The truth about lighting

[mps9506]

Originally posted by mojoreef
MPS I have also seen and studied coral polyps, and I am not trying to say they dont feed. What I am saying is that it all depends on the coral. No dought if a zooplankton smacks a sps polyp in the mouth it going to eat it. As per active capture throught the use of nemacysts, it is not set up properly for that as I have stated prior. Thier perfered method (best method of capture using less energy) is throught the use of a mucus slime that nets its prey, be it bacteria or zooplankton. the net is drawn throught the polyp via the cilca (sp), and the coral injests it thier. As per energ budjets for hermatypic corals I have also read alot including sorkin and most of the other Boomer mentioned above. But I have never seen any study that should a SPS had a supplimental food supply requirement above 10%????

I totally agree I was just trying to lead some people to papers showing that you can't lump all corals into one category regarding feeding. Some get all their energy requirements from feeding, some probabbly get all they need from zooxanthellae.
I believe I read Borneman (this isn't a citation, so I could be wrong ) that symbiotic algae could possibly provide up to 110% of a corals energy needs...
Anyhow, I think somewhere in the process this thread has strayed from Scott's original intent
Mike

[ScottT1980]

No, this thread can go where ever it wants as far as I am concerned. Once I get all the reading under my belt, I can throw in some more comments, concerns, and questions and perhaps get what I want out of it. But ultimatly, this thread was created with the intent of getting some in depth discussion on all aspects of lighting, I just started it off with my own questions...

Take er easy
Scott T.

[Craig Manoukian]

I see the discussion of zoopalankton as coral food, where does the phytoplankton come into play? Thanks for all the time and effort folks!

[Boomer]

mps

I believe I read Borneman (this isn't a citation, so I could be wrong ) that symbiotic algae could possibly provide up to 110% of a corals energy needs...

No that is not so, did you miss that in my above post. Some acro's can go even higher than that but that is ONLY when other such things as mucous production are left out, then it drops to below 100 %. The highest recorded **uncorrected** P:R value I have is 150 %. I don't know of any hard coral that gets 100 % from its zooxan's, at least not from any of my ref or tables.

Craig

A mislead on our part They also feed on phyto's but zoo's out weigh photo's quite a bit. One coral Mopsella aurantia, a Gorgoanean, is an exception where 50 % is phyto's. In most cases bacterioplankton and DOM matter out weigh phyto's by far, zoo's are always at the highest % most of the time. Corals mostly fed on prey. Some corals such as Clavularia fed off their own zooxanthella, which they produce in excess for that reason. They actually stick their tentacles into the gastric cavity and extrude the zooxan's where they are digested and assimilated. Octocorals are very poor predators and Acyon's often don't display any "food reaction" at all, even in the presence of food. Xenia is another coral that does very, very little feeding of prey. These are about the only groups of corals, where it seems that with some species, there is no requirement or need of feeding, just "light feeding", the sun. I threw in these soft corals as the discussion seems to be on just hard corals, a dif issue for soft corals in general, when dealing with P:R Values and feeding habits.

[mojoreef]

Good post Boomer. Just to restate for all, it really matters what you are trying to keep. Feeding a tank heavily that is dominated by lets say acros for example is not a good idea, and in truth could become determental with the build up of N and P. If you have a soft coral tank with more feeding corals then suppliment feeding is encouraged. As per Phyto, thier is a limit to what corals will intake phyto, so if you have those corals/gorgs/some clams then by all means, but beyond that you are more then likely just hurting your water quality.

MIke

[Scooterman]

It helps to have a book with listed requirements of corals, also list friendly or not, Now I just need to remember the entire book like you guys LOL! I have the one by Julian Sprung, on coral Id's, I like it so far.

[NaH2O]

Great post, Boomer.

Originally posted by mps9506
I believe I read Borneman (this isn't a citation, so I could be wrong ) that symbiotic algae could possibly provide up to 110% of a corals energy needs...

I just wanted to clarify, since Eric Borneman's name was mentioned. I believe this is the quote you were referring to.

Taken from Aquarium Corals by Eric Borneman page 50
The zooxanthellae, by themselves, can provide more than 150% of the metabolic carbon energy needs of some corals, and are generally able to provide at least 60% of the needs of other species. In fact, it has been found that from 78-99% of all photosynthate (the sum of all the products of photosynthesis) is normally passed on to the host animal in a process called translocation.

[LaquitaWilliams]

i started a thread in general reefkeeping about corals feeding from cleaning the glass.....thought i would mention it here...

when i clean the glass i guess i'm feeding phyto and zooplankton because of the many copepods that are peacefully resting on the glass that get swept away by the magnet....

i wonder what percentage of required nutrition is available from a simple glass cleaning....

[mps9506]

Sorry about that Boomer, I shouldn't be replying to posts that early in the morning before I get to work

I didn't mean that to sound like zooxanthellae provides the entire energy budget for those corals...

Mike

[mps9506]

Originally posted by Scooterman
It helps to have a book with listed requirements of corals, also list friendly or not, Now I just need to remember the entire book like you guys LOL! I have the one by Julian Sprung, on coral Id's, I like it so far.

I gotta pull out nearly my entire collection of books and journal articles to keep up with some of the people here
Not enough in the head...
I think I need to go back to school.
Mike

[RogueCorps]

Oh, I wasn't "hmm-ing" as in "in your face" Hmmm... I am really "hmm...?" for things that I'm trying to understand here.

RC I was just joking around with ya, trying to keep it light. I think we know each other well enough my friend.

It's cool... yeah I know bud... but I do see a pattern forming here that opinions that agree with your own are "good posts!" and those who do not are "you're wrong...!" jk... I know we don't agree on a few... some... many... all?!? issues. I do appreciate the sources and info while I continue to learn what is best for my pets.

think it was David Cripe of Monterey who said that growth structure had little to do with "reaching" towards light, and has much more to do with flow.

Wow that another new one on me, lol. If you have a link I would like to see it, if possible.

Unfortunately this was said at a club discussion and I shouldn't quote Cripe without knowing for sure that he was the one who said it.

What marine biologist??? the ones doing coral research or the ones making money off of the hobby?????

Toonen, Calfo, Borneman... I think Rob has yet to furnish his new house.

I am not sure what ou mean??? I grow all my frags under those type of lights, Did I say somewhere that it wouldnt work.

RC and folks you really have to qualify the coral. they all have different requirements in regards to both lighting ammounts and supplimental food.

Agreed... I'm speaking mostly relatively here. Both Rob and Anthony made the statements that corals thought to be so light dependant are structured for food capture. Of course in a club discussion there is little time for them to get into too much detail.

From observation, I don't think I'd agree that corals, acroporas for instance, are structured for efficient light capture. Any coral with with radial polyps around a stalk, would mean that many are in shade at any one time.

By the way... Good thread!

-Rogue

[mojoreef]

It's cool... yeah I know bud... but I do see a pattern forming here that opinions that agree with your own are "good posts!" and those who do not are "you're wrong...!" jk...

I know your just joking but I sure do hope you dont believe that Rod. I have to admit I am not really a big one on opinions, doesnt really matter if thier yours, mine or Dr. Rons. I perfer to take them a little deeper then what an opinion states. I try to never give opinions when talking or debating such issues (if I do I do state that it is only and opinion). I think we should all try to stick to facts, that are supported by study and good scientific experiment. That way people that read the posts have all the information layed out in front of them can make thier own call. Alot of folks find this hobby to be very confusing with all the different opinions out thier, one of the concepts for this particular forum was to get into the meat of things, and to truely breakdown the way things work, that way it isnt an opinion.

Unfortunately this was said at a club discussion and I shouldn't quote Cripe without knowing for sure that he was the one who said it.

I am still very interested in this. I do know that water flow plays a large role o the structural formation of corals, but I have not heard that it has nothing to do with light gathering.

From observation, I don't think I'd agree that corals, acroporas for instance, are structured for efficient light capture. Any coral with with radial polyps around a stalk, would mean that many are in shade at any one time.

Rod thier are some good posts and scientific references linked on here, when you get a chance take a read of them.


MIke

[middletonmark]

Originally posted by mojoreef
I try to never give opinions when talking or debating such issues (if I do I do state that it is only and opinion).

I think the problem lies in the fact that people sometimes skim more than read ... and that when someone obviously knows a lot of the P's and Q's [like you for example] ... even when they emphatically state that it's their opinion ... people want to believe them - that what they say is `truth'. Or gloss over their statement that it's opinion ...

I appreciate how much you try to be `just the facts, m'am' ... and I think that attitude is very helpful. There's certainly plenty of folks who mix the two in a bad way ... and I think this hurts the hobby/discussion.

I am interested in your opinions on things too - I'm just very appreciative of all the factual-information you throw out, or rather ... the facts as they now appear. The more I learn in this hobby - the more it frustrates me how much opinion gets turned into `fact' ... and the more I appreciate the `hard data' that some people put out.

Lighting wise - I really like Sanjay Joshi's work, JB NY's MH study too ... it seems like both are trying just to report what they found and while sometimes I wish they'd state opinion - I'm glad they frustrate me and don't. But both of them seem to report a lot of `hard data' compared to many lighting articles ... and while this leaves us needing you to help understand what it all means ... it's better to logic it out here than have it all cut and dried [and mistaken] by someone else.

---

I've heard Anthony talk - and while I like what he has to say, and want him to be right ... I have to say the points you raise about food capture seem to ring mighty true.
The one thing that I DO really like that Calfo spoke of is that there is such a thing as `overkill' with lights IMO. OR rather, in a well-balanced system, maybe a 400w over a small tank doesn't really make things better.

I could be incorrect ... there certainly is a range below which more light IS needed ... but is there not also a range past light is of diminishing returns?

[Maxx]

... but is there not also a range past light is of diminishing returns?

Actually JBNY found out that the ballast bulb combo he had been using was too much light for some of the corals higher up in his tank.
Excerpted from JBNY's thread on RC 250 Watt SE Bulbs Compared
Page 27....

I am now running (3) 250 watt Ushio with (2) 140 watt VHO URO Actinics. MH Ballasts were swapped out to an Icecap and the VHO Ballast has always been an Icecap 660.
did away with my HQI ballast and opted for the Icecap electronic. In my case I felt I had too much lighting (I know, that seems impossible). Many of my corals that were very high up would always get very pale and stay that way. Also the heat from the PFO HQI was something that was really making my chiller work hard during the summer. Lastly, I saved about 250 watts total stepping down from the HQI. I also felt the electronic ballast was slightly more blue.

So it would seem the answer to your question is yes, Mark.
Nick

[Scooterman]

The funny thing is, I don't see many independent studies on lighting other than aquarist/hobbyist, the equipment for one can cause a problem as being expensive. Fluorescent is even less out there as far as actual test. I've been reading up on HO T5 lights for an example, brighter more lumens not Einstein’s( I had to read up on that mathematical measurement also), less power claimed by the manufactures, even comparing them to MH at times, heck they last three years with less that a 20% drop off. Not sure what is dropping off as that part can be a little fuzzy. No mentioning of PAR rating on the T5's anywhere from what I've read. Opinion on HO T5's, over VHO T8 yes they are probably better performers but like most PC they probably run hotter than the T8’s. The only testing I've seen is hobbyist related as for as PAR ratings, seems the manufactures make these and can't actually state a complete data sheet of their products, they always seem to leave off part of the total performance ratings. Opinions again here but HO T5, supplemented with MH would be optimal as you can rev up and down through dimmers on the fluorescents go, also they can add color to offset MH but isn’t necessary with the right MH set-up. Most average tanks can use combinations of 250w up to the 10k range or opting 400w up to the 20k ranges, XM & HIQ are also options to vary, fact is, most all of these will provide a good PAR for your corals, on the average tanks that is, so with only experience, looks and Money as being the limiting factors in what people use in general. I know, if I had a lab, every bulb, ballast combinations available and enough tanks with exact same conditions will I ever know once and for all without a doubt what is the best route for lighting, this will not happen in my experienced Opinion. Most people relate to what they See as good quality lighting, little reading from others with experience with these products then off buying what they consider the best they can afford to get. It is good to have experienced people discuss what they learned and experienced from different combinations of equipment & also what they discovered in the few test done pertaining to our Sport. Our goal here is to provide the best home for our hobby & still not blow our budgets in getting stuff not needed or just wasting cash on new fads, trying to separate fact from fiction.