Are all acros loving led? Are coral enduring less par from led than T5/halides?

[J1a]

Quality matters here and I already made the point that most should stop at 450 for LED, but anybody who wants to give more than this from MH, T5 or the sun will see an increase in kind.

In this perspective, we are probably looking at

1. Increased output in the UV spectrum
2. increased output in the IR spectrum
3. De-emphasis of blue-royal blue peaks

Guess it's not that difficult to do some experiments to figure out which is the main reason.

 

[oreo54]

Oreo, corals don't have Chlorophyll B, but they do have C2 in addition to A.

You missed it . I probably didn' t explain it well

Doesn't include chl c. Sort of a between-er spectrum between a and b.

Coral Color Management｜BlueHarbor

This is a coral color management theory created by scientifically understanding the color of coral from an optical perspective.

www.blueharbor.co.jp

 

[hart24601]

What ph levels are you getting? I seem to see many who are running such extreme par levels are able to achieve higher and more stable ph than many folks. Could be a coincidence. But it seems like keeping it above 8.3 at the absolute minimum and really having razors edge flow levels make it more possible to drive par so high with leds

Generally from 8.0 to 8.2 depending on time of year and windows open. I recently decided it would be fun to try skimmerless, which is another conversation, but since I have so much chaeto even with a line running outside my ph jumped to around 8.3 but not during that year of growth pic.

Edit. I agree with the flow. I have always been a fan of lots of flow. In 2012 era ish I was running black box value fixtures with near this level of PAR and won the acro growout here in around 650 par from black box and later hydras although I credit that with feeding. I think those threads are gone now. My signature has my old featured tank with hydras and 650+ PAR is what many of the high up acros got too but in all cases there was a whole lot of flow.

In general I run high intensity just so the bottom of the tank is around 300 range as that is the area, give or take, I notice color shifts that I like and I enjoy keeping acros and clams on the bottom so the top gets blasted but not noticed any detriment over the years.

 

[JCOLE]

Check out these PAR readings from the black boxes I ran a couple years ago. I noticed photoinhibition going on.

Build Thread - JCOLE's ACRO Dominant Build

Installed the Klir filters today. Had to reroute some plumbing to make them fit. Had to use the biggest step bit I could find for a 1.5" bulkhead. Plumbing finished Goodbye filter socks! The controllers that come with these are horrible and feel like cheap toys. I ended up cutting the...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[jda]

In this perspective, we are probably looking at

1. Increased output in the UV spectrum
2. increased output in the IR spectrum
3. De-emphasis of blue-royal blue peaks

Guess it's not that difficult to do some experiments to figure out which is the main reason.

That is probably a really good start. It is likely not that easy in totality, since you cannot get to sunlight levels with MH and usually cannot get to MH levels with T5, but somebody has to start somewhere.

I kept corals in a tub outside in Missouri one summer. Other than leaves, birds (oh, the stupid birds) and heat causing problems, they grew like 2 years worth of growth in a handful of months about 10" under the water with amazing color. Estimated PAR at 2000-2500. I have never been able to, or heard of anybody, able to get MH PAR up over 1500 without causing issues - something is missing between it and sunlight. T5 seems to stop about 1000-1250 - something else is missing between them and MH.

For me, the biggest difference in MH and T5 is from mid 700s to 850nm - more IR for Emerson Effect. Blend that with some evidence that these spectrums are used to move energy between photosystems, and that seems likely to me. Of course, most LEDs have nothing really above 700 which explains the then-drop in energy handling for most of these units and why some orphek users can go higher. I have seen some pretty compelling evidence from Lasse that green penetrates tissue to get energy deeper and on the under side that would not produce/provide energy otherwise.

I dunno. I do highly suspect that source matters, spectrum matters, delivery matters and every other fine detail... but that is life, right? The bulk of the real work is in the smallest details?

In the end, I strongly doubt that these corals are photo inhibited at 250-450 PAR when they get 2000+ for double-digit hours. Of course, their light source is probably perfect for what they need. Life chose for them to thrive here and they have the ability. In this particular part of the coral sea, you cannot collect, but from nearby areas where collectors wade in waist deep water to cut specimens either out of the water, or just below it, they say that they heal to where you cannot even tell that they were cut in a matter of weeks.

 

[J1a]

@jda then you would probably be interested in my experiment thread.

It's delayed due to the lfs upgrading. However, it should resume hopefully soon.

 

[jda]

I am watching. My guess is that UV will provide more growth from proportionally more energy, but also better/more/different colors. You know... 360nm has more energy than 400nm, and that sort of thing. ...basically, nothing but good things.

 

[J1a]

I am watching. My guess is that UV will provide more growth from proportionally more energy, but also better/more/different colors. You know... 360nm has more energy than 400nm, and that sort of thing. ...basically, nothing but good things.

So far for my anecdotal observation, I'm quite convinced about the positive result too.

Theoretically though, while a photon of 360 nm wavelength is more energetic than, say, 400 nm, it still can only excite one electron. Therefore I'm convinced the energy of the photon directly affects how much photosynthesis is carried out.

Then again, there are so much I don't know about coral physiology. Exciting journey.

 

[jda]

For sure. ...and what you might read or see in a study really only applies to that one coral that they studied (or a few, if they studied a few).

My prime example of this was all of the fine work that Dana did on porites. It was fascinating and I revisit it every so often, but in the end, it was porites. I used to grow this stuff in a fuge under an incandescent light bulb with my macro algae. I did not not find that other types of stonies acted in the same way. Another example, although with fish, was the study that Jay did on A. Bahianus and activated carbon. I use activated carbon in my tanks and never got any HLLE and ironically I had an A. Bahianus that was in a tank that never used GAC and it got some HLLE. A. Bahianus do OK in the hobby as a skittish and fragile species, but I would not say that they thrive. So while I love to learn, I question the applicability of this study to the rest of the hobby. I wish that Dana would use some acropora - I have offered him some in the past. I with that Jay would have used fish more suitable for the hobby.

I guess that my point is that nobody really knows too much about anything beyond the specifics that were looked at.

I also guess that you might learn some things that you could not read or study anywhere else.... and also some things that might contradict one particular study.

 

[oreo54]

In nature Par is not consistent over the course of the hour/ day/ week/ month/ year.

Nature est based on

Imitating Natural Light Quality, Intensity, and Dosage in a Reef Aquarium – Do We Really Want To?

When it comes to reef aquariums, Mother Nature has always been the de facto benchmark aquarists aspire towards. Dana investigates in great detail the quality and quantity of light over natural reefs in order to lay the groundwork to answer the age-old question: what is the best light for...

reefs.com

48 DLI on the water surface. (1100 PAR/12hrs steady state, 1300 par/10hrs)
33 DLI @ 10ft (900PAR /10 hours steady state, 800/12hrs).

Don't think peak par is a good factor to use.. Your 2000-2500 on a select day may never occur or be only an hour.
Want to stick with nature..1100-1300 PAR at the water surface is...... nature on average on the best of days.

57.6 2000 PAR /8 hrs steady state..

In contrast, A. millepora responded to variable DLI with few, minor and slow changes in
their symbiont photoacclimatory responses, Fv/Fm and pigmentation. A. millepora typically
grows on the upper slopes and flats of reefs (2–5 m deep), where they can experience high-
light exposure (>30 mol photons m-2 d-1, see S1 and S2 Figs), while their natural estimated
minimum light threshold is ~5 mol photons m-2 d-1 [58]. The vertical alignment and dense
spacing of branchlets in corymbose colony morphologies facilitate self-shading on all surfaces
except the symbiont-free growing tips, reducing exposure to light [49, 59, 60]. Consistent with
the habitat distribution of this species, our experiment showed that A. millepora experienced
the greatest photosynthetic challenges under low DLI, and that acclimation took 20-days,
meaning that the 5-day variations in light levels in the variable DLI treatments in this experi-
ment are far shorter than the acclimation time for this species. This result is consistent with a
previous study showing limited photoacclimation (to fixed light levels) over a 9-day experi-
mental period for A. millepora and three other Acropora species

 

[jda]

How would you know? I am not doing this again with you. I have taken my meter to the ocean and gotten readings - well my Apogee 510 and a LiCor in years past (better meter than my Apogee). Have you done that? Until then, stop thinking. Stop posting links and get some actual skin in the game. I have told you this a million times, but if you ever actually tried this hobby that the rest of us enjoy you would stop posting most of the things that you do since you would see with your own eyes that the links are not always right.

I took this just now... in COLORADO, in the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE, in WINTER, with some SLIGHT COULD COVER at 09:10. This needs an immersion factor, which is about 1650ish PAR r so, it should be easy to see that those numbers are a joke. I should be well over 2000 PAR in COLORADO in WINTER for many hours if I were to test every hour all day.

 

[oreo54]

I know you are a smart guy and very knowledgeable which is why I can't understand why you do not know the difference between a spot measurement and a daily average...

Take a reading every 1/2hr from sunup to sundown and "do the math"..

 

[Nonya]

I kept corals in a tub outside in Missouri one summer. Other than leaves, birds (oh, the stupid birds) and heat causing problems, they grew like 2 years worth of growth in a handful of months about 10" under the water with amazing color. Estimated PAR at 2000-2500.

How did you arrive at that estimated PAR range? How did you keep the corals from bleaching in the intense Missouri heat?

For me, the biggest difference in MH and T5 is from mid 700s to 850nm - more IR for Emerson Effect.

The Emerson effect was based on experimentation with terrestrial plants only. Also, plants have chlorophyll B, not C2, which could be a game changer. I wonder if anyone has done any actual research in the area to support this hypothesis.

In the end, I strongly doubt that these corals are photo inhibited at 250-450 PAR when they get 2000+ for double-digit hours. Of course, their light source is probably perfect for what they need. Life chose for them to thrive here and they have the ability.

Less likely perfect for what they need, and more likely it's where they can survive despite the long periods of photoinhibition and exposure to air. Also, the protections afforded by production of protective slime and HSC70 & HSP70 allow for coral survival and protein repair after excessive daily UV exposure damages the photosynthetic mechanisms.

 

[jda]

I am smart enough to know that if 1650 is the low end when the sun is not even up high yet, that the numbers just go up with an average. The last time that you posted this garbage, the reading was over 3200-3300 which came to about 2500 PAR after the immersion factor. Again, in a place that gets less sunlight than the south pacific or caribbean.

At least stop with the garbage that 2000-2500 might never happen or only be for an hour when I can likely get many hours here.

If some clouds come out, I will get another reading, but it does not do that much, at least around here, but we do likely get significantly different clouds than the ocean does.

 

[oreo54]

I am smart enough to know that if 1650 is the low end when the sun is not even up high yet, that the numbers just go up with an average. The last time that you posted this garbage, the reading was over 3200-3300 which came to about 2500 PAR after the immersion factor. Again, in a place that gets less sunlight than the south pacific or caribbean.

At least stop with the garbage that 2000-2500 might never happen or only be for an hour when I can likely get many hours here.

If some clouds come out, I will get another reading, but it does not do that much, at least around here, but we do likely get significantly different clouds than the ocean does.

does your dislike of me blind you THAT much?

Light Data from a Hawaiian Tidepool

Can we possibly match the amount of natural light in an aquarium?

reefs.com

At least stop with the garbage that 2000-2500 might never happen or only be for an hour when I can likely get many hours here

CoralVariableDli
You are there, you have the meter.. "do the math"..

WI, 10:00AM .. 12,000Lux = 276 PPFD.
10:40AM sun popped out .. 31,500 LUX.. 724 PPFD..

 

[Nonya]

For sure. ...and what you might read or see in a study really only applies to that one coral that they studied (or a few, if they studied a few).

My prime example of this was all of the fine work that Dana did on porites. It was fascinating and I revisit it every so often, but in the end, it was porites.

I also guess that you might learn some things that you could not read or study anywhere else.... and also some things that might contradict one particular study.

You missed Dana's article on a variety of acropora vs. photosaturation (not just one). Also, Dana does have skin in the game, and yet there's reluctance to accept his research?

 

[Dennis Cartier]

This piqued my curiosity, so I grabbed my Apogee 510 and went running outside to take a reading. It is a bit cloudy here today in sunny Canada, but I got a high of ~2460 PAR when the sun came out briefly. I imagine it goes much higher than that.

The thought of growing coral outdoors is something that always interested me. Usually right around the time that I work on opening the pool knowing that it will only be used for a couple of visits by the relatives. A couple buckets of salt, some floating frag racks, and voila, a 20,000G frag tank

I would just need to tell the relatives, mind the frags ... ... this year, peeing in the pool is not only allowed, it is encouraged!

 

[oreo54]

If some clouds come out, I will get another reading, but it does not do that much, at least around here, but we do likely get significantly different clouds than the ocean does.

Save some time..

Story Map Series

This story map was created with the Story Map Series application in ArcGIS Online.

myutk.maps.arcgis.com

My surface estimate to emulate ocean:
48 DLI on the water surface. (1100 PAR/12hrs steady state, 1300 par/10hrs)

 

[Reef and Dive]

To me yes.
I solved many issues with diffusers.
I burned a pretty good amount of acros before with not a lot of PAR (200-300).
To me it is a lot about spread and spectrum.
LEDs can sometimes be real LASER beams…

 

[Reef and Dive]

Save some time..

Story Map Series

This story map was created with the Story Map Series application in ArcGIS Online.

myutk.maps.arcgis.com

My surface estimate to emulate ocean:
48 DLI on the water surface. (1100 PAR/12hrs steady state, 1300 par/10hrs)

But most corals are not on the surface and neither receive direct light the entire day…