NO3 and PO4 and it's relationship to lighting

[pigmo]

@Punchanello, we think older established tanks function differently than newer ones.

since you mentioned restarting, i'll share our experience. this is our 1st reef system. when we were in year 0-1, we definitely needed some levels of no3 and po4, or our sps would fade and die. we started our tank at the tail end of 2017, when a lot of the reefing world tilted towards zero/close to zero is better. so we shot for this, ulns, and our sps frags would fade and die, like i mentioned. not until we began dosing inorganic po4 and no3 (the d.i.y type my brother mixed for me from powders), did death reverse... and we saw colors and growth... at about month 8. perhaps this can be fully or partially atributed to a more mature system micro biology, who knows (as we added a steve tyree cryptic sump and his seed pack), but we saw pretty much an immediate effect upon dosing at month 8. at month 18, we are still dosing our tanks with the d.i.y. no3 (target is 5 ppm) and po4 (target is 0.03 ppm).

sorry the pic is cell phone with a gel filter, so the colors appear a bit brighter than to my eyes, but close ;Cat

michelle

oh the lighting is about 250 to 400 par in this part of my frag tank, radions, t5s and reefbrites

 

[road_runner]

@Punchanello, we think older established tanks function differently than newer ones.

since you mentioned restarting, i'll share our experience. this is our 1st reef system. when we were in year 0-1, we definitely needed some levels of no3 and po4, or our sps would fade and die. we started our tank at the tail end of 2017, when a lot of the reefing world tilted towards zero/close to zero is better. so we shot for this, ulns, and our sps frags would fade and die, like i mentioned. not until we began dosing inorganic po4 and no3 (the d.i.y type my brother mixed for me from powders), did death reverse... and we saw colors and growth... at about month 8. perhaps this can be fully or partially atributed to a more mature system micro biology, who knows, but we saw pretty much an immediate effect upon dosing at month 8. at month 18, we are atill dosing our tanks with the d.i.y. no3 (target is 5 ppm) and po4 (target is 0.03 ppm).

sorry the pic is cell phone with a gel filter, so the colors appear a bit brighter than to my eyes.

+1 if you believe that organism need nutrients to thrive and grow you hsbe to believe coral will grow when have access to nutrients.
Our tanks are not wonderous that coral grow fast when there is no nutrients and the building blocks it needs(ca, alk,ag,k
Ect.)

 

[jda]

@Dana Riddle - this story from pigmo in post #61 is exactly the type of story where I started to develop my theory about higher levels "slowing down" coral under LED. They are all over the place.

 

[road_runner]

Forgot to add the brs study video. Though it's not a scientific lab but the experiment was controlled and had specific purpose of testing elevated parameters level on coral growth.
Just keep in mind accelerated growth will mean thicker zooxanthellae which will means coral color will be a bit on the brown side..

 

[road_runner]

Another anecdotal data that I observe in my system is: when po4 levels are elevated coral basal growth more than vertical.
So much so, when I get new frags in my system, I increase po4 a bit more (0.16 to 0.2ppm) to push coral on entrusting quickly to the rock.
Work every time(again this is my system). Once I lower po4 to around 0.1~ 0.0.5 ppm. Coral grow vertically faster.
Of course caveat to that is the flow and placment, there are growth pattern influenced with flow-
I keep no3 steady in the system around 0.25, but when I increase po4, I try to increase no3 to 0.5 no more..

 

[SeaDweller]

@Dana Riddle - this story from pigmo in post #61 is exactly the type of story where I started to develop my theory about higher levels "slowing down" coral under LED. They are all over the place.

What do you mean by “higher levels”, higher levels of available nutrients/building blocks? If so, what about higher levels of building blocks/same situation under MH or T5? Just picking your brain.

 

[Dana Riddle]

Aquatic plants have preferences for nitrogen - Some prefer ammonia/ammonium while others 'like' nitrate. I don't think any research has been done among zooxanthellae clades/species, but it is possible that there are nitrogen species preferences.
Another thought. When nutrient ratios get out of whack, there can be blooms of undesirable (maybe desirable) things. In domestic wastewater treatment plants, high organic carbon loading can cause blooms of filamentous bacteria such as Norcardia. Blooms of diatoms/single-cell algae have been linked to alkalinity levels. Some of these organisms could compete with others. This could get really complicated.

 

[jda]

Lasse has some evidence that nearly all corals with thin-wall tissue prefer ammonia or ammonium rather than nitrate - this is going off of Memory, but my apologies if this is inaccurate.

What do you mean by “higher levels”, higher levels of available nutrients/building blocks? If so, what about higher levels of building blocks/same situation under MH or T5? Just picking your brain.

I outlined my theory on post #10. I do not believe that higher levels of macro or micro trace elements are good. I have found the best results using mercury-based light sources to be at NSW level parameters for carbonate, calcium, N and P, etc. It seems to be a trend where elevated levels are a requirement for tanks relying heavily on LED, which is different than tanks with T5 or MH.

 

[Dana Riddle]

Lasse has some evidence that nearly all corals with thin-wall tissue prefer ammonia or ammonium rather than nitrate - this is going off of Memory, but my apologies if this is inaccurate.



I outlined my theory on post #10. I do not believe that higher levels of macro or micro trace elements are good. I have found the best results using mercury-based light sources to be at NSW level parameters for carbonate, calcium, N and P, etc. It seems to be a trend where elevated levels are a requirement for tanks relying heavily on LED, which is different than tanks with T5 or MH.

@Lasse - Would you comment on this please? Thanks!

 

[SeaDweller]

Lasse has some evidence that nearly all corals with thin-wall tissue prefer ammonia or ammonium rather than nitrate - this is going off of Memory, but my apologies if this is inaccurate.



I outlined my theory on post #10. I do not believe that higher levels of macro or micro trace elements are good. I have found the best results using mercury-based light sources to be at NSW level parameters for carbonate, calcium, N and P, etc. It seems to be a trend where elevated levels are a requirement for tanks relying heavily on LED, which is different than tanks with T5 or MH.

Got it. That’s what one of my good buddies observed too, and your thought just validates it.

 

[LARedstickreefer]

Lasse has some evidence that nearly all corals with thin-wall tissue prefer ammonia or ammonium rather than nitrate - this is going off of Memory, but my apologies if this is inaccurate.



I outlined my theory on post #10. I do not believe that higher levels of macro or micro trace elements are good. I have found the best results using mercury-based light sources to be at NSW level parameters for carbonate, calcium, N and P, etc. It seems to be a trend where elevated levels are a requirement for tanks relying heavily on LED, which is different than tanks with T5 or MH.

Lasse has some evidence that nearly all corals with thin-wall tissue prefer ammonia or ammonium rather than nitrate - this is going off of Memory, but my apologies if this is inaccurate.



I outlined my theory on post #10. I do not believe that higher levels of macro or micro trace elements are good. I have found the best results using mercury-based light sources to be at NSW level parameters for carbonate, calcium, N and P, etc. It seems to be a trend where elevated levels are a requirement for tanks relying heavily on LED, which is different than tanks with T5 or MH.

I don’t know about that last part. My old LFS ran only leds and had undetectable nitrates and phosphate. His corals looked great and grew well.

 

[madweazl]

Lasse has some evidence that nearly all corals with thin-wall tissue prefer ammonia or ammonium rather than nitrate - this is going off of Memory, but my apologies if this is inaccurate.



I outlined my theory on post #10. I do not believe that higher levels of macro or micro trace elements are good. I have found the best results using mercury-based light sources to be at NSW level parameters for carbonate, calcium, N and P, etc. It seems to be a trend where elevated levels are a requirement for tanks relying heavily on LED, which is different than tanks with T5 or MH.

Our tank is roughly 60/40 (T5/Kessil) in regard to PAR levels and I still keep the levels as close as I can to NSW. I just don't think this relationship exists and believe it has more to do with people screwing with their lights (i.e. trying to run something they want to work vice something that resembles what the sun casts upon a reef). The biggest draw back to LED is our ability to manipulate it, CONSTANTLY!

 

[LARedstickreefer]

Our tank is roughly 60/40 (T5/Kessil) in regard to PAR levels and I still keep the levels as close as I can to NSW. I just don't think this relationship exists and believe it has more to do with people screwing with their lights (i.e. trying to run something they want to work vice something that resembles what the sun casts upon a reef). The biggest draw back to LED is our ability to manipulate it, CONSTANTLY!

That’s probably more what is going on; manipulation of leds.

What we need is a real physics guy to chime in on a photon from an led vs a photon from a T5 or MH bulb.

To argue which source is best would require us to take this down to that level.

 

[road_runner]

Our tank is roughly 60/40 (T5/Kessil) in regard to PAR levels and I still keep the levels as close as I can to NSW. I just don't think this relationship exists and believe it has more to do with people screwing with their lights (i.e. trying to run something they want to work vice something that resembles what the sun casts upon a reef). The biggest draw back to LED is our ability to manipulate it, CONSTANTLY!

+1 agreed.

 

[jda]

A quantum (photon is a quantum) is infinite and theoretical. If you could fully quantify one, be prepared for a Nobel Prize and an honorary doctorate from every prestigious university on the planet. With every little discovery, there seem to always be more questions than answers.

 

[road_runner]

That’s probably more what is going on; manipulation of leds.

What we need is a real physics guy to chime in on a photon from an led vs a photon from a T5 or MH bulb.

To argue which source is best would require us to take this down to that level.

Ha ha totally agree,

 

[LARedstickreefer]

A quantum (photon is a quantum) is infinite and theoretical. If you could fully quantify one, be prepared for a Nobel Prize and an honorary doctorate from every prestigious university on the planet. With every little discovery, there seem to always be more questions than answers.

Challenge accepted!

 

[Lasse]

Lasse has some evidence that nearly all corals with thin-wall tissue prefer ammonia or ammonium rather than nitrate - this is going off of Memory, but my apologies if this is inaccurate.

@Dana Riddle and @jda
I do not remember that I have state anything like that - however I state a lot of things and getting old I remember that I somewhere have state that I believe that corals prefer NH3/NH4 and amino acids before NO3 but that´s for all photosynthetic corals. The only time I have speculated about thin and thick cell layers, as I remember, is according to the importance of red and green light that penetrate deeper in the “flesh”, hence favour 3-dimensional placement of zooxanthella. Red produced of the fluorescence and green because it penetrates rather deep. As I know – the fleshy ones are living deeper than the thinner ones.

A quantum (photon is a quantum) is infinite and theoretical.

A photon has a wavelength that determines its energy quanta

I do not believe that photons of the same wavelengths differ because of the different source. A photon of 455 nm from LED, sun, MH, T-5 or whatever is identical to the quanta of energy it contains and deliver to the different photo systems. The difference is that the photon stream from all other sources than LED is more or less analogue – it forms a curve. A LED is more or less monochrome. A 455 LED send out wavelengths around 440 – 485 with more than 80 – 90 % in 450-460 nm. The other sources send out a lot of wavelengths there 455 is one of them and normally not even the dominate species. But the energy quanta in one photon of 455 is equal - regardless of the source

Sincerely Lasse

 

[road_runner]

@Dana Riddle and @jda
I do not remember that I have state anything like that - however I state a lot of things and getting old I remember that I somewhere have state that I believe that corals prefer NH3/NH4 and amino acids before NO3 but that´s for all photosynthetic corals. The only time I have speculated about thin and thick cell layers, as I remember, is according to the importance of red and green light that penetrate deeper in the “flesh”, hence favour 3-dimensional placement of zooxanthella. Red produced of the fluorescence and green because it penetrates rather deep. As I know – the fleshy ones are living deeper than the thinner ones.

A photon has a wavelength that determines its energy quanta

I do not believe that photons of the same wavelengths differ because of the different source. A photon of 455 nm from LED, sun, MH, T-5 or whatever is identical to the quanta of energy it contains and deliver to the different photo systems. The difference is that the photon stream from all other sources than LED is more or less analogue – it forms a curve. A LED is more or less monochrome. A 455 LED send out wavelengths around 440 – 485 with more than 80 – 90 % in 450-460 nm. The other sources send out a lot of wavelengths there 455 is one of them and normally not even the dominate species. But the energy quanta in one photon of 455 is equal - regardless of the source

Sincerely Lasse

Always, better get the information directly from the source...the more statment change mouths the more distorted it get
Thanks for sharing Lasse.

 

[Lasse]

Always, better get the information directly from the source...the more statment change mouths the more distorted it get
Thanks for sharing Lasse.

Note - as I remember

Sincerely Lasse