Lighting conversation

[mojoreef]

Good post Anthony thats exactly how you do it. Even from the brief discription you can make decent judgements as to thier basic requirements based on thier enviroment in the wild.

Ok Anthony now that your back...lol... lets play some more. Have we reached a conclusion that it would be safe to say that SPS type corals aquire approximately 90% of their nutritional requirements from light (MH) in our reef tanks??


Mike

 

[Anthony Calfo]

[Ok Anthony now that your back...lol... lets play some more. Have we reached a conclusion that it would be safe to say that SPS type corals aquire approximately 90% of their nutritional requirements from light (MH) in our reef tanks??]

I have to believe with a blanket statement like that you are just testing me to see if I'm awake

Which sps species, at what depth, under which lamps, of what age, in water of what clarity...

You are killing me here

Anth-

 

[Llarian]

Oh, man, I feel dumb now, I completely forgot about all the information included with the ID gallery here.

Thanks a lot Anthony, that answered my question perfectly.

-Dylan

 

[mojoreef]

Be Alert!! rofl.
I would say as a blanket Anthony. From studing deffering types and species of SPS type corals they all fall into the 98% photo fed in the wild, with a couple of rare exceptions. This would include deep water species also.

Heres the concept. in order to come up with the whole picture we have to break it down into the forms of nutrition and then match up these form with what available in our tanks. I figure the forms are photosynthesis, absorbtion and mucus netting. Break these down and we can make a overall conclusion. So the first would be photo as a general, covering from a low to high. For me based on studies of photo in the wild, from studies on tank lighting, saturation points, diminishing returns I come to the conclusion that sps type corals recieve from between 90% and up through photo. Whatcha think???



Mike

 

[Anthony Calfo]

It's still (way) too general for me.

If we were looking for a lighting rule of thumb, in kind, for LPS like Catalaphyllia elegant corals... how could we say a standardized "X%" or some such, when there are specimens collected below 65ft getting less than 1% of radiance that is at the surface of the ocean... and there are other specimens on the same reef in less than 20 ft getting far more lighting (and comprising the reports of this genus being 70-80% served by zooxanthellate symbiosis). The specimens at great depth live and grow just fine... but under very different lighting and yet using the same (exact) feeding modes as shallow(er) specimens - its just that they depend heavier on those other modes (while getting very little nutrition from photo).

Now, yes... the deeper animal can/will adapt to higher lighting and can/will survive under a rule of thumb that we could give it for the species/profile. But in real-life, practical applications, if that rule is for shallow specimens... and the hobbyist applying the rule ignorantly has a deep water specimen... the point is still moot: the coral will stress, suffer and/or die. Indeed... that is commonly the case with corals held in extended (dark) transit or for those batches/shipments collected in unusual regions/depths (as with the deepwater elegant corals).

In a nutshell... a general rule does not serve the masses who need (!) to understand the issues of water clarity, spread vs. intensity of lamp placement, PAR versus spectrum, etc. I feel that I/it would be irresponsible to give any such rule of thumb and by and large, simply detest generic guides for our especially complex ecosystems.

If the rule is given to an educated/accountable audience... I might fly with it. But overall... I do think it is unrealistic if even accurate for the majority of aquarists. It simply presumes too much.

Or perhaps you give us/hobbyists too much credit? Maybe we should all post our SAT scores in our signatures/posts to put my perspective (myself included <G>) in focus for you?

Ant-

 

[Curtswearing]

A low lighting situation is I given...I guess my question is that, Anemones are reliant on phytosynthsis, but how reliant are they really.

Actually they are quite reliant on it. I can't give you percentages but that is what this thread is exploring. We'll have to see how it all plays out. EDIT....I DON'T WANT TO CONFUSE MATTERS REGARDING LIGHTING AND FOOD. AS A GENERAL RULE, ANIMALS WITH MORE TISSUE REQUIRE MORE FOOD. SPS CORALS HAVE VERY LITTLE TISSUE AND DON'T REQUIRE A LOT OF OUTSIDE FOOD. ANEMONES ARE FLESHIER (IF THAT'S A REAL WORD) AND WILL REQUIRE MORE FOOD. HOWEVER THEY GET A LOT OF IT FROM THE CLOWNFISH POO.

Most reefer that you talk to say that they must be kept only under MH's but, I have met more than my share of people that claim that they have kept them under PC's for more than a year and I have even talked to one person that has been coming to my store for a number of years that has had a Seabae that has split multipule times.

What is the depth of the tank? Where are the anemone's sitting in the tank? How many PC lights and what is the wattage? How long is the photoperiod? There are so many variables that it is quite difficult to make wide-reaching statements. Do they HAVE to be under MH? No. Is it a lot easier to raise them with MH? Yes. Is splitting a good thing? It sometimes is and it sometimes isn't. Sometimes, it indicates that the tank is offering great conditions and it is growing quite quickly. Other times, the parent is dieing and has a biological drive to make sure it's progeny survives, so it splits. In the latter situation, it's really no different than polyp bailout with LPS in my opinion.

If I want to set up a reef biotope, rather than a garden, where can I find the information I need to decide that a particular set of species have similar environmental conditions?

As you have indicated, there is no such thing as a reef biotope. There are several different areas in a typical reef and the animals that live in those different areas have diffferent needs. I have found the following link on Coral Reef Zonation to be useful. It goes into detail on forereefs, deep forereefs, seaward platforms, reef rock rims, lagoons, patch reefs, etc.

This is all well and good, but what does this have to do with someone wanting to have a small part of a reef in their home? In actual fact it is very important. If it is understood where a particular genus/species thrives and exists on a natural reef, then the conditions that it requires within an aquarium can be inferred. For example if a coral is found on the reef rock rim, then it is exposed to high light intensity and strong wave surges. To keep such a coral health and happy in an aquarium under similar conditions then intense lighting and devices that cause surges throughout the tank are required. On the other hand if it is found on the reef slope, then it is exposed to low light levels, very few surges and strong currents. Such a coral requires lower lighting levels and more constant water currents to be kept in an aquarium.

I also like this link on zonation.

Veron's data and images on scleractinia from his most recent 3 volume work (a veritable treatise).

This set of books, while pricey, is definately a worthwhile purchase. I can't tell you how much my set has been used.

 

[Anthony Calfo]

very well stated, Curt Good info.

Danke,

 

[NaH2O]

AS A GENERAL RULE, ANIMALS WITH MORE TISSUE REQUIRE MORE FOOD. SPS CORALS HAVE VERY LITTLE TISSUE AND DON'T REQUIRE A LOT OF OUTSIDE FOOD

I also like to look at the size of the coral's mouth, when determining what particulate size is more appropriate.

As much as I don't like generalizations - there are some basic generalizations that can be made, IMO....i.e. Softie requirements vs. LPS requirements vs. SPS requirements. I feel that we can make a conservative estimate on the % of photosynthesis for SPS. Closed systems are not natural habitat, but we can generalize and say....a particular set-up is better suited for an SPS type tank. I suppose what really matters is that hobbyists do their homework. Find out what the specimen about to be purchased requires, and decide whether environmental conditions needed can be met. Does this make sense?

 

[Scooterman]

Here is where I find a problem with keeping corals, is there a way to keep SPS, LPS & softies in one tank or is this impossible? Ok, you may get away with it for a short time but in all actuality, mixing corals & trying to meet their needs can be difficult, I understand you can locate them at different levels but you can't block needed nutrients to just the softies right? So my question is meeting lighting needs, how limited are we to keep a species of any one group?

 

[mojoreef]

Anthony I am not talking about all corals just sps type corals. If they come from 10 feet to 30 feet thier is not that big of a difference in light absorbsion at least not as it pertains to our tanks??

MIke

 

[Anthony Calfo]

hey, Mike

Hmmm... I fear we may just be at an impasse. I still dont agree and really am not likely to concede to such a (severely) general statement, my friend.

Even with sps corals... and those in 10-30 ft, its just too wide of a range to equate to an unrealistic compromise/standardization in aquaria of mere inches of water. A coral from 10 feet and a coral from 30 feet in a 24" aquarium cannot be placed/splayed sufficiently akin to the targeted light goal/threshold from wild that you/we aspire to match. It is a severe difference.

And whats more... not all of our sps corals come from 10-30 feet. Heck... worse still is that some common species like Acropora formosa are so wide ranging on a reef that colonies are separated by more than 50 feet on the same reef (they can be collected quite deep, as with Montiporid sps corals). So a hard and fast sps rule by the books is still possible, but will not (ever) work in real world applications with regaler hobbyists that are not so well read/informed or prepared.

I am thinking of and like the masses, and I wonder if you are thinking of and for the advanced reef aquarists? if so, then do consider that advanced aquarists are the least in need of a general rule of thumb when they know better how to finesse and experiment with params such as lighting.

Anthony

 

[mojoreef]

LOL, your just not going to let me walk with you down my path are you rofl. The difference in light asorbsion between an acro at 50 feet and one at 10 feet is a matter of photosynthetic durations/cycles/compensation and saturation time intervals. it dont take much for the zoox to get excited. Regardless/

What I am trying to say and show is that in well lite MH tank (correct par and intencity) that external feeding is not required in the keeping of sps type corals. Between the lighting/nutrient absorbsion, and mucus feeding on bacteria one does not need to add food for the corals, and in doing so might in fact create alot of problems.


Mike

 

[Scooterman]

If this is true, then unless we specifically set-up our lighting to cover the needs for a specific group of sps, we may actually only be optimal for a certain few, thinking we can use the 24" to truly suffice a few sps at varying depths but then you think about the guys that have carried so many with a life surpassing 10 or 15 years, so what is it they are doing to make up the difference, or is it really that critical to have the closest possible light at a tank dept of 24" & still be able to keep them living years on? , Did I just repeat my self? lol

 

[Anthony Calfo]

Mike - In the words of that very fine, late editor, Don Dewey, "...you may be right."

But I am such a strong advocate of overcompensating on feeding (as necessary - refugia, target feeding, DOs... variously) and also overcompensating on water quality in kind... rather than walk a fine line as with/when hoping/presuming you have enough incidental nutrients to feed your corals (the 10% or so for sps in this model/example).

We can no doubt run a successful tabk with either methodology. Neither approach is an exact science or quantifiable... and our range/terms here are so broad that we ultimately cannot definitively make a final statement.

its all good

 

[Steven Pro]

I did not read this entire post, but it would seem that the linked discussion is on topic,
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-12/snn/index.htm