tank.... 




bbrock said:


> An often stated goal/dream on these forums is developing self-stainable vivaria. The volume needed for such a thing would be huge, but even at the 20-100 gallon volume range, we already have the capacity to introduce elements of sustainablity. And when you start getting invertebrates living and reproducing inside the vivarium, you get internal nutrient cycling that can have benefits for the tank inhabitats. Even if your goal is not sustainability, I think it is important for people to understand that increasing the number of predators in a small volume may sacrifice some of these benefits. It is for the individual to decide if the sacrifice is worth it.


I agree with this also.. but again I am going back to I think we are going to see an increase in people who just want a display setup at first and may want to max it out as much as possible. This can be subsidized but is not ideal. The goal would be to get these people successfully past the hump so when they see how cool the frogs are as many as possible come overr to the more serious side. 




bbrock said:


> There is nothing wrong with display tanks. I like them myself. I'm not arguing against them. What I am saying is that there IS a trade-off between the volume of the tank and the display you can have. How many people are keeping reef tanks that are only 10 gallons? I don't make up the rules of island biogeography, I just follow them. The bottom line is that if you want to have a diverse community display, the larger the space you can allocate, the greater the diversity you are likely to be able to accomodate. .


Google nanoreef... its it own whole genre... however this is beside the point.. we (I think) are argueing two sides of the same coin.. and this may have to do with my phrasing. Larger is better... I agree.... but simply having a larger enclosure doesn't mean that you have provided sufficient good (or ideally optimal) habitat for even one animal but in a optimized smaller enclosure you may have provided better (or even optimal) habitat for multiple animals. 





bbrock said:


> All I'm saying is that when you concentrate larger populations in smaller spaces, there ARE trade-offs. Larger volumes of space provide breathing room that can help compensate for modest mistakes or foresight in the design. Putting several predators into a small enclosure requires much more skill and planning than putting that same number into a much larger enclosure. .


And I think I have been supporting this in different words all along. Maybe I've been unclear but I tried not to be... 




bbrock said:


> I'm not arguing that mixed species set-ups cannot be done is small spaces, I'm just saying that they are much easier in large spaces and there are going to be some benefits in the stability and diversity of the larger vivarium as well..


I think the difference here is that I keep qualifying it based on design, and animals involved. For example, with respect to territoriality issues, it is easier to keep multiple hylids together (except for some notable exceptions like Hyla boans) unlike ranids who require sight barriers to hide from each other and ready made retreats so the frog if spooked it doesn't break its neck or nose smashing into a side of the enclosure attempting to escape... So in an enclosure that maybe fine for a group of hylids you may only be able to sustain one ranid regardless of how it was set-up. 



bbrock said:


> Personally, I feel much more comfortable mixing pdf with lizards and hylids in a 50 gallon set-up than I do in a 20.


While I have seen both 20 and 55 gallon sized enclosures where I would be much more comfortable housing a some dendrobatids with a kind of hylid or small lizard in the 20 when comparing the two... For me it all comes down to how well the enclosure has been set up.. If done properly it may (I stress may here) be possible to house some small hylid or a small lizard and some dendrobatid in the enclosure. I am deliberately not useing numbers as these would obviously change based on the bioload of the animals involved. For example, some of the small spaherodactyline geckos mass less or maybe the same as an adult tinct would be a different predator subsidy than an adult Gonatodes or Norops and these sort of effects also have to be looked into before the enclosure is set up. (to go back to tropical fish for a moment here.. often with freshwater fish the old rule was 1 inch of fish/gallon of water but when you think about it, do ten one inch tetras produce the same amount of waste as one 10 inch oscar?). There are limits and they have to be considered but the first and foremost is how well the enclosure is set-up.. a poorly set-up enclosure regardless of size is a problem.... 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Mywebbedtoes

It would be difficult to write a cohesive article on it due to the many factors that have to be taken into consideration with each set-up. The situation changes depending on not only the enclosure, the design and location of the enclosure but the animals that may go into that enclosure... 

Ed


----------



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

Ed, Brent,

I think I'm seeing a talk or perhaps a panel discussion at next year's IAD meeting...hint, hint :wink: 

Bill


----------



## zBrinks (Jul 16, 2006)

IADs too far away, how bout MWFF?? :lol:


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Ed said:


> While I have seen both 20 and 55 gallon sized enclosures where I would be much more comfortable housing a some dendrobatids with a kind of hylid or small lizard in the 20 when comparing the two... For me it all comes down to how well the enclosure has been set up.. If done properly it may (I stress may here) be possible to house some small hylid or a small lizard and some dendrobatid in the enclosure....
> 
> snip ...
> 
> ...


I think the above is the exact point where are phlosophies differ. First, I agree that a "poorly set-up enclosure" is a problem regardless of size. But the definition of a poor set-up varies tremendously. I think what your are talking about is lack of appropriate visual barriers etc. that allow multiple species to share the same space. But increase volume can compensate for that because it allows species to more fully realize their natural niche separation. Consider, for example, a dendrobatid that spends most of its time on the ground and a Norops that likes to be 3-5 feet up in the shrubs. Sick the two of them in a 12 inch tall vivarium and they can only be a foot vertical distance apart. Stick the two species in a 36 inch tall vivarium, and you have drastically increased the separation. In the smaller vivarium, knowldege and skill are more more important to reduce negative interactions. In the larger enclosure, such things become less important because the animals are allowed to naturally separate according to their niche preferences. For this reason, the FIRST recommendation I would make for anyone contemplating a mixed species set-up for the first time, would be to select the largest enclosure you can practically use. Once they know the dimesions of the enclosure, THEN they need to consider necessary steps to set up the enclosure to allow the species in question to co-habit. 

Secondly, I stress the size because we are talking about beginners setting up displays. I believe it is best for a beginner to start with a robust set-up. Robust meaning that it will still perform despite modest mistakes that any beginner (or even experienced vivarist) is likely to make. I think it is just prudent to point out that mistakes are likely to be less severe if the density of top order predators in enclosure is low. I still maintain that the skill required to be successful increases as the volume of the enclosure decreases.

I'm a big fan of history and many people come from aquarium backgrounds. So I think the history of marine aquaris is very relevant here. In the early days, marine tanks simply tried to keep a number of fish species (and some invertebrates) alive in the same tank. I would call this an organism-oriented approach. If the cohabitants can survive and don't kill each other, it is a success. Through much trial and error, the Berlin system was developed and became the modern reef tank we know today. At the heart of this system is "live rock" and an abundance of invertebrates mixed with a relatively few fish. This is clearly a community ecology approach. It transforms a tank containing a variety of large specimens into a complex and dynamic ecosystem. Each resident of that ecosystem contributes something to the system that makes it healthy and stable as a whole. After the hobby gained experience with the community ecology approach, they began to understand the key components of what makes those systems tick. Once you understand those components, you can then selectively choose those components most important and assemble them into simplified ecosystems that work. And once you know how to create simplified systems, then you can start shrinking down the size of that system to make it function in a smaller space. And the nano-reef is born. With experience with nano-reefs, reliable formulaes begin to emerge that even new comers to the hobby can replicate with success. Right now the vivarium hobby is way back where the marine hobby was in the 1050's and 60's. We view vivaria largely as enclosures that contain one or more display species. We are just now beginning to venture into a community ecology approach with in-tank culture of food invertebrates, plenum wall refugia, etc. I don't think we are at a point where we have formulaes that can guarantee success in small spaces. Right now I think we are developing our own equivalent of the Berlin System which is to figure out how to make our vivaria function as a community. That doesn't mean there aren't workable combinations in small spaces out there. But until we can provide formulaes to say put "A,B, and C together with components X, Y, and Z", we are in an experimental phase and such experiments suggest giving yourself some physical room to make mistakes.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

bbrock said:


> I think the above is the exact point where are phlosophies differ. First, I agree that a "poorly set-up enclosure" is a problem regardless of size. But the definition of a poor set-up varies tremendously. I think what your are talking about is lack of appropriate visual barriers etc. that allow multiple species to share the same space. But increase volume can compensate for that because it allows species to more fully realize their natural niche separation. Consider, for example, a dendrobatid that spends most of its time on the ground and a Norops that likes to be 3-5 feet up in the shrubs. Sick the two of them in a 12 inch tall vivarium and they can only be a foot vertical distance apart. Stick the two species in a 36 inch tall vivarium, and you have drastically increased the separation. In the smaller vivarium, knowldege and skill are more more important to reduce negative interactions. In the larger enclosure, such things become less important because the animals are allowed to naturally separate according to their niche preferences. For this reason, the FIRST recommendation I would make for anyone contemplating a mixed species set-up for the first time, would be to select the largest enclosure you can practically use. Once they know the dimesions of the enclosure, THEN they need to consider necessary steps to set up the enclosure to allow the species in question to co-habit.


Where I differ here with the properly set-up is because if the 36 inch tall aquarium is improperly set-up then the Norops and the Dendrobatid frog may still be foreced to reside within 12 inches of each other just as if they were in an enclosure that was only 12 inches tall.....



bbrock said:


> Secondly, I stress the size because we are talking about beginners setting up displays. I believe it is best for a beginner to start with a robust set-up. Robust meaning that it will still perform despite modest mistakes that any beginner (or even experienced vivarist) is likely to make. I think it is just prudent to point out that mistakes are likely to be less severe if the density of top order predators in enclosure is low. I still maintain that the skill required to be successful increases as the volume of the enclosure decreases.


See my comment above on size. The size of the enclosure doesn't mean that any of it will be suitable for the animals in question. If it is improperly set-up then it doesn't matter how big the enclosure. The use of "robust" here means that at least some of the design elements are correct. I agree with this but this may functionally be equivalent to only including sufficient suitable habitat as a smaller enclosure... 



bbrock said:


> Through much trial and error, the Berlin system was developed and became the modern reef tank we know today. At the heart of this system is "live rock" and an abundance of invertebrates mixed with a relatively few fish..


Its been a few years since I checked up on the reef sysytem but the Berlin method evolved into the Plenum system with refugia and even in the mid 1990s there were serious questions being asked about the ultrascrubbing methods of the oversized protien skimmers (see Adley and Lovage, The Dynamic Aquarium and various items by Sprung et al) with respect to how it effects the community. (and in 1988, I had a ten gallon nanoreef that I had for about 5 years before I broke it down...it consisted of two seahorses, liverock, mushroom anemones, a cleaner shrimp, several peppermint shrimp and a couple of small pistol shrimp and some grape calerpa. The filtration was provided by a small skimmer and a hang on the back whisper filter. The shrimp spawned weekly which was a major source of food for the seahorses and in additon they were fed small live guppies but only as many as they could eat at one time. With multiple water changes... this was several years before people even began to look at nanotanks..). 

Have to finish it later. Break is over. 

Ed


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Ed said:


> Where I differ here with the properly set-up is because if the 36 inch tall aquarium is improperly set-up then the Norops and the Dendrobatid frog may still be foreced to reside within 12 inches of each other just as if they were in an enclosure that was only 12 inches tall.....


I think we are talking past each other Ed. As I said, "improper setup" can many many different things. At a macro scale the set-up needs to provide the right conditions for the inhabitants involved. Let's assume we can set up a vivarium that a norops and a dendrobatis would find habitatable anywhere in the vivarium (temperature, humidity, light, etc.). Volume allows species within that setup to choose their own microhabitats which can create separation by choice, or by chance. Chance because even if both species occupy areas within the viv at random, a larger volume reduces the probability that they will both occupy the same point at the same time.

As you force those animals into a smaller volume, then you need to be more conscious of potential negative interactions and manipulate microhabitats to reduce them. And this may be true even if the macrohabitat of the whole viv is suitable for both species.



> Its been a few years since I checked up on the reef sysytem but the Berlin method evolved into the Plenum system with refugia and even in the mid 1990s there were serious questions being asked about the ultrascrubbing methods of the oversized protien skimmers (see Adley and Lovage, The Dynamic Aquarium and various items by Sprung et al) with respect to how it effects the community.


I think you missed my point. What later became known as the Berlin System was introduced in:

_Wilkens, P. 1973. The Saltwater Aquarium for Tropical Marine Invertebrates. Engelbert Pfriem Verlag, Wuppertal, Germany._

It introduced the concept of live rock as a fundamental component of a reef system. This moved the hobby from an organism oriented approach, to a community ecology approach. Yes, the hobby has refined methods since that initial introduction, but modern practices are still entrenched in a community ecology approach. 



> (and in 1988, I had a ten gallon nanoreef that I had for about 5 years before I broke it down...it consisted of two seahorses, liverock, mushroom anemones, a cleaner shrimp, several peppermint shrimp and a couple of small pistol shrimp and some grape calerpa. The filtration was provided by a small skimmer and a hang on the back whisper filter. The shrimp spawned weekly which was a major source of food for the seahorses and in additon they were fed small live guppies but only as many as they could eat at one time. With multiple water changes... this was several years before people even began to look at nanotanks..).


This is exactly my point. 1988 was nearly two decades after the hobby began moving to community ecology based systems. People with some experience and know-how began experimenting with ways to shrink those communities into smaller spaces. You were a pioneer and based on yours, and others successes, a lot of people can now set up a nanoreef and be successful with little or no prior experience. I don't think we are at that point in the vivarium hobby yet. We are still experimenting and learning and a higher failure rate is to be expected. I just think new people contemplating mixed species set-ups should understand that they venturing into somewhat untested waters - and that increasing the volume of their set-ups may be a useful tool for their success.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

bbrock said:


> I think we are talking past each other Ed. As I said, "improper setup" can many many different things. At a macro scale the set-up needs to provide the right conditions for the inhabitants involved. Let's assume we can set up a vivarium that a norops and a dendrobatis would find habitatable anywhere in the vivarium (temperature, humidity, light, etc.). Volume allows species within that setup to choose their own microhabitats which can create separation by choice, or by chance. Chance because even if both species occupy areas within the viv at random, a larger volume reduces the probability that they will both occupy the same point at the same time.


I don't think I have disagreed with this idea. I think we got hung up on the size with me standing by a badly set up enclosure is badly setup regardless of size and you with (to some extent bigger is better). 



bbrock said:


> As you force those animals into a smaller volume, then you need to be more conscious of potential negative interactions and manipulate microhabitats to reduce them. And this may be true even if the macrohabitat of the whole viv is suitable for both species.


I think I am on board with this and have been trying to say it mainly with (the now obviously) inadequate phrase of depending on...




bbrock said:


> I think you missed my point. What later became known as the Berlin System was introduced in:
> 
> _Wilkens, P. 1973. The Saltwater Aquarium for Tropical Marine Invertebrates. Engelbert Pfriem Verlag, Wuppertal, Germany._
> 
> It introduced the concept of live rock as a fundamental component of a reef system. This moved the hobby from an organism oriented approach, to a community ecology approach. Yes, the hobby has refined methods since that initial introduction, but modern practices are still entrenched in a community ecology approach. .


The original use of live rock actually dates back to 1961 see 
Eng, L.C.; 1961; Nature's system for keeping marine fishes; Tropical Fish Hobbyist 9(6):23-30

The Berlin method combined the use of live rock with heavy duty skimming of the water, (and a little later, kalkwasser additions, trace mineral additions and metal halide lighting (definition provided in The Reef Aquarium, 1994, Ricordea Publishing, Florida). The live rock provided a anoxic zone through which nitrates would be broken down by the bacteria while the skimming reduced the protiens that were converted into nitrates. The benefits of the invertebrate and plant seeding were recognized afterwards. In Eng's original setups the fish densities could be surprisingly high as he used very fresh live rock that was totally seeded and did not lose any of the fauna on it due to death in transit. 





bbrock said:


> [I don't think we are at that point in the vivarium hobby yet. We are still experimenting and learning and a higher failure rate is to be expected. I just think new people contemplating mixed species set-ups should understand that they venturing into somewhat untested waters - and that increasing the volume of their set-ups may be a useful tool for their success.


This goes back to my post where we need to tell the people the truth that it is possible just more work.... Its not appropriate to simply claim it doesn't work. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Zach,

A zookeeper's travel budget won't let me stretch it that far as we already were in Montana this year and I am attending Frog Day in New York...

Ed


----------



## zBrinks (Jul 16, 2006)

Hi Ed,

Theres always next year!


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Ed said:


> I don't think I have disagreed with this idea. I think we got hung up on the size with me standing by a badly set up enclosure is badly setup regardless of size and you with (to some extent bigger is better).


Yes, we are largely in agreement. What I'm trying to say though is that I'm assuming the choice of inhabitants is animals with similar enough habitat requirements that the entire enclosure would be reasonably suitable for all inhabitants involved. Clearly if you wanted to mix a horned lizard with a pdf, to cite an extreme example, you would run into some challenges requiring parts of the enclosure space to be improper for some of the inhabitants.

But if the above assumption is met, from an ecological standpoint, bigger is always better. A vivarium represents an extreme form of habitat fragmentation and there are a whole host of ecological processes that become limited in small spaces. That doesn't mean the mix can't work in the small space, only that you need to understand your system well to make it work, and understand there are some ecological sacrifices - perhaps acceptable sacrifices - but sacrifices nonetheless.



> The original use of live rock actually dates back to 1961 see
> Eng, L.C.; 1961; Nature's system for keeping marine fishes; Tropical Fish Hobbyist 9(6):23-30


Thanks for the citation. I've been researching this for a book and the farthest back I had found was the 1973 citation. This is very helpful.

Your citation pushes the shift toward a community ecology approach even farther and extends the experimentation phase. I was keeping marine fish (not reef systems) in the mid 1970's and live rock was not yet available in the Midwest. I could read about it in books, but it simply wasn't available. At that point the use of sand cultures was commonplace but the first live rock that became available to us were chunks that cost about $20 for a tennis ball sized piece (remember, this was 1970's hyper-inflation, energy crisis prices). It wasn't until the 1980's that live rock was being shipped to our area, about the same time actinic lights became available, and reef tanks became a possibility for us. So while some people had been experimenting with community ecology approaches to marine aquaria a decade or two, people like me were still killing animals trying to get them to live with inadequate equipment and technology. What I'm suggesting is that the vivarium hobby is at the same point the reef hobby was in when live rock was first being introduced. It would be nice if we had fewer kids like me killing stuff as we are in this experimental phase. I think a good start is to suggest that experimentors try to use large boxes (to the extent practical) for their experiments. The sizes can likely be shrunk later as we gain confidence in our methods.




> This goes back to my post where we need to tell the people the truth that it is possible just more work.... Its not appropriate to simply claim it doesn't work.
> 
> Ed


Of course I agree it is not honest to say it doesn't work. But I also think we need to tell people that the chances of success are likely to be better if they get some experience with single species set-ups first. Scratch that, I think I would say a person's chances for failure are high if they don't understand single species set-ups first. I just think the challenges for a new person who has never kept vivarium animals at all to successfully set up a single species vivarium are high enough. No need to complicate things right off the bat.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

I don't have too much else to say... I sent you a e-mail about the rock.... 
Eng's methods were extrodinary and very simple. 

the obstinate crazy one... 

Ed


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

*An alternative*

Well, I have never kept pdf's, but I have kept a big paludarium with a crazy combination of species--I posted this on another thread:

"For years I kept a flying gecko, anoles, small hylids, a big Polypedates dennysii, dwarf clawed frogs, a mudskipper, bumblebee gobies, spiketail paradise fish, an African butterfly and Lisa the Argentine lungfish in a 55--they did quite well... ( Yes Corey, I am aware of the temperature, salinity and pH considerations :wink: )"

Now, I am in NO WAY recommending this, but man, it looked cool. Two considerations:

1) The potential for pathogens is of course greater with wild-caught specimens. For example, a flying gecko may have normal gut flora that might harm a neotropical animal.

2) The animal's niche: Recall Gause's principle of competitive exclusion: no two organisms will occupy the same ecological niche.

With these in mind, here are a couple of safe combinations for a 29High:

--U.S.: a pair of green OR grey treefrogs, two oak toads and a trio of green anoles;
--"Africa:" three or four reed frogs, a Kassina senegalensis (the small spotted running frog) OR Red banded Crevice Creeoer and a trio of small day geckos; 
--Asia: A pair of long tailed grass lizards, a Rana erythrea and two small Asian Hylids (e.g., Hyla sinensis);

**All of thes setups, of course, thrive with a bit more ventilation than the typical enclosed pdf tank.

Which brings us to South America. Now I have never kept pdfs, as my tanks tend to run warm in the summer (so, I have good success with swamp aroids lijke Anubias and Cryptocoryne). But I do keep Hyla marmorata, which, while not diurnal, does not hide during the day. What would be wrong with a pair of Hyla marmorata or leucophyllata with a pair or trio of more terrestrial pdfs? The fact that one species is nocturnal and the other diurnal is a good thing, as it minimizes competition, no? 

I know for a fact that people have had long-term success with sparse population densities from the same biogeographic region. Experts such as Philippe des Vosjoli and Rex Lee Searcy try more daring combinations; so what be wrong with just a couple of S.A. treefrogs with a trio of pdfs?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

snip "1) The potential for pathogens is of course greater with wild-caught specimens. For example, a flying gecko may have normal gut flora that might harm a neotropical animal. "endsnip

This is often cited as a reason.. but I have strong reservations about it in practice. It is possible for some diseases to be vertically transmitted. For example if the terraria is kept at above 75 F, then it is unlikely that chytrid will result in the death of an amphibian. If tadpoles are hatched in that enclosure then there will be vertical transmission which can then be carried to other enclosures. (and chytrid has been detected in cb animals not only in the private sector but in institutional collections). 

Lungworms (and other nematodes), tapeworms, hookworms and coccidia are all prevelant in captive bred animals (and with reptiles those parastites as well as cryptosporidia, amoeba... the list goes on...) 

Ed


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

*Re: An alternative*



Groundhog said:


> Well, I have never kept pdf's, but I have kept a big paludarium with a crazy combination of species--I posted this on another thread:


You also mentioned that people want to do reef-type setups with vivaria and I agree. Again, it is about moving toward an ecosystem approach and ecosystems tend to be more stable with a diversity of species. For me the key is viewing the vivarium as a system rather than a cage in search of the right combination of species that won't kill each other. But if you can design a system with parts that compliment each other, then you can do lots of neat stuff.



> I know for a fact that people have had long-term success with sparse population densities from the same biogeographic region. Experts such as Philippe des Vosjoli and Rex Lee Searcy try more daring combinations; so what be wrong with just a couple of S.A. treefrogs with a trio of pdfs?


Well over 20 years ago a built a vivarium headboard that was 6 ft. long, 2 ft. high and 2 ft. deep. It contained a gray treefrog, a squirrel treefrog, and a brown anole. These did well for the 3 years the vivarium existed. Shortly before it was torn down for a move, I had added a group of juvenile D. auratus. The auratus weren't in the mix long enough to be able to say they were successful but there is little reason to think there would have been problems. The hylids came out at night (note, male squirrel treefrogs a.k.a. "rainfrog" are not the greatest animals to house a few inches from sleeping heads), and the anole had her favorite basking spot where she occassionally darted out to grab prey. Of course the auratus were all over the vivarium floor but rarely did we see any interaction between species.


----------



## eschaton (Jun 27, 2007)

It seems like you decided against, but if you're looking for a dude to buy a neotropical gecko from this guy is your man I think.


----------



## waynowon (Jun 2, 2007)

*brain cramp causes another issue*

my terribalis tank is almost ready, but the froglet have arrived. i don't want to leave them in shipping container so i put them in my azureus viv. i know this is wrong, but can they cope for 48-72hours?azureus are full grown males


----------



## zBrinks (Jul 16, 2006)

Bad idea - go out and buy some sterilite shoebox containers and keep them in that for the time being, with a layer of LFS for substrate, and some form of cover.


----------



## dufus (Feb 20, 2007)

Excuse me for my ignorance, but what does LFS stand for?

(coming from aquariums, LFS means local fish store)
and i'll probally remember this right after i hit submit.


----------



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

dufus said:


> Excuse me for my ignorance, but what does LFS stand for?
> 
> (coming from aquariums, LFS means local fish store)
> and i'll probally remember this right after i hit submit.


LFS = long fiber sphagnum


----------



## waynowon (Jun 2, 2007)

*WHAT ARE THE DANGERS*

I did finish my tank, but still waiting for humidity to get to 80%(at 72% now, and temp is between 70-80 degrees.) Is it ok to put them in the new tank without optimal humidity levels? 

What are the greatest dangers of having my 2 grown azureus males with the two mint froglet in the same tank? (besides bacteria and bullying which i know would be a major issue) the adults would do the bullying right? and the froglets would be vulnerable to disease from adults?

Just so you all know i have each froglet in seperate large tupperware containers with sphangum, and cocohut, and both are eating well.
I know someone would track me down and hurt me if I didn't listen to their advice. I am still curious what would happen if they were kept together. Does anyone Know? would they keep froglets from eating? or physically push them around or sit on them? what diseases are they suceptible to and how would you know if the frog is infected? or would i probably wake up and turn on the lights with a dead frog on the moss? 
does anyone have pics of frogs suffering this type of abuse? can someone post?(i needed to see pics of tabaco chewers rotten jaws before i quit)-don't hate me for being an idiot-warren


----------



## zBrinks (Jul 16, 2006)

Ha, I dont think anyone would track you down and impart bodily harm, but you know its not a good idea (and risk summoning our wrath, are you crazy? :lol: ). Its very hard to predict what animals would do to each other, especially animals that would normally not come in contact with each other outside the artificial parameters of our vivs. Personally, I wouldnt be suprised if there was no direct, obvious sign of anything wrong, and a frog or two (Id think the froglets) gradually wasted away, do to stress and/or contamination from the natural fauna of the other species. You've got them separated now, you did the best thing for the frogs, just leave it that way.


----------



## waynowon (Jun 2, 2007)

*i guess i screwed up again*

i put he terribilis froglets in the azureus' old tank. (because it was a well establshed environment) the fauna then can be detrimental to the froglets because of azureus waste? should i switch them back? would the stress be worse or contaminated tank? help me choose the lesser of two weevils-warren


----------



## zBrinks (Jul 16, 2006)

Whats done is done now. by 'native fauna', I was talking about the natural gut bacteria in an organism, and the like. They can be harmful to another organism that is not able to handle them. Chances are, everything will be fine. Im just very careful about not exposing one group of frogs to anything that has been exposed to another group, before it gets a good disinfection via a 10% bleach solution.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

You did the right thing separating them out. I think putting them together would have presented a very, very, high risk to the terribilis. You already identified the risks. Disease transmission is not just hypothetical. There are many accounts of people failing to properly quarantine their animals and ending up with entire breeding colonies, and in some cases, whole collections, dying from an epidemic of some new bug that came in with new frogs.

But putting young froglets in with established adults is a way bad idea. Froglets can be very easily intimidated and this stress can lead to death within just a couple of days.

You did make a mistake though in putting the terribilis in the old azureus vivarium. That vivarium likely harbors whatever bugs the azureus may have. Although the azureus are just fine with those bugs, it is possible the terribilis have never been exposed to them. Also, the terribilis are young, and they have recently been transported. That means they don't have a fully developed immune system, and they are stressed, which comprimises the immune system even more. Putting them in a recently occupied vivarium exposes them to potentially new strains of bacteria at a time when their immune systems are not working at full capacity. There's a good chance everything will be fine, but it could be done with much less risk to the frogs. 

The correct way is to set up a temporary viv for the new arrivals. My favorite is to use an inexpensive plastic sweater box (only a few dollars) and put moist LFS in the bottom. Throw in some clean leaf litter, maybe a sprig or two of pothos or some other plant, and be done with it.


----------



## slaytonp (Nov 14, 2004)

zBrinks said:


> Im just very careful about not exposing one group of frogs to anything that has been exposed to another group, before it gets a good disinfection via a 10% bleach solution.


This is just niggling, but a 2% bleach solution (with a dash of white vinegar in it) is actually more effective than the stronger 10%, since it is more reactive. It must be freshly diluted, as it deteriorates rapidly. This formula with or without the vinegar, is still a standard disinfectant in many clinical and microbiology laboratories for wiping down counters and equipment. (I can't recall the exact amount of vinegar, but the slight acidification enhances the reaction.)


----------

