# Marimo moss ball



## 02redz28 (Jan 16, 2011)

Sounds like it was in a downward spiral from the moment you got it. They should be a rich dark green when healthy.


----------



## christian_cowgirlGSR (Aug 2, 2011)

Any suggestions on what I could do to revive it?


----------



## 02redz28 (Jan 16, 2011)

I'm not sure if it can be saved. I'd prolly pitch it to prevent it from breaking down in your tank and pick up a new one from a LFS or other vendor.


----------



## christian_cowgirlGSR (Aug 2, 2011)

Sadly, I don't have an LFS close by. Thanks for the input!


----------



## Robert H (Apr 3, 2003)

Its not just turning, they need to be kept CLEAN. Take them out of the tank wring them out like a sponge under a running fawcet. If any silt build up on them it can cause dead spots which may spread. It is possible this had already started to happen to it before you purchased it. Best you can do is keep cleaning it on a weekly basis. This helps to give it oxygen. It may recover.


----------



## ALsponge (Jul 14, 2011)

I'll heard but never tried myself, that if you put it in a jar and place it by a window where it gets direct sunlight, it'll help bring it back. It IS algae after all.


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

According to the article "Global Decline of and Threats to Aegagropila linnaei, with Special Reference to the Lake Ball Habit", the decline of what we call moss balls has been correlated with eutrophication.

Eutrophication is "the movement of a water body's trophic status in the direction of more plant biomass, by the addition of artificial or natural substances, such as nitrates and phosphates, through fertilizers or sewage, to an aquatic system."


----------



## christian_cowgirlGSR (Aug 2, 2011)

thanks for the input everyone! I've moved the majority of the moss ball pieces to a separate bucket where they won't cause problems with my tank but where I can still try to revive them. I left one small piece in my big tank. I've also ordered a couple small marimo balls as replacements for the one large one that I isn't doing so well.


----------



## Robert H (Apr 3, 2003)

Thats an interesting article, but its in relation to their decline in the natural habitat, not in the aquarium. The lake "ball" form is found in fairly shallow cold water lakes in northern europe, easter europe, Japan, and Iceland. They roll across the lake bottom by the waves coming into shore. They do not grow well in still water. The movement helps them to keep their shape, recieve oxygen, and keep silt from building up. This article will explain it more.

They can grow under very low light, but they still need some light, even in a bucket of water


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

Robert H said:


> Thats an interesting article, but its in relation to their decline in the natural habitat, not in the aquarium.


My take away from that article is that too much fertilization such as nitrate or phosphate can kill a marimo ball.


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

zdnet said:


> My take away from that article is that too much fertilization such as nitrate or phosphate can kill a marimo ball.


Excess ferts don't kill marimos. Lack of light does. In overfertilized water, algae blooms or suspended sediment typically reduce light. If there's excess ferts yet the water is still clear, marimos grow well; the article makes that distinction in pages 194-195:

_"Generally, most eutrophic lakes are turbid and have
a poor underwater light climate, but eutrophic clear-water
lakes also exist... Biological interactions in clear-water lakes differ markedly
from “regular” eutrophic lakes (e.g., Jeppesen et al. 1999).
The eutrophic clear-water lake Mývatn (Iceland) is well
known for its population of A. linnaei balls"_

I can vouch that marimos do very well in aquariums up to double EI dosing.


----------



## palufreak (Mar 1, 2011)

I bought a Moss Ball a couple months ago and it was light green... I put it in the tank and a couple weeks later, it was a rich, dark green! Dunno what I did :S I wish I could help...


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

DarkCobra said:


> Excess ferts don't kill marimos. Lack of light does.
> 
> I can vouch that marimos do very well in aquariums up to double EI dosing.


Well, I had rescued a marimo ball that was almost killed by EI dosing in clear water with good lighting. I moved that ball to a tank with no dosing at all. Months later, the ball recovered.




DarkCobra said:


> In overfertilized water, algae blooms or suspended sediment typically reduce light. If there's excess ferts yet the water is still clear, marimos grow well; the article makes that distinction in pages 194-195:
> 
> _"Generally, most eutrophic lakes are turbid and have
> a poor underwater light climate, but eutrophic clear-water
> ...


Further down in that very same paragraph, the article said:

"these numbers strongly suggest that A. linnaei occurs mainly in oligomesotrophic habitats but can persist in eutrophic, clear-water lakes, and that indirect effects of eutrophication caused the observed loss of A. linnaei populations."

As to exactly what those indirect effects were, the article did not elaborate.


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

zdnet said:


> As to exactly what those indirect effects were, the article did not elaborate.


There's a section titled _"Which effects of eutrophiction might cause the observed decline?"_ which elaborates perfectly well.


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

DarkCobra said:


> There's a section titled _"Which effects of eutrophiction might cause the observed decline?"_ which elaborates perfectly well.


Since it has elaborated so "perfectly well" for you, can you quote from that section to tell us which indirect effect had killed the marimo balls?


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

zdnet said:


> Since it has elaborated so "perfectly well" for you, can you quote from that section to tell us which indirect effect had killed the marimo balls?


Who is "us"? You can only speak for yourself. If anyone else is interested, they can read the article for themselves or ask their own questions.

If you don't understand the contents of the article, then having me posting more quotes of it certainly won't help.

Rewording and explaining portions of the paper in simpler terms might help. But I already tried that, by clearly explaining the most significant indirect effect of eutrophication in my first post. Which you rejected. Given that, would you agree that there's no point in continuing this discussion?


----------



## christian_cowgirlGSR (Aug 2, 2011)

There's been a new twist in this story... I ordered and received two new marimo moss balls to replace the one that was dying. I put one in each of my tanks (5 gallon shrimp + fish fry tank and 10 gallon tank with a leopard danio, zebra danio and three white cloud mountain minnows. I put a divider into the 10 gallon tank and put a few RCS on the non-fish side of the divider). I ended up putting ALL of the dying marimo ball into a bucket, and that is where they still are in hopes that they'll recover. 

The twist in this story comes in the form of fish fry. After I put the marimo in the bucket, I discovered lots of fish fry swimming around in the bucket. I had ordered shrimp for the first time and was cycling my 5 gallon tank for them. The fish fry weren't large enough to eat the shrimp, so I went ahead and put them in the 5 gallon tank so they could grow without worry of getting eaten. The largest fry is now about 1/4" - 1/2" long. Does anyone know if WCMMs wait to get the color on their fins until they're larger? The largest fry has a stripe like the WCMMs but doesn't have any color on it's fins. Did the dying marimo come with fish eggs or did these fry come from my WCMMs and just haven't gotten the color on their fins yet?


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

DarkCobra said:


> Who is "us"? You can only speak for yourself. If anyone else is interested, they can read the article for themselves or ask their own questions.
> 
> If you don't understand the contents of the article, then having me posting more quotes of it certainly won't help.
> 
> Rewording and explaining portions of the paper in simpler terms might help. But I already tried that, by clearly explaining the most significant indirect effect of eutrophication in my first post. Which you rejected. Given that, would you agree that there's no point in continuing this discussion?


Earlier you claimed that the section "Which effects of eutrophiction might cause the observed decline?" had elaborated on the indirect effects that killed the marimo balls.

But when asked to quote from that section to support your claim, you refused.

Well, in the very next section, titled "Threat assessment and conservation", it said:

"the exact effects of eutrophication that cause a decline in populations of A. linnaei are unclear"

Even the article itself clearly stated that it did NOT know which effects killed the marimo balls. Therefore your claim that the particular section had elaborated on the effects that killed the marimo balls is ludicrous. You simply could not back up your claim.


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

zdnet said:


> Even the article itself clearly stated that it did NOT know which effects killed the marimo balls. Therefore your claim that the particular section had elaborated on the effects that killed the marimo balls is ludicrous. You simply could not back up your claim.


You are simply not that important that you get to refer to yourself as "us" and demand of me an endless string of quotes, when anyone who can read can look at the whole article for themselves and see that it lists several *possible* reasons, with *light* being stressed and mentioned more than any other possibility throughout the article.

It is you who cannot back up your claim. You claim that the article is completely inconclusive. Yet you simultaneously claim it as proof that too much ferts will kill marimo balls in an aquarium; *even though you don't know why*. But if you don't know which indirect effect kills them, how can you know whether than effect exists *in an aquarium*? Now that's ludicrous. 

So which of the candidate reasons from the article *actually occur* in an aquarium? Here's a complete list, check all that apply:

Acid rain? Runoff of industrial and agricultural pollutants, including herbicides and pesticides? Algae blooms blocking light? Toxic cyanobacteria? Surface freezes? Feeding of herbivorous fish? Turbidity? Recreational boats?


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

DarkCobra said:


> You are simply not that important that you get to refer to yourself as "us" and demand of me an endless string of quotes, when anyone who can read can look at the whole article for themselves and see that it lists several *possible* reasons, with *light* being stressed and mentioned more than any other possibility throughout the article.
> 
> It is you who cannot back up your claim. You claim that the article is completely inconclusive. Yet you simultaneously claim it as proof that too much ferts will kill marimo balls in an aquarium; *even though you don't know why*. But if you don't know which indirect effect kills them, how can you know whether than effect exists *in an aquarium*? Now that's ludicrous.
> 
> ...


Please provide quotations to substantiate your claims.


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

Someone reboot zdnet, he's stuck in a loop...


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Isn't a marimo moss ball nothing more than cladophoria algae?


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

zdnet said:


> "the exact effects of eutrophication that cause a decline in populations of A. linnaei are unclear"


Translation: Eutrophication causes a decline in...But we don't know exactly what effect of the eutrophication is causing said decline. 


Anyway, Zdnet and DarkCobra. 

I see validity in both arguments, albeit I don't think the article is remotely relevant since Marimo Balls in an aquarium are not going to be killed directly by the Fertilizers. Fertilizer in lakes has indirect effects on the Marimo Balls, its not the fertilizer itself that kills them. 

I did NOT read the article sans what has been quoted here.


A few assumptions - Eutrophication can cause turbid water. Turbid water decreases light availability. Lack of light causes algae(and all plants) to die off. Dead algae is broken down by bacteria, this can cause hypoxia. Algae is not very concerned with o2 levels(correct me if i'm wrong). Algae has a short lifecycle, its constantly producing new cells and shedding old ones. 
Marimo Balls flourish in clear water, but not so much in turbid water regardless of nutrient levels. Nutrients are good for plants/algae, so plants grow = eutrophication.


From this I can draw some conclusions/assumptions. 

If fertilizer enters a body of water it will(should) increase biomass of algae, phytoplankton, and plants - the limit of which being dependent on the amount of light. 
The more biomass the lake has the more o2 should be produced by photosynthesis - again depending on the amount of light available.
If phytoplankton or single cell algae flood the water - there is less light available deeper in the water.
Plant mass at the bottom of the water dies.
Dead plants are broken down by bacteria rapidly and this takes out an enormous amount of oxygen from the water - the oxygen levels stratify making the lower levels less inhabitable to bacteria. 
I am not sure what effects a lack of bacteria would have on clado, but it could keep dead clado cells from being broken down, which could smother the ball. 


In clear water - eutrophication is simply an indication of increased biomass, this could be an increase of Clado Balls, or anything else. 
There is no correlation between eutrophication and proliferation of Marimo balls other than that proliferation of Marimo balls would be considered eutrophication. 

In turbid water - eutrophication can cause turbid water if it causes phytoplankton or green water. Lack of light will cause decreased growth, no matter what nutrients are in the water. The nutrients in lakes, just happen to have the power to decrease the light.

Its indirect. What this means for our aquariums (as far as I'm concerned) is that fertilization is not going to have anything to do with killing a Marimo Ball unless fertilization is causing plants to produce allelopathic chemicals, killing the cladophora algae. 

I'm not convinced that fertilization plays any role in the death of the OP's clado ball, unless it is a lack of micro nutrients.

If you think your ball is going to die, do a little experiment!
Cut it into four pieces. 
One piece in a high light high ferts environment, one in a low light high ferts environment, one in a low light low ferts environment, and one in a high light low ferts environment. 
Either all of them will die - indicating your ball was screwed to begin with. 
Or the ones in high light will both grow since algae doesn't need much ferts. 
Or the ones in high ferts will die indicating ferts somehow kills them, and the ones in low ferts high/low light will both grow.

/novel


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

DarkCobra said:


> Someone reboot zdnet, he's stuck in a loop...


Well, if you believe that your rambling has valid points that can stand up to reasoning, you would not shy away from providing the requested quotation. 

Quoting from the source helps other people to follow your own thought process. It helps them to appreciate your point of view. Of course, when your thought process is flawed, quoting also helps to expose the error.

For instance, when composing your earlier claim message, had you tried to quote from the said section to support your claim, you would have discovered difficulty. Thus, detecting the error in your own thought process and stopping yourself from going ahead with the claim.

But you did not bother to quote in that claim message. When later being asked to quote, you found that you could not. By then, it was too late. You were caught!

Instead of admitting to your own mistake, you chose to do some unsightly maneuver hoping that the absurdity of your claim would not get exposed. But the absurdity was exposed. 

You then lost your cool and started rambling. Again, you could not provide the requested quotation, just like in the earlier situation when you claimed that a certain section had elaborated on the indirect effects that killed the marimo balls.


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

Chlorophile said:


> A few assumptions - Eutrophication can cause turbid water. Turbid water decreases light availability. Lack of light causes algae(and all plants) to die off.


Here is what the article said in the section "Which effects of eutrophiction might cause the observed decline?":

"The find-ing of A. linnaei in several eutrophic clearwater lakes (see above) could be an indicator that the increase of nutrient levels itself does not negatively affect A. linnaei. Shading by increased phytoplankton densities or by opportunistic microalgal epiphytes might be especially significant for A. linnaei as a very slow-growing species (Acton 1916, van den Hoek 1963). However, this species survives relatively long and dark winters under the ice in high-latitude lakes such as in Iceland (Jónnson 1992, Einarsson et al. 2004), and healthy balls of A. linnaei were found below the shallow photic zone in Lake Teterow, Germany (Pankow and Bolbrinker 1984). This illustrates the capacity of this species to cope with low-light conditions, suggesting that other factors than light limitation might play a more important role in the decline of A. linnaei populations."


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

zdnet said:


> Here is what the article said in the section "Which effects of eutrophiction might cause the observed decline?":
> 
> "The find-ing of A. linnaei in several eutrophic clearwater lakes (see above) could be an indicator that the increase of nutrient levels itself does not negatively affect A. linnaei. Shading by increased phytoplankton densities or by opportunistic microalgal epiphytes might be especially significant for A. linnaei as a very slow-growing species (Acton 1916, van den Hoek 1963). However, this species survives relatively long and dark winters under the ice in high-latitude lakes such as in Iceland (Jónnson 1992, Einarsson et al. 2004), and healthy balls of A. linnaei were found below the shallow photic zone in Lake Teterow, Germany (Pankow and Bolbrinker 1984). This illustrates the capacity of this species to cope with low-light conditions, suggesting that other factors than light limitation might play a more important role in the decline of A. linnaei populations."


The winters likely bring on other water changes which could cause a dormant state. 
If the ball has low light year round, how could it recover from winter? 
How could it thrive at all?

Either way - its all still irrelevant to aquariums. Our tanks are very eutrophic, and all have plenty of nutrients to support cladophora at pretty much any growth rate. 

"could be an indicator that the increase of nutrient levels itself does not negatively affect A. linnaei"
So even though it just _could_ be an indicator, its still probably in our best bet to assume that "...increase of nutrient levels itself does not negatively affect A. Linnaei" 
But rather that in *lakes* (clearwater or not) eutrophication somehow, sometimes, causes a decline in A. Linnaei. 

Although, the article as I have seen it hasn't made any sort of conjecture(keep in mind I didn't read the article outside of what has been posted here) as to why Marimo Balls can thrive in clear eutrophic lakes, but not in turbid eutrophic lakes. 
They simply say that other factors MIGHT play a role, based solely off the fact that the Marimo balls are healthy during the winter in clear eutrophic lakes. 
Surviving a winter is nothing compared to surviving year round in low light conditions.
Many high light plants survive winter - they simply go dormant and stop trying to grow, and withdraw nutrients back into their roots and wait for the sun to return. 
If the sun never returns, neither does the plant.


----------



## FriendsNotFood (Sep 21, 2010)

I know the original poster is way past trying to save his moss ball (R.I.P moss ball!) but I thought I'd share my moss ball thoughts anyway. In my experience Marimo moss balls are EXTREMELY tolerant of low light. I suspect they might not even do well in high light. Mine lives in a little tank that gets 7w of incandescent (yes, incandescent) light. The tank is in a mostly dark cubicle and gets no light at all on weekends. My moss ball easily doubled in size over the two years I've had it. The tank gets no ferts other than nitrates from a couple dwarf frogs and a bunch of pest snails. I never turn the moss ball or take it out or anything and it seems perfectly happy.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

FriendsNotFood said:


> I know the original poster is way past trying to save his moss ball (R.I.P moss ball!) but I thought I'd share my moss ball thoughts anyway. In my experience Marimo moss balls are EXTREMELY tolerant of low light. I suspect they might not even do well in high light. Mine lives in a little tank that gets 7w of incandescent (yes, incandescent) light. The tank is in a mostly dark cubicle and gets no light at all on weekends. My moss ball easily doubled in size over the two years I've had it. The tank gets no ferts other than nitrates from a couple dwarf frogs and a bunch of pest snails. I never turn the moss ball or take it out or anything and it seems perfectly happy.


Its growth is probably being limited by the low nutrients, limiting the amount of light it needs or the other way around, either is possible.
Keep in mind this is a ball of Algae! Very resilient. 
Whatever kills algae is a mystery really - after all we can somehow kill most algae by dosing our tanks, limiting light, and having loads of plants. 
Thats eutrophication, with light limitation, and loads of nutrients. 
In theory that should make everything thrive, but it doesnt for whatever reason. 
I still vote for allelopathy.


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

zdnet said:


> Well, if you believe that your rambling has valid points that can stand up to reasoning, you would not shy away from providing the requested quotation.
> 
> Quoting from the source helps other people to follow your own thought process. It helps them to appreciate your point of view. Of course, when your thought process is flawed, quoting also helps to expose the error.


I agree wholeheartedly with the last paragraph. However, a discussion is not just an exchange of quotes. You must be able to understand and interpret those quotes, and furthermore demonstrate that understanding by using your own words.

In this thread, you have failed to understand the article, and its applicability (or lack thereof) to the aquarium. You've also ignored or rejected as rambling all my own interpretations and comments, as well as those of others.

Instead, you just post and request more quotes; asking them from me as if you have the right to demand I prove myself to the entire forum by the use of "us", when you speak only for yourself.

These are the tactics of a person who wishes only to win a discussion by tiring or boring the other party. And after looking up a few of your other posts, I see this standard practice for you whenever there is a difference of opinion.

So I am not shying away from your request for further quotes because I want to be difficult, or because it will expose errors in my thought process. I'm doing it simply because I refuse to be baited further.

And with that, I will participate no further in this thread. Feel free to say whatever you wish about me, I won't reply.

I do hope that anyone who has any ideas about the OP's problem ignores all this. I would love to find out what's responsible for the apparent death of the marimo ball. They are incredibly hardy. The only time I've managed to injure one was with a carelessly near spot treatment of H2O2 or Excel (I can't remember which it was). Mine loves higher fert levels, and I've come to rely on it as a nitrate indicator, as it loses a bit of its deep green color before deficiency becomes apparent in any other species in my tank.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

DarkCobra said:


> I do hope that anyone who has any ideas about the OP's problem ignores all this. I would love to find out what's responsible for the apparent death of the marimo ball. They are incredibly hardy. The only time I've managed to injure one was with a carelessly near spot treatment of H2O2 or Excel (I can't remember which it was). Mine loves higher fert levels, and I've come to rely on it as a nitrate indicator, as it loses a bit of its deep green color before deficiency becomes apparent in any other species in my tank.


Odd, I really wouldn't expect a ball of algae to indicate a nitrate deficiency before your other plants. Typically algae can thrive on far less nutrients than plants, and shouldn't show signs of deficiency before many stem plants. 
But I've never owned one, as its a ball of algae and I don't want that in my tank.


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

It is odd. But it is cladophora, an exception in the algae world that likes the same conditions as plants. And I'm not sure if the color change is really indicative of a harmful deficiency to it. My oldest one, "JJ", has been through numerous tanks, with parameters all over the place; and although it's changed colors and growth rates, it has never seemed to suffer. Yes, I name my marimo balls.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

DarkCobra said:


> It is odd. But it is cladophora, an exception in the algae world that likes the same conditions as plants. And I'm not sure if the color change is really indicative of a harmful deficiency to it. My oldest one, "JJ", has been through numerous tanks, with parameters all over the place; and although it's changed colors and growth rates, it has never seemed to suffer. Yes, I name my marimo balls.


:hihi: I want you to buy three more and name them Atlas, Apophis, and Apollo.


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

LOL! A whole pantheon of marimos. Good idea.


----------



## Chris767 (Aug 2, 2011)

Mine have been subject to a multitude of enviroments as well. Anywhere from high tech planted to essentially a cup of tap water and they're still bouncing around in my current low tech planted. I've always given them light, as much as four T5HO's in a 20 gallon and and as little as sitting next to a glass block window, but ferts, or lack there-of, haven't affected them much in my experience. It's kind of weird to think that something I pay very little attention to is considered endangered in some regions.


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

DarkCobra said:


> However, a discussion is not just an exchange of quotes. You must be able to understand and interpret those quotes, and furthermore demonstrate that understanding by using your own words.


Why demonstrate? No, people do not need to demonstrate. When they find something valuable, just quote it and let it speaks for itself. People here are smart enough to form their own judgment. When they need clarification, the will ask. Again, clarification. Not demonstration.

When a discussion is based on a published source, like the article being referenced here, it is of paramount importance to being able to quote from the source. For it means being truthful and respectful of the source. When you claim that such-and-such is from the source, it is your obligation to quote from it. If you cannot, be a man and admit that you had made a mistake. Simple as that!




DarkCobra said:


> I would love to find out what's responsible for the apparent death of the marimo ball.


Well, well, well... look! Truth finally has its own way of showing up. In your self-declared final moment-of-truth, you now admit that you do not know the cause.

Didn't you say that the article already had the cause elaborated "perfectly well"? 

DarkCobra, the next time you contemplate a similar maneuver, remember what'd happened here. 

Like you and I, people came here to share and learn. You do not want to be misled. Neither do I nor the rest of us here want to be misled. But when you knew very well that you were in the wrong, and yet you chose to continue insisting that you were right, you were deliberately misleading those people who haven't read the full article. 

I hope this discussion is a well-learned lesson for you.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

No one knows the cause of the death of the OP's ball...

The article elaborated pretty close to perfectly well what the cause was in specific situations....

Lets all just be friends!


----------



## zdnet (Aug 13, 2010)

Chlorophile said:


> No one knows the cause of the death of the OP's ball...
> 
> The article elaborated pretty close to perfectly well what the cause was in specific situations....
> 
> Lets all just be friends!


----------

