Coral color, trace & lighting experiment pt2

[taricha]

is a more colorful coral actually a stronger/more survivable coral? Are we making the assumption that visual appeal equates to fitness?

Gonna pre-apologize, trying to be clear may sound critical, when it isn't meant to be.

I'll be blunt - don't bother with assessing coral "fitness" - we hobbyists don't care. We know the "fittest" corals, we call them "weed corals" and they are not highly desired in the hobby. Otherwise we'd all talk about how pocillopora damicornis and clove polyps are the greatest corals in the hobby.
Most hobbyists desire attractive color and growth forms, and to a lesser extent growth rate.
Growth rate can be easily measured in your setup, either by keeping them as removable frags to be pulled out and weighed, or simply by comparison to a ruler.
I would not go deeper on coral health than that. Some have argued things about skeletal density, but our corals don't have to handle tropical cyclones - so who cares if the skeleton is 30% less dense. That will never be an advantage/disadvantage to a coral in a hobby system.

General comment on experimental design. The strength of your experiment is you have two parallel systems - so you can keep all other things the same and only have the systems differ by one variable of importance.
Decide on your first variable - I think your two lighting spectrums makes the most sense as the first variable, but you could choose a different one to do first if you really want. Keep everything else the same between the two tanks - for simplicity, plumb them together for this phase to ensure shared water chemistry.
All the other parameters, it mostly doesn't matter experimentally what they are. Ca 400? 500? doesn't matter to your experiment, as long as it's the same between the tanks and mostly consistent. So no need to measure all this stuff daily. It's just needless volume of data. Too many blinking lights can distract from the actual data of interest.
Again, not trying to be critical, just trying to be clear and to the point.
I love your experiment.

 

[Doctorgori]

The following are excerpts taken from the link provided by @taricha
Reef-building corals farm and feed on their photosynthetic symbionts
I am actually on my 3rd or 4th re-read and Im trying to understand what appears to me to be a contradiction (and I already know it is not)
I could use a 2nd pair of eyes to point out any glaring omission in my understanding here…pride is optional

Symbiotic corals function as mixotrophs in which the metabolic carbon demand of the animal host can often be met by the translocation of carbon-rich photosynthetic products from their dinoflagellate symbionts2,3. Although this carbon transfer sustains the host’s energy production, it cannot promote its growth10. Instead, the host is thought to take up nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) in a favourable stoichiometry required to produce the essential building blocks for growth and reproduction mostly by feeding on particulate or dissolved organic material, including plankton and dissolved free amino acids11,12,13.

Later in the article it goes on to say:

Our experiments under controlled conditions establish that the assimilation of inorganic nutrients by the symbiont can fully sustain the growth of symbiotic corals

Did I misunderstand: can the symbiont sustain growth or not?
(I get that energy required for metabolism and energy required for “growth” are two different variables)

Can anyone stopping by explain to me what I am missing here? Again frank reply is fine, I am expecting I missed something obvious

 

[Doctorgori]

Gonna pre-apologize, trying to be clear may sound critical, when it isn't meant to be.

Pride and science are a bad mix. The difference in our qualifications will always have a “student/teacher” vibe to it. So ANY attention you pay to this thread is a bonus.
I’m trying to be respectful of your time and not assume any priority in your life to a thread on a fish forum…

I will read and try to comprehend the links you provided and keep the “daddy why is the sky blue” type questions to a minimum ….
Again, any babysitting by yourself or any one of the credentialed/ qualified folks around here is sincerely appreciated!!!!!!

I'll be blunt - don't bother with assessing coral "fitness" - we hobbyists don't care. We know the "fittest" corals, we call them "weed corals" and they are not highly desired in the hobby. Otherwise we'd all talk about how pocillopora damicornis and clove polyps are the greatest corals in the hobby.

Please be blunt, Im looking for answers and likewise help the community in general. We have the same goals. If it were possible I would just assume give you internet access and just be your lab assistant… not kissing butt but making certain you know your input is most welcome

I would not go deeper on coral health than that. Some have argued things about skeletal density, but our corals don't have to handle tropical cyclones - so who cares if the skeleton is 30% less dense. That will never be an advantage/disadvantage to a coral in a hobby system.

The whole impetus with the fitness? Please bear with this story:
I moved from the midwest to Phx AZ and immediately noticed many “houseplants” growing outside: Ficus, Philodendron, Fatsia, Gardenia, et …

Not knowing any difference, I tried planting these species from specimens obtained from florist, WalMart, or wherever “houseplants” were sold. Although these specimens had shiny undamaged leaves and bright dark green foliage; these plants had a high failure rate when planted outside…
By all appearances these were model specimens and looked far better/healthier than the exact same species as “Nursery plants” sold at Home Depot
I am aware “florist” varieties exist, but not so with Philodendron and Ficus, same plant, same variety.
While the Nursery specimens looked faded, beat up, and “rough” …The failure rate of nursery plants when exposed to the variable elements outdoors when compared to “Florist” was not even close…

I understand your point about not worrying about environmental fitness. But to another point how far are we willing to go adjusting our aquariums to suit “wussified” colorful corals? Is there a potential disservice baked in here?

Is there a “diabetic” analogy giving corals all the “goodies” in precise “spectral blue food” and chemical candy?

Is growing corals under “perfect conditions” setting ourselves up to make the idiom “stability is key” a self prophetic closed feedback loop?

I get the analogy that hurricanes are not possible indoors but to morph the average Aquarium into a colorful corals display with precise stable application of temperature, aminos, et might approach impracticality …
… Im wondering if the “florist grade” stock we are being sold isn't at least part of the issue (stn, rtn, et)

Decide on your first variable - I think your two lighting spectrums makes the most sense as the first variable, but you could choose a different one to do first if you really want.

Thank you, Thats useful input. In fact I did put some thoughts here and wondered if some experiments could be performed simultaneously without gumming/convoluting the entire experiment

Here are some pertinent threads
Have we been wrong in our understanding of PAR this whole time??

6500k T5 Bulbs - Important Spectrums Missing in LEDs?

Is there any real benefit to full spectrum lighting?

Why do people run 6500K bulbs?

Again, pardon a lil “Dunning-Krueger” analogy but can we keep feeding corals “blue light” only without causing Cnidaria diabetes. LOL …
Anyway, I am doing a deeper dive in the symbiosis and how corals ingest algae and the nutritional mechanisms
Also looking for papers on the pigments, proteins et beyond the Dana Riddle articles you provided

All the other parameters, it mostly doesn't matter experimentally what they are. Ca 400? 500? doesn't matter to your experiment, as long as it's the same between the tanks and mostly consistent.

yes , this bothered me because I have zero clue what matters and what doesnt. I also did not want to leave any food on the table since I am logging chronogically and missed data could be a missed corollary …

AFAIK could be some correlation between ammonia and color or iron and color (since my only instruments are Hanna meters and a Apogee par meter)

My long term goal is to maintain NSW levels during the bulk of the experiment and maybe induce stress or other variables later…
This requires further thought, whatever you say carries weight

 

[taricha]

the metabolic carbon demand of the animal host can often be met by the translocation of carbon-rich photosynthetic products from their dinoflagellate symbionts2,3. Although this carbon transfer sustains the host’s energy production, it cannot promote its growth10.

photosynthesis by the symbiont produces energy/carbon/sugars - this can get handed to the coral animal.
This gives you the carbon needed for growth (or energy), but not the N & P which is also needed for growth, which is explained here...

the host is thought to take up nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) in a favourable stoichiometry required to produce the essential building blocks for growth and reproduction mostly by feeding on particulate or dissolved organic material, including plankton and dissolved free amino acids11,12,13.

so they need to get N or P from other sources - photosynthesis just makes C. one theory is that they get it mostly from phyto/zoo plankton or other things like that.

Our experiments under controlled conditions establish that the assimilation of inorganic nutrients by the symbiont can fully sustain the growth of symbiotic corals

the experiment showed that another route for the coral animal to access N and P is by eating their symbionts that have taken in NO3 and PO4 from the water.

 

[taricha]

In fact I did put some thoughts here and wondered if some experiments could be performed simultaneously without gumming/convoluting the entire experiment

Nope :p
Basically, you get to change one variable of interest at a time between your two tanks. That's it. Anything else and you have all this data but won't really know what your results mean.
That's the biggest strength of your experimental setup - side by side, parallel, otherwise identical systems different by one variable of interest. It's also a helpful mantra for focusing the direction of what you choose to investigate.

yes , this bothered me because I have zero clue what matters and what doesnt. I also did not want to leave any food on the table since I am logging chronogically and missed data could be a missed corollary …

AFAIK could be some correlation between ammonia and color or iron and color (since my only instruments are Hanna meters and a Apogee par meter)

For anything other that the variable of interest, I'd just try to do something that is common or typical in the hobby.
There are certainly many correlations - you can't hope to find them all - demonstrating one or two clear correlations between a certain intervention and color is plenty ambitious.

I understand your point about not worrying about environmental fitness. But to another point how far are we willing to go adjusting our aquariums to suit “wussified” colorful corals? Is there a potential disservice baked in here?

It's a fine perspective.
Let me give you another competing hypothesis: the hobby is one big survivorship biased experiment. Over time the hobby has selected for those corals that can survive well on Light, NO3, PO4, and fish food. Corals that need more interaction with phyto-/zoo-/and bacterio-plankton to survive have had many fewer hobby systems they could survive in, and so most of those have died, and become rare.
So the corals widespread in the hobby now are those survivors that can thrive on the stuff common tanks in the hobby can provide. The nutritional needs and preferences of corals in the hobby may not match those of the wild corals very well for that reason.

These are interesting competing ideas and ones that would be well beyond hobbyist ability to test.

 

[Doctorgori]

Over time the hobby has selected for those corals that can survive well on Light, NO3, PO4, and fish food. Corals that need more interaction with phyto-/zoo-/and bacterio-plankton to survive have had many fewer hobby systems they could survive in, and so most of those have died, and become rare.

I wonder if we are in fact in” domesticating” our stock; a good thing. Repeating the concern: but in tandem questioning if these “designer corals” are not just driving elixir sales but might require additional elixirs and supporting hardware...

Over time the hobby has selected for those corals that can survive well on Light, NO3, PO4, and fish food.

There is a deeper layer to this statement seeing that corals are not "bred" in the traditional sense and we can't exactly collect the best male & female then breed them to make something genetically different/desirable.
Basically what we are experiencing is sort of sledgehammer evolution via "cuttings"; obviously better odds of getting a frag a few generations removed from the wild; a morph that has endured domestication vs one that has genetically adapted per se....
At some point in this experiment I'd like to evaluate ORA frags vs Frags from assorted sources

These are interesting competing ideas and ones that would be well beyond hobbyist ability to test.

yeah that’s why I was going to post/request something towards that regard on your thread; glad I didn’t….
I can see the “weeds” getting deep there and sit that experiment out…
Appreciate the thoughts

 

[Doctorgori]

I am bookmarking these as the following post seem germane to this experiment

Then if we leave the blues alone and add in the whites for our own visual pleasure we'll have a much more effective lighting set up.

This makes perfect sense, but being a rare member of reefers who preceded "All Blue" lighting, my "gut" disagrees with this more than current science. The science behind this statement is valid, I'm not 100% convinced the total coral biology begins and ends with "chlorophyll A" studies...

Most terrestrial animals still require sunlight and most don't photosynthesize...
Can we blanket assume only wavelengths useful for photosynthesis are required or used by aquatic animals? Can you spawn a coral in 100% blue 24/7/365?

Moreover, every spot in your aquarium likely has different readings, different spectral properties due to reflection, refraction, shadowing, etc. So what is the perfect spot and how does the coral growing out of that spot (and shadowing other spots) change things.

Somehow I imagine using a "anti-par" meter to measure the effectiveness of stealth tech LOL

PAR meters are useful in a ballpark sense. Look I have somewhere between 50 and 100 PAR on the bottom and somewhere between 300 and 500 par near that top. That is pretty much ALL they are good for. The rest is made up hokum that people pretend to be precision importance.

With the above considerations, I am probably going to make a "par map" for both tanks,
Again: with the above statement as limitations/disclaimers/disclosure ... I should have some metric to compare lighting since the tanks are identical and mostly bare

Read my links again - this is not true

Sincerely Lasse

^^^ might prove useful

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

No and its a slightly convoluted process, the app gets so far then never completes…not sure if its a registration issue with their cloud or a wi fi thing…
I put in a support ticket to GHL same day I recieved the lights, no reply yet…
I am researching how to usb in directly to program the lights…

Appreciate your eyeballs even stopping by…If there is anything off or wrong, and if you get a chance, please provide frank assessment….I wont let pride get in the way of science LOL…
I wont assume any importance or priority of this thread in your regard…any input appreciated

Did you get the GHL software working?

Assuming so, how do you like the spectrum control capability?

 

[Doctorgori]

Did you get the GHL software working?

Assuming so, how do you like the spectrum control capability?

First thanks for the lead. The lights are perfect for what I need. I probably should have got 2ea upon further review...
Still no wifi connect, no biggie anyway once setup...
I had to USB in but once in the level of spectral control is unmatched. Every channel is adjustable and I see you can even attempt to copy/match spectral output via graphical spectrum charts; a nice touch for neophyte users.
I will post a tentative setup for both lights after further study of the software

 

[Doctorgori]

As I develop this experiment, I am gathering ideas from related lighting post

The mechanism they therefore use is converting it back in a photon and releasing it. Now the question is, is increasing this fluorescence by adding more blue spectrum really helping the coral?

Good question

Red light of the right wavelength is therefore most efficient and in theory all corals need if you provide the right amount, it would make them really ugly. All flesh would be transparent so you would see nothing but white skeleton except for a minimum amount of brown zoõxanthellae. Don't think they would be very healthy though under such unnatural conditions. The major problem with red spectrum light is that there really isn't any much room for fluorescence if you get to much of it, so the only option left may be trying to survive the heatstress. Which corals are bad at.

This sounds interesting, saved for possible future experiment

Different corals are likely to have different optimum spectrums, to boot, but the energy it would take to figure out and demonstrate this concept is far beyond the reach of the average reefer, and may be out of the grasp of science to measure with any great repetability.

This is a Very good question

The pigments that gather the light for photosynthesis can be present in many different ratios inside of a coral and I believe that these ratios will/can change over time.

I'm thinking about this also...very good

Waves from about 350 to 850nm are important and all of them are in the depths where these corals thrive and certainly where they are collected.

This is integral to the primary thesis

You might find this interesting..
quality_of_light

Saved

What about cloudy days, storms, sponge spawns or plankton blooms, seasons etc. etc etc… Maybe corals will do better under inconsistent spectrum, par, lux, flux capacitor. Heck if I know.

This might be tested in the later parts of the experiment

Fun your saying this - when I saw this thread I was debating with my self if I should answer with my own words or just provide two simple links like this

https://www.reef2reef.com/search/4967090/?t=post&c[content]=thread&c[users]=Dana+Riddle&o=date
and

https://www.reef2reef.com/search/4967092/?q=*&c[users]=Dana+Riddle&o=date

This is important because its known that corals can adapt to different light scenario and I remember a discussion I had with Dana in another thread (which I do not remember) that just short waved near UV light was the ones that triggered the formation of "sunscreen" pigment which protects the coral animal from free radicals and to evolve a too high photosynthesis. The red wavelengths seems not have the same "trigger" effect but cause a very high photosynthesis. If you look on both diagrams of light penetration you will see that UV disappear already at 5 m in coastal waters - faster than the read wavelengths

This source state that wavelengths around 400-430nm has been proved to be essential for the excitation of Blue Fluorescent Proteins and Cyan Fluorescent Proteins.

IMO - if you run full spectra in high PAR - you need to have wavelengths all down to 400 nm in order not to burn your corals and get vivid colours. IMO - UV (below 400 nm) is not needed of biological reasons as I know for today.

Sincerely Lasse

Sincerely Lasse

saved

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

First thanks for the lead. The lights are perfect for what I need. I probably should have got 2ea upon further review...
Still no wifi connect, no biggie anyway once setup...
I had to USB in but once in the level of spectral control is unmatched. Every channel is adjustable and I see you can even attempt to copy/match spectral output via graphical spectrum charts; a nice touch for neophyte users.
I will post a tentative setup for both lights after further study of the software

Great. Thanks for the info. :)

 

[taricha]

Also looking for papers on the pigments, proteins et beyond the Dana Riddle articles you provided

The Dana Riddle articles also include references to the papers he pulled that info from.
another reading tip.
check out stuff authored/co-authored by Jorg Weidenmann on google scholar.

This one is fantastic:
Blue light regulation of host pigment in reef-building corals
(the pictures/charts on page 5 are worth way more than 1000 words. )

another
Diversity and Evolution of Coral Fluorescent Proteins

and two more
Contributions of host and symbiont pigments to the coloration of reef corals

It’s cheap to be colorful Anthozoans show a slow turnover of GFP-like proteins

 

[Doctorgori]

The Dana Riddle articles also include references to the papers he pulled that info from.
another reading tip.
check out stuff authored/co-authored by Jorg Weidenmann on google scholar.

Gheez man, what do I owe you for even sorta mentoring this thing? I can't express how much I appreciate it

I am on it and I will keep the irritation to a minimum (probably not but I have to say that LOL)...

While you are here, this statement kept me up last night. (no reply required, I'm still thinking on this)

I'll be blunt - don't bother with assessing coral "fitness" - we hobbyists don't care. We know the "fittest" corals, we call them "weed corals" and they are not highly desired in the hobby. Otherwise we'd all talk about how pocillopora damicornis and clove polyps are the greatest corals in the hobby.
Most hobbyists desire attractive color and growth forms, and to a lesser extent growth rate.

What bothered me is not because it was wrong but because its very true (and actually reinforces my suspicions in the first place). ...Put another way; that statement likewise reveals there is "some" truth to the inverse (since we don't exactly see many "Colorful" corals amongst the ranks of the toughest corals).

Even if the pool of brown or green corals is larger, there is some truth in the perception that those colors "seem" to be the hardiest (more or less), which might then circle back to the reason behind "green" and "brown" also being the most common coral colors. This can't be coincidence

I've always wondered if the pricey colorful acros "supply and demand" has something to do more with lack of supply than demand; "low supply" is a odd thing for something that propagates by cuttings and is likewise pricey.
...
I'm not loosing focus, but being thorough. I might have to expand or revisit my coral selection while I am at it.
Late Edit add: I am reading the links now. Problem being my education level, unfamiliarity with terminology and lack of understanding with coral phylogeny is a big issue.

Blue light regulation of host pigment in reef-building corals
Contributions of host and symbiont pigments to the coloration of reef corals
Diversity and Evolution of Coral Fluorescent Proteins
It’s cheap to be colorful Anthozoans show a slow turnover of GFP-like proteins

There is probably some answers to many of my questions embedded in this and it will take several re-reads for me to have any understanding

 

[Doctorgori]

Developing Experimental Goals​

I once was a Network Admin that had to sometimes explain to PhD's why their new mouse didn't give their laptop a virus. So I have some sensitivity to dumb questions and likewise having to constantly "educate" someone. Hopefully the provided links will cut down on some of this:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06442-5#MOESM1
https://reefs.com/magazine/how-to-m...attention-to-blue-green-fluorescent-pigments/
https://reefs.com/magazine/how-to-m...and-photoconversion-from-green-to-orange-red/
https://reefs.com/magazine/how-to-m...ormation-red-fluorescent-pigments-dsred-type/
Blue light regulation of host pigment in reef-building corals
Contributions of host and symbiont pigments to the coloration of reef corals
Diversity and Evolution of Coral Fluorescent Proteins
It’s cheap to be colorful Anthozoans show a slow turnover of GFP-like proteins

I am sincerely trying not to annoy any actual chemist, scientist or advanced hobbyist with any crackpot theories of the under educated... I can't thank @taricha enough for even bothering to help out, provide links and attempt to increase my/our understanding. Plain text can't convey my sincerity here.

So while I have gotten "A's" in college physics (proof I have SOME brains ), any self proclaiming of intelligence is hubris; there is also a reality called "brain lazy" which might be separating the PhDs' from the rest of us...
I will do my best reading the above links, but no promises that I will comprehend entirely (LOL).

Still there is some advantage to ignorance; there is a degree of freedom unconstrained by scientific reality. Developing this line further, I'm not just seeking more insight into the compounds or environmental variables that increase coral coloration, I am asking if increasing color is a worthy goal in the first place.

Just because us hobbyist seek "more color" does that mean more color = more success = better corals?

The answer might seem obvious, but is something we "want" always going to be the best thing for us? Or for the hobby?

Again this is not a attempt to define anyones individual hobby goals but perhaps provide some impetus for the industry to (in parallel) provide knowledge and products to actually "spawn" corals and increase tolerance to captivity through "genetics".
(as opposed to selling "chemicals" to increase coloration of "clones" from one tank to the next)

Or is the "quest for color" just driving the product selection and we are told this equates to healthier/resistant corals? A fair question is: if "color" is something the hobby wants does that automatically mean its "advantageous"?
Or is there just more money in it?
Or are the YouTube vids, TOTM contest, and bragging rights in having the most colorful "wall to wall SPS tank" the thing real driving the "Color pop" lighting, trace elements sales, ICP test, and assortment elixir concoctions'?.

Our tanks might look sharper but is there a clear advantage to this?
Or is there a hidden tradeoff we are missing?

Meanwhile in the South Pacific When the seasons right, the moon is right, and the tides are right, the ugly brown (over exposed) corals are making love tonight.

Credit: Extreme Low Tide At Bangka Island Exposes Corals To Air, And They Survive!

Again, I am not trying to define anyones hobby goals but in tandem wondering if R&D money is also better spent on darkening shades, lighting schedules and seasonal tables vs just offering additives and elixirs to drive the in situ DNA of a cloned coral frag to its finest appearance/highest inflourecence.

(NTM in believing that a constant 78F 24/7/365 and a AB+ lighting schedule and overemphasis on "stability is key" will translate in to some reefing panacea and hardy corals)
(I am trying to avoid OVERUSE of the word "fitness" LOL) ...

Anyway, here is one gem of a post, its something I likewise thought about and is sort of the driver behind this TL;DR post of mine

@taricha Let me give you another competing hypothesis: the hobby is one big survivorship biased experiment. Over time the hobby has selected for those corals that can survive well on Light, NO3, PO4, and fish food. Corals that need more interaction with phyto-/zoo-/and bacterio-plankton to survive have had many fewer hobby systems they could survive in, and so most of those have died, and become rare.
So the corals widespread in the hobby now are those survivors that can thrive on the stuff common tanks in the hobby can provide. The nutritional needs and preferences of corals in the hobby may not match those of the wild corals very well for that reason.

Are we not just basically passing around genetically identical "cuttings" then adjusting lighting schedules and adding elixirs to bring out the most obscene colors capable given the DNA limitations of our assorted color morphs ?

The retail price and therefore the selection of coral frags is then governed by which "cuttings" survive the broad environmental challenges of our assorted tanks. I question how beneficial this actually is.

Unlike breeding dogs, flowers or fish, there isn't any actual "improvement" in DNA, but rather a brute force "cut-n-paste" survivorship of clones/cuttings based on what can broadly survive (or not) and sell.

So the corals widespread in the hobby now are those survivors that can thrive on the stuff common tanks in the hobby can provide.

BINGO
Its a weird market dynamic: price is actually driven up by how flaky and colorful a coral frag is (or not)...

We might have to force "Domestication" beyond just collecting the most colorful color morphs and just waiting to see what survives or what elixir's we can develop to that end...

Perhaps the more difficult path is the better one. Perhaps instead of pouring enough Reef "Hyponex" into our tanks to blossom our coral clone "cuttings" into a psychedelic TOTM color pop bliss. Perhaps there is some overlap with the assorted base chemicals to actually breed corals, cross the DNA and improve both color and aquarium adaptability via actual genetic exchange. (with the realization of the difficulty in working with and developing zillions of larvae)

Re Emphasizing:
This is with respect to the reality and difficulty of coral spawning and rearing larvae. Still, given the state of coral reefs, and future trends, breeding corals should at least be a parallel focus for the hobby in general.
Unlike other hobbies that have husbandry aspects, this particular hobby focuses on "clones" and coloring them up therein.
Currently the entire focus of the hobby (and resultant products) is on a sharp looking tank packed with colorful fish and corals.

I do see some overlap in this and some opportunity in this color experiment that is perhaps within the limitations of "hobby grade" test kits and equipment.

Imo, if trying to determine trace element correlation to color, and food is typically the main import of trace elements, this dictates you need to feed like a typical reef tank in typical circumstances. I imagine any addition would show improvements to a suffering coral vs one that has regular additions of traces via feeding. Ie- if you haven't ate in 2 weeks, 20 big macs might show improvement. But if you eat healthy food regularly, those 20 big macs will have a negative effect. Or am I looking at this completely wrong?

Sorry for the delay in addressing this. I was given a lot of "academic level" material to read and my current understanding is VERY limited. I was following @taricha thread and realized that a alternate pathway could be via food intake vs just the tissue absorbing whatever chemicals are already present or added to the water...

I did anticipate some of this in my neophyte paranoia and did want to only add nutrition via a trophic "food chain" vs adding food directly to the system. The original reasoning for doing this was algae control but there could be a primary or secondary benefit to getting trace via prey/particulate capture....

Now (perhaps in my ignorance) I'm wondering If I can simply dump some iron into a BBS tank, feed the BBs to some limia and hope the poop delivers the "multivitamins" so to speak (LOL)

I got have a lot of reading to do to avoid further embarrassment and ignorance confirmation (LOL)

(20 friggin edits!!)

 

[Doctorgori]

Experimental Goals pt 2 Experiment design constraints/criteria and Possible Derivative Questions
​

Disclosure: This post/list will be revised and updated AFTER reading the below links to a minimum level of comprehension. I have read SOME of the provided links but NOT to a comfortable level of competency. At my education level this could take a while...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06442-5#MOESM1
https://reefs.com/magazine/how-to-m...attention-to-blue-green-fluorescent-pigments/
https://reefs.com/magazine/how-to-m...and-photoconversion-from-green-to-orange-red/
https://reefs.com/magazine/how-to-m...ormation-red-fluorescent-pigments-dsred-type/
Blue light regulation of host pigment in reef-building corals
Contributions of host and symbiont pigments to the coloration of reef corals
Diversity and Evolution of Coral Fluorescent Proteins
It’s cheap to be colorful Anthozoans show a slow turnover of GFP-like proteins

Primary Questions and Experiment goals (again these are written BEFORE digesting the links given above, the thoughts are unorganized and placed here for later reference)

1. Color Temperature
   1. Is there a clear advantage lighting a aquarium based on one color temperature vs another?
   2. Growth advantages?
      1. Can a coral adapt/change/adjust its biology to take advantage of a broader range of color temperatures and emissions?
      2. How can this be measured and documented?
2. Pigmentation as relates Vitality/resistance to disease and adverse environmental variables.
   1. What role (if any) does a corals pigmentation play in this?
      1. How can this be measured and documented?
   2. What pigment changes reveal a positive or negative reaction?
      1. How can this be determined, measured and documented?
   3. Can pigment change (along with the associated proteins) be measured and documented?
3. Color Morphs (note to self: I'd like to side by side all the common monti cap morphs)
   1. Are color morphs regional? (i.e black panthers in Java vs Africa)
   2. What affect does lighting have (on the actual proteins) and at what color temperature is this effect most noticeable?
   3. what is the latency in this change and is there a variance amongst color morphs?
   4. Why did nature create different morphs in the 1st place
      1. does one color morph have some (regional/environmental) advantage over the other?
4. How do these lighting (color temperature) choices affect <subjective> visual appeal? (note to self: reference Dana's charts) this also might require a supporting survey
5. Role of flow in coloration (this probably will be difficult/complex in qualifying measurement and latency issues)
6. Role of wavelength emissions in spawning triggers
   1. Timing/length of time
   2. Seasonal changes
7. Temperature role and tolerance;
   1. Does exposure to wavelengths into red/IR ranges help or hinder temperature tolerance?
   2. What are the pigment changes when exposed to "wasted wavelengths"?
   3. How can this be determined, measured and documented?
8. Foods and additives that could possibly effect/enhance coral pigmentation
   1. Probiotics: I have dispensed with any biofilter and installed a UV to (perhaps) alleviate any potential interreference with this suite of products 9even if they are originally designed to work in conventional setups):

      1. Underwater Creations Chroma, Coral Color + ​

      2. ​

   2. All-In-One solutions

      1. KoralColor - Increased Coloration​

   3. RedSea Trace Colors ABCD 4-Pack​

      1. Iodine​

      2. Potassium​

      3. Iron+​

      4. Bioactive Elements​

   4. AquaForest (too many product links to list, will revisit)​

Pardon the format deviation. (and somewhat convoluted read)
I am exposing my thought process in the likely event someone reading this can expose flows or add something to it. This list is incomplete and in development

 

[Doctorgori]

From a post by @oreo54 thanks

Just sticking this in as it might be useful later:

 

[Doctorgori]

Do you have a PC? or a mac with possibility to run an virtual PC machine? Its better to do this with the client/server program GHL Control Center and an USB connection when you start IMO.

Sincerely Lasse

I could have sworn I answered but maybe I must have erased my reply ….
Yes, I used a genuine PC (instead of my iPad) and a USB cable.
I was able to get a tentative schedule programed in…
FWIW I am considering just maxing all channels on both lights and adjusting the intensity over the day…

Any other attempt to match sunlight at certain times and certain depths is beyond my capability and too unnecessarily complex. All I have is a apogee par meter.

 

[Lasse]

I am considering just maxing all channels on both lights and adjusting the intensity over the day…

Its where I ended up, Did you use the light composer?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Doctorgori]

Its where I ended up, Did you use the light composer?

Sincerely Lasse

Yes,( uh I think) …
More info than you asked, and also talking to myself:

It took all of 5 minutes goofing around before I realized this thing is waaaaaay more involved and configurable than most other equipment universes/control apps.

Off the cuff it even looks like it can do seasonal as well as specific schedules per channel…. Not sure, but either way its pretty customizable….

Repeating myself anyway…

Tentatively I might just crank all channels to 100% on both lights and ramp up/ramp down evenly across the day, with a noon day peak …
I have a adjustable egg crate rack that I can adjust height/adjust par

 

[Lasse]

This is the composer - only the sky limit what you can do with that program !

Sincerely Lasse