Natural light spectrum.. Why do we use these so much blue lights?

[Big E]

Photosynthetic corals primarily use the blue spectrum for photosynthesis. Blue light can create more fluorescent proteins and make the corals pop with more color.

If the tank is too blue, the other subtle colors can get washed out, but I’d MUCH prefer my tank too blue than too white.

Many moons ago, in a far away land, in the RC era, was a crazy ole mate from down under that went by Biggles. A "Splash of Color" thread there was the most amazing and viral acropora journey. The maestro Biggles was quoted as saying... "If it doesn't show color under white lighting(10k), then it's not colorful"
Blues only systems keep the corals from truly expressing their lineage DNA capabilities. Finding subtle colors and hues as the coral expresses this potential is something missed if not explored. My new project will utilize "ULNS" with Bacteria Driven Method, using very "Full Spectrum" with led only, and on a Nano scale For anyone interested in following

There is a false narrative that more blue is needed for the corals and that's the reason people have been running heavier blue since the advent of Leds. They always trot out that same chlorophyl chart but the problem is that how we see corals with our eyes is not the same as how much the corals need.

We can't see all that blue but it's there in high levels in lights that look to our eyes like they are white. I got tired explaining this years ago. Anyways, if you look at any of the Halide bulb spectrums most had massive blue spikes. We added 03 type bulbs for that fluorescent look in corals people prefer..........For our eyes. So basically more purple & blue but not enough to make a tank look like the back room of Spencer gifts or Windex bottles.

This was the same with T5 bulbs as well...........full spectrum bulbs with plenty of blue, and use Reefbrites for pop for us to visually enjoy.

Because of this people run way too much blue and growth is slower than a broader spectrum look. Imo, the 20k look is about right without changing the color of the fish. The more blue that is added our eyes cannot see colors like purple & blue intensity in corals. There is also the issue of certain red and pink corals that won't look at their peak because some pigments won't get exited.

 

[Miami Reef]

They always trot out that same chlorophyl chart but the problem is that how we see corals with our eyes is not the same as how much the corals need.

The chlorophyll chart states photosynthetic corals use almost all the colors of the spectrum from 350 to 700nm.

I just said they primary use the blue spectrum, which is not false.

Other colors, especially amber (around 600nm), can highlight non fluorescent chromoproteins, which is important for a full range of colors.

However, too much white can wash out the colors, in my experience, just like how only blue can wash out the chromoproteins.

 

[Miami Reef]

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

 

[Lasse]

Its true that the "catching" points in the different proteins is more prominents for photons around 410 - 470 nm. But this energy packets must be reduced tho the same energy levels as red bandwidths photons have in order to be processed in the activity center of Photosystem II (680 nm) and Photosystem I (700 nm). It means that the photosynthesis can´t use the extra energy in the 400 nm packets . for the photosynthesis - 1 photon with energy quanta of 680 (PS II) and 700 (PS I) a is needed in each cycle. If a photon with higher energy quanta is cached - the extra energy gets lost in the process (as heat, as fluorescence and so on)

It is mainly the wavelengths between 500 and 630 that will blind you according to weak flourescens sources. Our eye is more sensitive there

If you use RGB instead for too much "white" chips - you get a crispy white look and still be able to see fluorescence.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Miami Reef]

Its true that the "catching" points in the different proteins is more prominents for photons around 410 - 470 nm. But this energy packets must be reduced tho the same energy levels as red bandwidths photons have in order to be processed in the activity center of Photosystem II (680 nm) and Photosystem I (700 nm). It means that the photosynthesis can´t use the extra energy in the 400 nm packets . for the photosynthesis - 1 photon with energy quanta of 680 (PS II) and 700 (PS I) a is needed in each cycle. If a photon with higher energy quanta is cached - the extra energy gets lost in the process (as heat, as fluorescence and so on)

It is mainly the wavelengths between 500 and 630 that will blind you according to weak flourescens sources. Our eye is more sensitive there

If you use RGB instead for too much "white" chips - you get a crispy white look and still be able to see fluorescence.

Sincerely Lasse

What do you think about this study? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3962463/

 

[Lasse]

A caveat that has to be considered here is the necrosis of corals grown under the white light, which started during week 6. As this light spectrum is known to be suitable for aquaculture of this particular genotype [4], [17], this suggests that other factors than light may have caused necrosis and mortality at the end of the experiment. A possible candidate is zinc, a co-factor of many enzymes with important roles in metabolism, and known to affect photosynthetic efficiency of S. pistillata [23]. More specifically, the zinc concentration in the experimental system was 79.7 μg L−1, a concentration known to be in the toxic range for some coral species [24].

My bold.

The answer is not that monochrome red or red/blue light kill S. pistillata - it is that monochrome blue light does not kill this coral in known toxic concentrations of zinc.

IMO this percent of the article´s text change everything. The experiment is only valid - IMO - with zink concentrations around 79.7 μg L−1.

With this in mind - I will stress that I do think that monochrome red light is more dangerous for corals compared with monochrome blue light. The reason for this can be that it seems that high radiation of red light do not activate some corals defence mechanisms against to high radiation (forming of sunscreen proteins as an example) but blue light do activate this mechanisms.

But red photons as a part of full spectra radiation does not harm corals IMO - if it should be that way - we should have no corals between 0 and 5 meters in nature.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Perry]

Umm yes please, Reef Master Supreme Deluxe!! Glad to see you're setting something up Perry!!

You are too kind, but I am just here to learn from the corals. They are the ones that guide the system, I am just there to observe and provide them with their needs and wants. They are far more intelligent than the scientists who think they know. I am honored to be their servant.

 

[Big E]

The chlorophyll chart states photosynthetic corals use almost all the colors of the spectrum from 350 to 700nm.

I just said they primary use the blue spectrum, which is not false.

Other colors, especially amber (around 600nm), can highlight non fluorescent chromoproteins, which is important for a full range of colors.

However, too much white can wash out the colors, in my experience, just like how only blue can wash out the chromoproteins.

I'm not really arguing with you but how people apply those charts are grossly over used. My main point is there is plenty from 400-600nm that corals use/need is there.

It wasn't a bash on your statement...........I didn't want to directly quote you and I agree with your comments above.

My main point is the massive peak that most LED tanks are set at are excessive and not needed because people are applying what they see with what they think that chart looks like and they are waaaay off.

 

[Perry]

While all this science stuff is super interesting, it seems if we simply "replicate" the sun, to our best ability, then walla, we get the expressions the coral offers. Why must we make this more difficult than it needs to be?
If any of you spend time in the water and sun, then you understand that this blue oriented spectrum adopted in the industry, is far from that in nature. If you spend time with plants, you can try gimmicks like Red oriented led and yet still do well with simple spectrums in the 2700k-6000k spectrum. If you have done so with t5, then you know that plants can take all the light you can give them, darn near making contact with the bulbs. If you have grown corals, you have likely experienced the same using t5s, try this with halide or led, and get back to me. So, as far as I can tell, as a gardener under the actual sun, there is ABSOLUTELY no mimmick lighting that captures the essence and power, and plants will show you firsthand.
So, while we continue to study under bright led lighting, in a lab, with no windows, or signs of nature, realize this; mother nature continues to break every rule and fact.

 

[Lasse]

Take green photons as an example - Its true that there is a very poor uptake of energy from green photons - most says be reflected (the reflected green photons is those that give the green colour of many leafs) - but there is some uptake of even green photons energy quanta. This picture below shows a green leaf of one of my wife's pot plants - one with very thick leaves. The light source is a flashlight LED of about 7000 K

Below is a chart of the Typical color and white light LEDs spectral power distributions.

If all incoming photons from this flashlight is either reflected or adsorbed - the backside of the leaf should be black (no photons coming through) or have the colour of the photons that all neither has been reflected or adsorbed. Let us look at the backside of the leaf

Its yellow green!!! This means that some of the photons in the green/yellow part of the spectrum pass through the leaf tissue!! This phenomena has been shown to be important for leaf and plants below a tree canopy on dry land.

Could this have importance for corals too. I think so. We normally refer the colour of deep water to be blue - but the truth is that it is blue-green. Note the difference between open ocean and costal water. Many coral reefs occur in costal water

​

Let us think a little - if green photons is adsorbed by the mechanism responsible for photosynthesis - admittedly bad but still - this ability may allow zooxanthellae deeper into the tissue and thus allow photosynthesis deeper down in the body. In addition, if different fluorescent proteins convert photons with "blue" energy quanta into photons with "green" and "red" energy quanta, more tissue-thick corals can use the available light more efficiently. The same is that at low light intensity - corals that spread out like flakes are more efficient than those that branch. I have seen research that just discuss this.

Maybe just a thought but it maybe not a coincidence that rather deep-living photosynthetic corals are often relatively "thick" or flaky?

What is a photon - photon is a packet of energy - energy quanta - different quanta for different wavelengths. Higher energy quanta - lower wavelength. This means that if a photon of low wavelength (high energy content) by florescence mechanism converts to another photon of higher wavelength (lower energy content) some energy must be converted to another energy form - often heat - or used in a biological process.

Photosynthesis is quantum theory in real action!

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Doctorgori]

There is a false narrative that more blue is needed for the corals and that's the reason people have been running heavier blue since the advent of Leds. They always trot out that same chlorophyl chart but the problem is that how we see corals with our eyes is not the same as how much the corals need.

We can't see all that blue but it's there in high levels in lights that look to our eyes like they are white. I got tired explaining this years ago. Anyways, if you look at any of the Halide bulb spectrums most had massive blue spikes. We added 03 type bulbs for that fluorescent look in corals people prefer..........For our eyes. So basically more purple & blue but not enough to make a tank look like the back room of Spencer gifts or Windex bottles.

This was the same with T5 bulbs as well...........full spectrum bulbs with plenty of blue, and use Reefbrites for pop for us to visually enjoy.

Because of this people run way too much blue and growth is slower than a broader spectrum look. Imo, the 20k look is about right without changing the color of the fish. The more blue that is added our eyes cannot see colors like purple & blue intensity in corals. There is also the issue of certain red and pink corals that won't look at their peak because some pigments won't get exited.

Agree, I created a thread here recently, the lack of replies actually made me feel vindicated LOL …sample pics below
…I am pretty sure the lights were a Hydro MH maybe 4800k ish
I am on record here with several post hinting there is something amiss with our blue paradigm…I am currently doing a experiment along these lines (sort of)

 

[Doctorgori]

this ability may allow zooxanthellae deeper into the tissue and thus allow photosynthesis deeper down in the body. In addition, if different fluorescent proteins convert photons with "blue" energy quanta into photons with "green" and "red" energy quanta, more tissue-thick corals can use the available light more efficiently.

If you dont mind would you please take a glance at @taricha ’s thread over in the experiment section, I also have a similar more basic one…
No reply required, but I personally could use your brains if you have some thoughts…
TIA

 

[Doctorgori]

While all this science stuff is super interesting, it seems if we simply "replicate" the sun, to our best ability, then walla, we get the expressions the coral offers. Why must we make this more difficult than it needs to be?
If any of you spend time in the water and sun, then you understand that this blue oriented spectrum adopted in the industry, is far from that in nature. If you spend time with plants, you can try gimmicks like Red oriented led and yet still do well with simple spectrums in the 2700k-6000k spectrum. If you have done so with t5, then you know that plants can take all the light you can give them, darn near making contact with the bulbs. If you have grown corals, you have likely experienced the same using t5s, try this with halide or led, and get back to me. So, as far as I can tell, as a gardener under the actual sun, there is ABSOLUTELY no mimmick lighting that captures the essence and power, and plants will show you firsthand.
So, while we continue to study under bright led lighting, in a lab, with no windows, or signs of nature, realize this; mother nature continues to break every rule and fact.

I had a similar argument on alt.reefs about 30 years back. Sometimes I wonder if the constant fixed temps, our “stability is key” misuse and insistence on refusing to introduce any environmental variables or stresses into our tanks is to the detriment of our corals…

Maybe our corals need to be exposed to “wasted wavelengths” like reds and some temperature swings similar to hardening off a tomato start before planting it outside in the elements…

I mean is a animal stronger if its never exposed to ANY stresses?

 

[Lasse]

Sometimes I wonder if the constant fixed temps, our “stability is key” misuse and insistence on refusing to introduce any environmental variables or stresses into our tanks is to the detriment of our corals…

My resent temperature management - its a replicate from Sulawesi´s average daily temp swing minus 3 degree C. Not want plus 30 degree C in my tank because of risk for oxygen limitation. Noon = 16:00 GMT plus 1

Last Week

My light intensity vary too according to data from Sulawesi

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Doctorgori]

My resent temperature management - its a replicate from Sulawesi´s average daily temp swing minus 3 degree C. Not want plus 30 degree C in my tank because of risk for oxygen limitation. Noon = 16:00 GMT plus 1

Last Week

My light intensity vary too according to data from Sulawesi

Sincerely Lasse

Yeah Ive been long rethinking the whole “stability is key” thing that gets repeated to death…
On one hand
Makes sense “chemically” since the ocean is pretty consistent in Alkalinity , Nitrogen, pH et et

Makes no sense in temperature, lighting and current as these are naturally occurring variances

There is relevance here in this blue lighting discussion:
in that lighting our tanks blue and at constant temps reminds me of greenhouse grown “Florist Hydrangeas” and those white Easter lilies that we buy every holiday and fail when we place them outside…
Basically a plant grown under “ideal” and constant “ideal” parameters but fail miserably when exposed to natural Sun and natural variables and stresses

 

[Troylee]

Yeah Ive been long rethinking the whole “stability is key” thing that gets repeated to death…
On one hand
Makes sense “chemically” since the ocean is pretty consistent in Alkalinity , Nitrogen, pH et et

Makes no sense in temperature, lighting and current as these are naturally occurring variances

There is relevance here in this blue lighting discussion:
in that lighting our tanks blue and at constant temps reminds me of greenhouse grown “Florist Hydrangeas” and those white Easter lilies that we buy every holiday and fail when we place them outside…
Basically a plant grown under “ideal” and constant “ideal” parameters but fail miserably when exposed to natural Sun and natural variables and stresses

What I’ve learned with my current tank is this! Get your biome built up with bacteria and stable! As for anything else being stable? Toss that out the window it doesn’t matter! Anyone who has followed my thread would see the couple disasters I’ve had from kalk over doses and other problems I’ve had I share them all! I don’t run a heater my temps swing up to 5° a day sometimes depending on outside temps since my skimmer pulls from outside. Tank doesn’t skip a beat! My alk has always bounced around from 8-11 I’ve never kept it stable and don’t care too! Tanks never skipped a beat! Feedings? When I feel like it besides the fish get daily feeding 3-5 times. My ph has never been stable it’s 8-8.4 depending on the weather outside and if I open doors etc. Between 2 kalk over doses in 2 months I’ve had a ph of 9.4 and my tank precipitated and my alk dropped from 10 to 4.8 tank didn’t skip a beat! Not a single acro has cared and in fact it’s jump started some of them that were stalled out! This is where I started doing research on biomes and I’ve personally came to the conclusion on my tank that’s the only important thing in keeping my acros happy and it’s working! Nothing else really matters.. it works and I have a 100% success rate keeping wild and maricultured acros now and I’ve never had that before! I used to have 50% success rate at best with new stuff. the only stability in my tank is lighting “metal halides” the spectrum doesn’t change and bacteria and carbon dosing is stable as it’s on a doser. I also top off with kalk so that’s the farthest thing from stable haha! Hence the alk jumping around… I gotta say being in this hobby off and on for 20 years I’ve learned more in the last 18 months with my current display then I did over the last 18 years put together! Nobody talked about biomes back then and there was no way to test them or know anything like we got today! Just my 2….

 

[bobnicaragua]

What I’ve learned with my current tank is this! Get your biome built up with bacteria and stable! As for anything else being stable? Toss that out the window it doesn’t matter! Anyone who has followed my thread would see the couple disasters I’ve had from kalk over doses and other problems I’ve had I share them all! I don’t run a heater my temps swing up to 5° a day sometimes depending on outside temps since my skimmer pulls from outside. Tank doesn’t skip a beat! My alk has always bounced around from 8-11 I’ve never kept it stable and don’t care too! Tanks never skipped a beat! Feedings? When I feel like it besides the fish get daily feeding 3-5 times. My ph has never been stable it’s 8-8.4 depending on the weather outside and if I open doors etc. Between 2 kalk over doses in 2 months I’ve had a ph of 9.4 and my tank precipitated and my alk dropped from 10 to 4.8 tank didn’t skip a beat! Not a single acro has cared and in fact it’s jump started some of them that were stalled out! This is where I started doing research on biomes and I’ve personally came to the conclusion on my tank that’s the only important thing in keeping my acros happy and it’s working! Nothing else really matters.. it works and I have a 100% success rate keeping wild and maricultured acros now and I’ve never had that before! I used to have 50% success rate at best with new stuff. the only stability in my tank is lighting “metal halides” the spectrum doesn’t change and bacteria and carbon dosing is stable as it’s on a doser. I also top off with kalk so that’s the farthest thing from stable haha! Hence the alk jumping around… I gotta say being in this hobby off and on for 20 years I’ve learned more in the last 18 months with my current display then I did over the last 18 years put together! Nobody talked about biomes back then and there was no way to test them or know anything like we got today! Just my 2….

I love hearing about how really good acro keepers run their systems.

I don’t know if stability doesn’t matter as much as you’ve nailed what matters most. I’ve come to run my SPS tank similar to the way you do.

So takeaways

High PH: (absolutely essential for acros)
Kalkwasser, outside airline, open windows when weather permits.

Biome:
Established ecosystem, I use live rock. If I start to feel like the ecosystem isn’t stable, I’ll order an additional 10 lbs of Florida live rock and swap out some old rock.

Metal Halides:
Actual full spectrum lighting. Acros really do thrive under halides.

Bacteria and carbon dosing:
I run a refugium, no bacteria or carbon dosing.

One other note, when I went from continuously dosing a gallon of kalk to dosing a gallon of kalk overnight, my acros really responded in a positive way. Better growth and coloration, 2 part consumption just keeps increasing.

 

[X-37B]

My systems are rather simple, imo.
I set my photons for a whiter halide like look and leave them alone based on a par map for even coverage.
Temp varies in the summer 77-80 and 77 during winter months.
I have 3 0r4 uv/v bars but only run them for 2-3 hours currently.
Feeding 3-4 times throughout the day.
Ph 7.8-8.3
Never realy worry about ph as all my systems run similar with no issues.
I ran a co2 scrubber years ago and saw no real advantage so stopped.
Alk 7-7.5
Ca 420
Mag 1320
SG 1.026-1.027
SG flucuates due to skimmer evap and is corrected when it gets to 1.026.
Flow is very random and indirect running 2 sea sweeps. I do change the flow power every few weeks and can also change how the flow interacts with each other due to how they are positioned at start.
NO3<5
Po4< .1.
I use a par meter to give me a even blanket of light throughout the system.
Live rock is a key to keeping my biome stable, imo. 150lbs in my current display. Tanks 8 months old and has 50 hard corals and 1 lps.
I have never had an isdues with current ph and alk levels.
Over the years I have noticed no issues if alk drops below 7 as I just increase the carx output. Never realy had alk over 8.5 and it caused no issues.
My growth rates are good and can be seen in my build threads.
I run 2 Photon 50's over the 59×30×21 at 60% with red 20% and white @ 40%.
I am getting 300 par across the rockwork with good growth.
Plenty of power left.
Top down.
2nd pic is halide like imo.
Whites are only at 40%

 

[Doctorgori]

don’t run a heater my temps swing up to 5° a day sometimes depending on outside temps since my skimmer pulls from outside. Tank doesn’t skip a beat!

After my 2nd or 3rd meltdown/stuck thermostat/ Apex fail (or whatever) I skipped the heater and never looked back…
78f was publish average/ safe reef temperature setting but it got parroted so often people mistake/substitute “average” for ideal” and set their heaters fixed on the temp 365/24/7 … misapplied logic really

This thread is about blue light but expanding on that with a slight derail.
I think anything deviating from nature is a hack.I admit, I love the “pop” blue light brings out, I just think it goes too far…
I’m strongly against adjusting the white channel to fight algae. Not only does algae grow under blue light anyway but why would someone introduce a solution while trying to figure out the cause…
Coming from the halide world, The whole concept of cutting out white is nonsense to me…usually most problems have a “reverse button” and if you are patient and quit doing whatever it was you did, the problem usually goes away

 

[Doctorgori]

I have 3 0r4 uv/v bars but only run them for 2-3 hours currently.

Ive been thinking about UV a lot, I know some of the halide bulbs emit into that range but Im not familiar with any of the lighting hardware…
I am experimenting with GHL Mitras bars and thinking about adding UV strips…
Have you noticed any color change with the UV addition?

Live rock is a key to keeping my biome stable, imo. 150lbs in my current display

IMO every tank should have at least one lb of genuine ocean rock