Is there any real benefit to full spectrum lighting?

[jda]

I know that you don't have a problem with Green, or him... just a general statement to the masses who don't know. I imagine that if you had a reef, you would have periods of each day running with 100% on all of the sliders as well. The people telling you that green, red, etc. make a difference would be too tempting to overcome especially given the successes of the people telling you vs the mostly links, young tanks and lack success and stuff by those telling you otherwise. ...and you would see what we all have seen.

 

[djf91]

"Morphology" effects are tricky but one thing is pretty standard.. If you grow a cylinder straight up you have less surface area during peak irradiation then if you are growing horizontal.

It is actually protective while still growing for maximum intensity.

A terrestrial example.


For corals see plating and encrusting vs sticks..

That is a good point and seemingly paradoxical. But what about upward tabling growth seen in those exposed reef pictures?

 

[jda]

Or it is possible that these corals evolved to take advantage of every possible piece of energy, do this on purpose and that humans have just not been able to understand it in totality yet.

Has anybody seen the tidepools where nems, softies, some clams, etc. are collected? This is likely no accident. The stuff appears to thrive in these conditions. The real scientists in the area will tell you this as well. There are lots of videos on these type of places, but nearly none are in English, so I cannot tell if these are tourists with a cell phone, or some scientist.

 

[oreo54]

That is a good point and seemingly paradoxical. But what about upward tabling growth seen in those exposed reef pictures?

Most have branches pointing straight up..
I can't explain every species nor their tolerance to high light levels.
Besides due to solar progression the max intensity is only periodic, daily and seasonal.

Generous assumption of photoinhibition level of light hungry corals in green.
Keep geometry of corals in mind btw..

 

[oreo54]

Or it is possible that these corals evolved to take advantage of every possible piece of energy, do this on purpose and that humans have just not been able to understand it in totality yet.

Has anybody seen the tidepools where nems, softies, some clams, etc. are collected? This is likely no accident. The stuff appears to thrive in these conditions. The real scientists in the area will tell you this as well. There are lots of videos on these type of places, but nearly none are in English, so I cannot tell if these are tourists with a cell phone, or some scientist.

My understanding, between heavy mucus layers, MAA's and other sunscreens they just can survive a hostile environment better than others.

Thriving is a funny concept.. being the lone survivor is also.

Anyone measure growth of exposed corals vs same species in a less hostile environment?

A black spruce being the only tree species "thriving" in a bog doesn't mean much especially when that 10ft tree is 50 years old..

 

[Lasse]

Actually Lasses "RGB" is not "full spectrum" in the sense of sunlight anyways.

It is true - I do not have it because of photosynthetic reasons (even if the my reds (625 - 630 nm) and blue (470 nm) in RGB give some photosyntetic action for chlorophyll C ) The reson I have it is because I do not want the dazzling function that phosphorus-coated (white) LEDs get in the "lumen" window (480-630 nm). This glare prevents my eye from detecting the faint fluorescent colors of my corals. See these two examples - in the first 8,200 K I have only used RGB. Note the yellow graph of human eyes sensitivity

In this second experiment I have reach 8200 K with only "white" LEDS (7750 K and 6500 K) and a small amount of blue (470). Compare where you have most of the light and what you will see with your eyes

IMO - to strong red in not adapted corals will overload the photosystems - especially photosystem 2 - but if adapted - they manage it.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[jda]

They don' just survive and hang on. They grow, spawn and otherwise are healthy. We, as men with hubris, are assuming that this is hostile. I probably agree that it might not be ideal in every way, but to say that it is hostile is seemingly wrong.

I wish that we had measurements of anything. If there is any, it is probably in another language. I have told you this before and you still post those charts, that on the bottom of waist deep water, the PAR is near 1800-2000 for most of the day - that is as long as the cord on my Apogee will reach. Dude from the facility who has a better LiCor agreed with the readings. I also told you that they cut 10-12 inch chunks out of these that are healed fully in a few weeks - even if we assume that this is slower than other conditions, because we are men who think that we know it all, it is still regrowing at a rate quicker than we can grow things in captivity*. Most of your links and charts are not accurate for what we are talking about.

*maybe captivity is all hostile? Never mind, it likely is... no reason to debate this.

 

[oreo54]

Preaching to the choir..

They don' just survive and hang on. They grow, spawn and otherwise are healthy. We, as men with hubris, are assuming that this is hostile. I probably agree that it might not be ideal in every way, but to say that it is hostile is seemingly wrong.

I wish that we had measurements of anything. If there is any, it is probably in another language. I have told you this before and you still post those charts, that on the bottom of waist deep water, the PAR is near 1800-2000 for most of the day - that is as long as the cord on my Apogee will reach. Dude from the facility who has a better LiCor agreed with the readings. I also told you that they cut 10-12 inch chunks out of these that are healed fully in a few weeks - even if we assume that this is slower than other conditions, because we are men who think that we know it all, it is still regrowing at a rate quicker than we can grow things in captivity*. Most of your links and charts are not accurate for what we are talking about.

*maybe captivity is all hostile? Never mind, it likely is... no reason to debate this.

Maybe argue w/ Dana about his charts..
There probably isn't a biologist alive that would not consider direct sun exposure of corals is a err ok "less than perfect" environment.
From burning resources on "protectants" to DNA damage

Again look at the coral geometry.. measure the face of the coral..

Purpose of most aquariums is to reduce stresses and maximize potential and possibly steer outcomes (pigments, form ect) . Nature is NOT the model for this . It may hint but it is science that will tailor it..

Now as in all things.. between my "philosophy" and yours the real answer probably lies..

We just have to agree to disagree on this..

Oh never said they didn't grow just is it REALLY their full potential of growth?
If so maybe you need to design a drain and fill cycle for your tanks..



'

 

[djf91]

I think it is going to be based on species. Coral planula can and will select for the environment that suits them best. Some of the light loving Acropora species will select for substrate a few feet under the waters surface.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022098197001676

 

[2Wheelsonly]

Aside from looks, is there any benefit for the corals concerning full spectrum vs actinic? I hate the actinic look, so you'll never see me lighting the tank like it's supposed to play a show in Vegas next week. But I was curious. Is there any real benefit to going full spectrum?

I prefer more of a blue look as it really brings out the color pop but I make sure to let me tank know to stay away from Vegas because it smells like smoke and gambling sucks.

 

[ZombieEngineer]

What you posted has nothing to do with light, it had to do with water temp changes triggering bleaching.

So you didn't read it then not even the title. Water temp changes were not even discussed in the overall writeup. The writeup and linked references were all specifically related to photosynthesis rate changes based on light spectrum changes and the R.A. Kinzie & T. Hunter studies show the effect of red light increasing the rate of zooxanthellae expulsion when acclimating to full sunlight. Due to oxidative stress.

How do you get water temp changes out of spectrum AB studies?

 

[ZombieEngineer]

At these depths full spectrum light is what the corals receive, not heavy blues like you think. Next time your at a clear lake, deep river or ocean jump in and swim down. Then your misconceptions will be eliminated.

If you say that matching the spectrum of the sun is better than heavy blues, then why aren't you using a Ceramic Metal Halide or High Pressure Sodium bulb on your tank? 1st pic ceramic metal halide 4000K and much closer to surface sunlight, second pic halides actually used successfully in the hobby.

Halides are heavy blue and everyone I know has had more success by going even more blue/green.

 

[Jon's Reef]

I focus more on aquacultured specimens (ie wwc, tsa etc), so I try to replicate their lighting. Recently I visited the WWC superstore and was amazed at the 1500 G. They run fairly blue.

 

[djf91]

The article about uv and the redsea is believable to me. I've spent a good amount of time under the redsea at depthand will say that it gets full spectrum pretty dam deep. It's also the home to some of the most beautiful reefs in the world.

Kind of like this?

 

[Shooter6]

Kind of like this?

Yes.

 

[Shooter6]

If you say that matching the spectrum of the sun is better than heavy blues, then why aren't you using a Ceramic Metal Halide or High Pressure Sodium bulb on your tank? 1st pic ceramic metal halide 4000K and much closer to surface sunlight, second pic halides actually used successfully in the hobby.

Halides are heavy blue and everyone I know has had more success by going even more blue/green.

I ran mh for years. I've been keeping reefs since 1988.
Yes mh have a lot of blue, BUT ALSO THE REST OF THE SPECTRUM TOO, thar is why many halide lit tanks look like sunlight.

Hell the sunlight for that matter has an abundance of blue light, but the rest of the spectrum makes it look white, when your going about your day.

I never said no blue light, I said a full spectrum is better in my opinion. That full spectrum includes uv,blue,ir, and everything between.

You either misunderstood my points or are being defensive of your choice to run heavy blues lol.

 

[Shooter6]

So you didn't read it then not even the title. Water temp changes were not even discussed in the overall writeup. The writeup and linked references were all specifically related to photosynthesis rate changes based on light spectrum changes and the R.A. Kinzie & T. Hunter studies show the effect of red light increasing the rate of zooxanthellae expulsion when acclimating to full sunlight. Due to oxidative stress.

How do you get water temp changes out of spectrum AB studies?

The graph shows bleaching events related to water temps and depths effected lol

 

[GARRIGA]

I think blue spectrum lighting for reefs similar to blue/red for horticulture in that you can more usable light for the same wattage. Yet horticulture does use full spectrum. End of day I think it's more about PUR than wave length restrictions but only PAR readily measured by hobbyist. Perhaps full spectrum delivering the required PAR at higher wattage delivers the same results as blue lighting.

For those who prefer the UV look then full spectrum not likely the best choice yet some of us prefer to see all our inhabitants as if diving a shallow reef.

 

[Lasse]

I think it is going to be based on species. Coral planula can and will select for the environment that suits them best. Some of the light loving Acropora species will select for substrate a few feet under the waters surface.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022098197001676

Thank you for that article. It was interesting and can clearly give us some clues to which type of intensity and spectral content that´s is of interest for the corals by themselves. In five of the species - the larvae preferred different intensity and spectra depending on species according to settlement - some preferred the "full spectra" and some more blue spectra. You can read the full article here These chosen light intensity and spectra for optimal settlement was according to the depth the corals show up in the nature.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[ZombieEngineer]

I think blue spectrum lighting for reefs similar to blue/red for horticulture in that you can more usable light for the same wattage. Yet horticulture does use full spectrum.

I worked for a grow store when I was going to college and it was the same arguments you see here about MH vs LED except for horticulture it was HPS vs Red/Blue LED vs full spectrum LED.

As far as pure growth was concerned, the HPS and full spectrum white actually performed worse per watt than the red/blue only with HPS being the worst. The best was if I remember correctly 25% W 25% blue and 50% red. It was real easy to AB cause they could use the same water, same room, same everything except for lighting and find out in a matter of weeks, not many months like with coral. The reason for this was red was the best for plant photosynthesis, but blue was necessary for stalk growth, and the white was only there so that workers could identify health issues with the plants that were drowned out if you have a sea of pink/purple. It did not improve growth per watt because the phosphor coating was less efficient than the blue and red leds in converting to PAR.

But you show the studies that LED increased plant mass increased by the same amount in 400W of LED that was done in 1000W of HPS or 800W of MH, they would pull the same lines that the MH diehards preach today. Things like "I've been doing this for 30 years and I know I grow more than your LEDs" without ever trying them or doing an AB test or "I switched from 5000W of halides to 2000W of leds and I got 10% less than I did on my last crop". Kind of like the typical "I replaced 250W halide with 200W of t5 with a single radion and my corals don't grow as well as they did before" without factoring in they are now giving their corals 30% less par than before and using 40% the wattage, but those who replaced 500W of MH and 400W of T5 with 3 radions saw similar growth at 60% the wattage.