Have we been wrong in our understanding of PAR this whole time??

Doctorgori

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
4,927
Reaction score
6,798
Location
Myrtle Beach
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
That's exactly my point. 200 par really isn't just 200 par. It may be the same number of photons, but the energy in each photon is vastly different. If we graded them 1-10 blue would be around 8, whereas red would only be a 3...that's significantly different in terms of energy! So if we are measuring our tanks by alone, one person's 200 par could be significantly lower in energy than another
I think we are thinking along the same lines but I also think a lot of folks mix up kelvin vs spectrum … one being how the photons are aggregately presented to the eye, the other measuring the photons as a unit ….(my oversimplification)
…all of which IMO misleads people into thinking
“white light” = algae
 

djf91

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Jul 12, 2019
Messages
899
Reaction score
722
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I think we are thinking along the same lines but I also think a lot of folks mix up kelvin vs spectrum … one being how the photons are aggregately presented to the eye, the other measuring the photons as a unit ….(my oversimplification)
…all of which IMO misleads people into thinking
“white light” = algae
Which is crazy. I wish the hobbiests of today could see the reefing hobby 20 years ago where 90% of tanks had 10-14k lighting and most had no algae issues. Also, in my opinion those aquarium ecosystems looked healthier overall.
 

KrisReef

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
May 15, 2018
Messages
12,309
Reaction score
28,280
Location
ADX Florence
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Here is my spectra at max run
1707782626471.png


Case closed

Sincerely Lasse

Not so fast, Master Lasse!

What instrumentation and software are producing the imputs and results shown in the graph you posted?

I don't doubt them, I just want one for my tank.

Do tell> :smiling-face-with-sunglasses: so we can close this case with proper documentation.
Kris
 

areefer01

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 28, 2021
Messages
2,773
Reaction score
2,839
Location
Ca
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Case closed

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Light settings and display photo equate to success? Should everyone be running this? Is it the light settings or your hobby discipline? A bit confused, sorry.

On another note I have always found it interesting what lighting spectrum of EMEA hobbyist vs that of AMS use. At least as it relates to what is visible around the web.

Sincerely Lasse

Hope your evening is going well btw.
 

BeanAnimal

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
3,399
Reaction score
5,163
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Should have said "$20 money order" to make things even more interesting for the search. Though I think you can still get them.
 

Captain-Barnacle

Community Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 7, 2023
Messages
29
Reaction score
43
Location
Austin TX
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Corals evolved in the blue light of the sea underwater. No wonder then, that it is the favored light wavelength. White light and infrared add some warmth to the tank. Lighting may influence how well the human cares for the tank.
 

Lasse

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
10,954
Reaction score
30,057
Location
Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Not so fast, Master Lasse!

What instrumentation and software are producing the imputs and results shown in the graph you posted?

I don't doubt them, I just want one for my tank.

Do tell> :smiling-face-with-sunglasses: so we can close this case with proper documentation.
Kris
I use GHL Mitras 2 bar and the programing tool with spectra is in their GCC software. Sorry - i should have note that this is the supposed spectra with these settings - not the a measured one

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Light settings and display photo equate to success? Should everyone be running this? Is it the light settings or your hobby discipline? A bit confused, sorry.

On another note I have always found it interesting what lighting spectrum of EMEA hobbyist vs that of AMS use. At least as it relates to what is visible around the web.



Hope your evening is going well btw.
It was meant to show that it is possible to have an aquarium growing well (to well) using a full spectra lighting and have a white light (for the eyes)

Corals evolved in the blue light of the sea underwater. No wonder then, that it is the favored light wavelength. White light and infrared add some warmth to the tank. Lighting may influence how well the human cares for the tank.
Your sure of this for most corals using photosynthesis - this means that the growth rate of most corals should be higher in deeper water (more blue wavelengths) How do you explain this below then?

Light penetration in oceanic water and costal water (most reef is in costal waters by definition) is different. IMO - its a myth about most corals adaption to blue light based on the graphs of penetration of sun light in open oceanic water - see below . Note that most reef building corals exist above 20 meters, From here

1707919329517.png


However - if we look at light penetration in coastal water (which by definition include most coral reefs) the picture will be different from here

1707913174349.png

If we look at a normal distribution of corals it looks like this for most cases

Here is a graph from here - its behind a paywall and I have not be able to read the whole article but it is a
compilation of data from the different reef types under different water turbidity. Both from Bermuda and Hawaii. The graph shows the area of the reef type where the respective wavelength falls to 1% of the original value

1707917406204.png

Its difficult to read this figure but IMO - if we look at 450 nm - the graph shows that in lagoons it penetrate between 10 m and 75 m depending on the turbidity of the water. At the reef flat that is normally less turbid - 450 nm penetrate between 20 and 110 m depending on the turbidity of the water. In nature - the turbidity will vary a lot and hence the spectra that reach our corals. Instead of saying that corals evolved and are adapted to blue light I would instead say that most corals had evolved and are adapted to manage a variety of wavelengths.


There is few articles about different growth rates at different depths for reefbuilding corals. This is on of the few but shows very well that for most corals the rule its as higher up - as faster growth

1707919022499.png

It means that the spectra that looks something between this two- 30 m line added by me

1707919979101.png

Further on growth rate - the same source

1707920248630.png

1707920395436.png


My conclusion is that best growth for most of the reefbuilding corals are between 0 and 16 m and that will be a light spectra somewhere between this two if you want to follow natural conditions

1707920972684.png



Sincerely Lasse
 

reefsUP2

Community Member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 18, 2022
Messages
55
Reaction score
62
Location
los angeles
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
As the title implies, have we been wrong the whole time about the energy we provide our corals?
I was doing some digging, recently, into journals to better understand what is truly the optimum lighting for Acropora and stumbled across a study which assessed the influence of different Kelvin metal halides on the growth of Acropora Solitaryensis. They studied 5, 10, 15 and 20k temperatures, all with the same PAR value...guess what came out on top? The 20k...the most blue of all the spectrums. I was a little bit baffled by it as we always hear full spectrum is likely to grow corals quicker (anecdotal hobbyist evidence). So I dug a little deeper...here goes.
Light energy is in the form of waves. With the shortest, highest frequency at the UV end of the spectrum and longest lowest at the red end.
PAR is the measurement of the number of photons hitting an area in a given time frame that comes from the range of light which is considered photosynthetically available (I might have worded slightly wrong but hopefully you get the gist). There is no mention of the energy said photons provide, so here is where it gets interesting.
Let's say we've got 200 par of 420nm (blue) light and on another system we have 200 par of 570nm (yellow) light. From the way the hobby has described par these should equate to the same energy levels, correct? Wrong!!
If we go back to what I said earlier about the length and frequency of the light waves then you'll remember that I said blue are shorter and higher frequency. This means that each photon of blue light has more energy than it's friend the yellow photon.
This means that if we base our measurements purely on a par reading, and neglect to factor in spectrum, then we aren't going to be giving our corals the energy we expect!!
Thank you.
 

HudsonReefer2.0

Algae Happens
View Badges
Joined
Dec 18, 2021
Messages
5,414
Reaction score
9,877
Location
Mile Square City
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
I use GHL Mitras 2 bar and the programing tool with spectra is in their GCC software. Sorry - i should have note that this is the supposed spectra with these settings - not the a measured one


It was meant to show that it is possible to have an aquarium growing well (to well) using a full spectra lighting and have a white light (for the eyes)


Your sure of this for most corals using photosynthesis - this means that the growth rate of most corals should be higher in deeper water (more blue wavelengths) How do you explain this below then?

Light penetration in oceanic water and costal water (most reef is in costal waters by definition) is different. IMO - its a myth about most corals adaption to blue light based on the graphs of penetration of sun light in open oceanic water - see below . Note that most reef building corals exist above 20 meters, From here

1707919329517.png


However - if we look at light penetration in coastal water (which by definition include most coral reefs) the picture will be different from here

1707913174349.png

If we look at a normal distribution of corals it looks like this for most cases

Here is a graph from here - its behind a paywall and I have not be able to read the whole article but it is a
compilation of data from the different reef types under different water turbidity. Both from Bermuda and Hawaii. The graph shows the area of the reef type where the respective wavelength falls to 1% of the original value

1707917406204.png

Its difficult to read this figure but IMO - if we look at 450 nm - the graph shows that in lagoons it penetrate between 10 m and 75 m depending on the turbidity of the water. At the reef flat that is normally less turbid - 450 nm penetrate between 20 and 110 m depending on the turbidity of the water. In nature - the turbidity will vary a lot and hence the spectra that reach our corals. Instead of saying that corals evolved and are adapted to blue light I would instead say that most corals had evolved and are adapted to manage a variety of wavelengths.


There is few articles about different growth rates at different depths for reefbuilding corals. This is on of the few but shows very well that for most corals the rule its as higher up - as faster growth

1707919022499.png

It means that the spectra that looks something between this two- 30 m line added by me

1707919979101.png

Further on growth rate - the same source

1707920248630.png

1707920395436.png


My conclusion is that best growth for most of the reefbuilding corals are between 0 and 16 m and that will be a light spectra somewhere between this two if you want to follow natural conditions

1707920972684.png



Sincerely Lasse
Always impressive sir. Ty
 

areefer01

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 28, 2021
Messages
2,773
Reaction score
2,839
Location
Ca
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
It was meant to show that it is possible to have an aquarium growing well (to well) using a full spectra lighting and have a white light (for the eyes)

I am nit picking a bit but maybe you could have said 'for example' rather than 'case closed'. Lighting is just one part. Your skill level being another.

It should go without saying that it is possible, very possible, to grow corals with this spectrum. US marketing has a crazy fascination with AB+. Good example is the two ton heavy thing review of the Philips Coral Care Gen 2. Pretty much single handedly torpedoed the Phillips Coral Care Gen 2 because the PAR numbers are low because they favor the blue spectrum. Of course you will lose PAR when you shut off half of the kits LED's. Just my opinion anyway.

Thanks for clarity btw.
 

djf91

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Jul 12, 2019
Messages
899
Reaction score
722
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I use GHL Mitras 2 bar and the programing tool with spectra is in their GCC software. Sorry - i should have note that this is the supposed spectra with these settings - not the a measured one


It was meant to show that it is possible to have an aquarium growing well (to well) using a full spectra lighting and have a white light (for the eyes)


Your sure of this for most corals using photosynthesis - this means that the growth rate of most corals should be higher in deeper water (more blue wavelengths) How do you explain this below then?

Light penetration in oceanic water and costal water (most reef is in costal waters by definition) is different. IMO - its a myth about most corals adaption to blue light based on the graphs of penetration of sun light in open oceanic water - see below . Note that most reef building corals exist above 20 meters, From here

1707919329517.png


However - if we look at light penetration in coastal water (which by definition include most coral reefs) the picture will be different from here

1707913174349.png

If we look at a normal distribution of corals it looks like this for most cases

Here is a graph from here - its behind a paywall and I have not be able to read the whole article but it is a
compilation of data from the different reef types under different water turbidity. Both from Bermuda and Hawaii. The graph shows the area of the reef type where the respective wavelength falls to 1% of the original value

1707917406204.png

Its difficult to read this figure but IMO - if we look at 450 nm - the graph shows that in lagoons it penetrate between 10 m and 75 m depending on the turbidity of the water. At the reef flat that is normally less turbid - 450 nm penetrate between 20 and 110 m depending on the turbidity of the water. In nature - the turbidity will vary a lot and hence the spectra that reach our corals. Instead of saying that corals evolved and are adapted to blue light I would instead say that most corals had evolved and are adapted to manage a variety of wavelengths.


There is few articles about different growth rates at different depths for reefbuilding corals. This is on of the few but shows very well that for most corals the rule its as higher up - as faster growth

1707919022499.png

It means that the spectra that looks something between this two- 30 m line added by me

1707919979101.png

Further on growth rate - the same source

1707920248630.png

1707920395436.png


My conclusion is that best growth for most of the reefbuilding corals are between 0 and 16 m and that will be a light spectra somewhere between this two if you want to follow natural conditions

1707920972684.png



Sincerely Lasse
Wait, you mean all of our corals don’t come from 80 feet down, in dim blue light, as we’ve been told countless times by “experts” on this forum???
 

Lasse

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
10,954
Reaction score
30,057
Location
Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Wait, you mean all of our corals don’t come from 80 feet down, in dim blue light, as we’ve been told countless times by “experts” on this forum???
something like that - yes.........;)

Sincerely Lasse
 
OP
OP
JoshO

JoshO

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
1,736
Reaction score
8,671
Location
North East England
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
It could be good to get links to these studies

Most photosynthetic corals that we have in aquarium exist from 5 meters and upwards. In these depths not so many wavelengths have been out filtrated. The normal "filtration" schema is from clean oceanic waters - it has been showed that the penetration is different in coastal waters - in open oceanic water 480 nm transmit best but in coastal zones 560 nm green/yellow transmit best. Please also see this

Figure from here

1707829996163.png
1707830034610.png

A: Radiation, Open ocean and costal water

Corals reefs is costal water and the penetration will be altered because of plankton and organic matter. Because of the spectra in water down to 5 m - corals needs sunscreen and protection That is the reason for all colourful pigments and floucence. In this article is it discussed and explained,

Sincerely Lasse
I'll get hold of the links and pop them in here.

Offshore corals deal with far less turbidity than coastal, so that will vary. It also will depend on seasonal variance. Does this article you've quoted only study what is visually available? We know from photos taken on a reef that 4m is very much not almost the limit of transmittance
 

Managing real reef risks: Do you pay attention to the dangers in your tank?

  • I pay a lot of attention to reef risks.

    Votes: 155 43.7%
  • I pay a bit of attention to reef risks.

    Votes: 125 35.2%
  • I pay minimal attention to reef risks.

    Votes: 54 15.2%
  • I pay no attention to reef risks.

    Votes: 16 4.5%
  • Other.

    Votes: 5 1.4%
Back
Top