Ideal Light Spectrums

[maimz]

i have heard some different opinions on this one so i thought i would try to get some more...id like to know the best spectrum to use for growing corals with aesthetic considerations disregarded at this point....also..do different corals respond better to specific spectrums of light? i know that certain corals respond to different light intensities better as well....i am wondering what the ideal wattage was based on tank depth as well..or more so the amount of dissipation when tank depth is concerned or how to measure how much light is actually getting to the corals at each depth of the water...i know this was a simple question that evolved into a more difficult one but hey ..while its on the top of my head i may as well get it out..thanks

[Greg Moore]

Some of the basics are scientific and not reef proven as far as growth and intensity but many are near common sense. Right off, water filters most of the spectrum except blue, thus a bluer colour appears in deeper water. That said, since the blue spectrum is less effected by water depth, blue lights don't loose as much overall intesity in deep aquariums. Down side is most bluish lights are not as bright in the first place.

As for intensity in general, almost anything you put on your tank will not be as intense as sunlight on a reef, but in general, you probably do not want to achieve sunlight levels anyway, most corals will bleach out on you.

As a wandering side bar, you will find people mention that sun is soooo much brighter or more intense in the tropics then it is hear, pure bunk!!! During our summer months, the path of the sun is in fact over the tropic of Cancer, which runs right through Ontario. During this time the sun is directly over our head and is offset (and further from) the equator. We actually during that time have more intensity in the sun then the tropics do. Of course in the winter, we loose big time :)

I have skin dived to about 14' in Lake Huron, at high noon, in mid summer. It isn't as bright as people think. In fact, due to the way water works, it is downright dark in crevases, caves and on the shadow sides. Much of what we want for a reef grows in the same light (or lack of) as this example. Where halides work well is that they are _not_ very good at even lighting, this allows for darker corners etc.

In my own opinion, most, if not all new hobbiest will not achieve the skill or water quality for critters that need massive lighting and pictures of said tanks usually show that a few months down the road. To be hounest Maimz, I would suggest low cost tubes initially until you find out what direction works for you. Decent halides are a big haul at first and you probably will have very little success with SPS or clams within the first several months anyway (let alone budget left once you build a tank). Since several NO's are cheap and they allow more errors in water quality etc as well as work better for hardier corals, they are a good start. When you are ready to move to higher life forms and brighter lamps, some of the NO's will allow for use as Actinic's.

Design your top to allow both tubes and halides, add the halides later when you are sure you want to move towards those corals that need it.

Just thoughts :)

Greg Moore

[fishkisser]

No its not bunk. The sun IS far more intense in the carribean than it is here. Have you experienced the sun down south? You think the time it takes to get a sun burn up here is short? I'd like to see you sit out for the same amount of time down south. You'd look like a lobster in no time.
Also, lake huron does not compare to the crystal clear ocean. The is far more plankton and algae floating around in the great lakes. Especially in the summer! This is why it appeared dark.

Normal output bulbs will not supply the plankton and corals in a tank with enough light. Unless all you want to keep are mushrooms. All NO's are really good for are fish only tanks and for being used as atinic lights. They are NOT enough for a reef tank.



->As a wandering side bar, you will find people mention that sun is soooo much brighter or more intense in the tropics then it is hear, pure bunk!!!

[afss]

Greg, i have lived in both florida for a full year, and in niagara for a full year. I can say with confidence that the sun is much more intense in florida. As for the tropic of cancer running through ontario, you are about 25 degrees off. The sun NEVER makes it directly over head in ontario. here is a map showing the location of the tropin of capricorn.
Scott

[afss]

fish kisser,
I can also say with confidence that you can keep a nice reef aquarium with NO flourescents. I did so for near 2 years. I had shrooms, gorgonia, leathers, pollyps of different types, colts, a bubletip anemone. I also had a goniopora for over a year and had a hammer (still have all the corals that i had under the no except the goniopora). All of the corals grew and multiplied. They didn't grow like weeds, but they did grow and live. I curently keep sps, lps as well as the other corals mentioned with 2 NO florescents and 2 overdriven t12 florescents.
Scott

[stephane]

I am not an astro physisian Greg but I have made a lot of travel in my life and the sun here is a way less intense in the tropic than here and most of the time we go in tropic in there winter

If you been in florida in summer you will see that the sun there could not compare from here in Canada and I am every weekend in ontario Kingston area

I have been i thailand-vietnam- in there summer to and the sun there will fry you in no time. Ho and who about africa my god the sun there could kill you in a day without water. maybe the temperature have to do someting to and like I said I am not an astro physisian but from my own experience the sun there is :smoke:


do skindiving in tropic and you will get a sunburn azap at 10 to 20 feet I never get one in the Ontario lake at less notting scientifique here just my own observation


As for maintain coral under fluo It Is possible yes but it is a lot more funny with MH :laugh: :laugh:

As for you question

for my experience my first try was 4 actnic overdrive with an icecap +2 daylight VHO I kept this set up for about 3 1/2 years
an maintain coral not grow but maintain

I then zap the daylight fluo for 2x iwasaki daylight them I have to tell you I not maintain coral but realy grow them

I then uprage the 5 foot tank for a 6 foot one so I put another
saki an change my 4xNO actinic for 3xVHO + I have added spider reflector I have to say that the reflector made a big difference
the green frog spanw that trive under the saki whitout reflector
now seem to have a very hard time to focus under the same saki whit the reflector. other coral seem to all trive xenia have made oxigen buble on the root at first but are now realy goog the look is good and IMO a lot more beautiful than fluo but.......

after read and compare what seem to be the best I decide to uprade to Radium 20k 400w. I finaly get it at the price of an iwasaki + I will be able to swap all the actnic and get the most beautiful color ever so I jump in. I will have the set up done at
the end of july and send pic I wil stil have the same watt draw
1170watt now 1200 whith the radium
maybe less par but a I tink I have to much anyway and I want the best look ever I want now a show tank not a coral farm:D

This is a new review that agree whit greg and said the blue
will give the best to coral I am septical about the fact that a Radium 400 will grow coral as fast as the saki 250 But I tink is now time for me to grow again I have the reef for six years and now like I said before I want a show tank not a coral farm.
http://www.reefs.org/library/talklog/s_tyree_060202.html

I start this tread to obtain info on the radium bulb http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=90355&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

and there an interesting one one steve tyree conclusion http://www.canreef.com/ubb6/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000760

As for other bulb I tink most 10k have 1)not enought differance in color or 2)a way to dim for my taste, for the big difference in price the only one the I found to look very nice and bright are the AB 250 in a giesman fixture but the price is a way to hight for me



Hope this will help you a bit to get your own conclusion


http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-06/totm/images/TracyGrayPic31.JPG

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-06/totm/images/TracyGrayPic5.JPG

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-06/totm/images/TracyGrayPic0top.jpg[/QB][/QUOTE]

[fishkisser]

afss,
An Anenome NEEDS high light to do well. I had one under NO's and it would never stay in one place and was never happy. It died. I currently have a sabae and it is doing EXTREMELY well. I've only had it for about 3 months tops and heres the difference.
New:
http://ricksroom.dhs.org/tank/ClownInAnenome.html
Now:
http://ricksroom.dhs.org/tank/maypics/a1.jpg

SPS also should have MH lights to do well. You can keep them under NO's but they will not do nearly as well as under MH's and the colors will not develop.
Goniopora's are another coral that NEEDS high light. They are usually found in shallow lagoons with crappy water conditions(as compared to other corals) But they usually always die no matter what lights you have. I only know of one person who has kept them alive for any length of time.

[Kutter]

I was diving around Bahamas a few years back in the summer. It was the first time I dove down to about 60-70 feet and I couldn't believe how bright it was. I guess this was a combo of the clear water and the bright sunlight.

[afss]

An anenome does not NEED high light. Some if not most anenemoes do, but some prefer lower light. The anenome i had lived for quite awhile. It stayed in one place and actually hid from the light (lived in a cave). It died because it got crushed during a
move.

The goniopora I had for atleast a year and a half ( abetter rate than most i have heard of). It was in a death tank at a store. I took it and kept it for all that time under no's and it recovered. It actually died in the same move that my anenome did.

I agree that more light is probably better, but not neccesary.

[reefburnaby]

Hi,

Lighting a reef to optimum levels are a very difficult question to answer.

To give you an idea of what type of lighting that our corals originally came from, I have done some research on that in the past. When I has working out how much lighting I need for my 90, I wanted it to be good enough for most softies and LPS. I also wanted fluorescents...no MH for me (long story). So, I took a couple of pictures taken from reef photographers and calculated the PAR/lux from their camera settings. Based on that info, I was able to figure out that around 20m...the PAR was around 450 to 300. Around 1-2m, the par was about 600-700. Around 70m-80m, approximately the deepest water level that corals exist in the ocean, it was about 150 to 300 uE/(m^2*s). However, these numbers vary over different coral reefs -- from the great barrier reef to the Fiji island.

This may just seem light a bunch of numbers...but our regular non-rainy cloudy days have a PAR of a 100 and a really sunny day is about 2000. A single 400W MH is capable of 2000 uE/(m^2*s) at 6 inches away from the bulb. Due to the square law rule, the 400W output has a PAR of 125 at 24" away from the bulb. In my case, NO fluorescents were not going to cut it (unless I wanted 6 to 8 of them).

So with all that...what should we be aiming for ? 100-150 uE/(m^2*s) sounds like as low as you probably want to go if you want coral growth. A bare minimum...50uE/(m^2*s) should keep it alive, but it won't grow too well -- keep in mind that non-photosynthetic corals are not included in this survey :) Max...well 600-700 sounds about right.

As for spectrum, corals will adapt to use all of the available light -- to the best of their ability. For LPS and softies, regular wide spectrum lights with emphasis on the blues should be fine. Emphasis on the blues reduces green algae growth. In nature, they are lite by the sun -- which is a wide spectrum light with the reds/yellows filtered out. For SPS...there is quite a debate as to what colours them. Last couple of year's theory was UV. Recently, lack of blue (not actinic which is violet) has been the cause of lack luster colour for SPS. Lack of blue is due to the fact that they are not really full spectrum lights -- they have peaks and valleys in their output spectrum. So, your best bet is to mix a combination of different MHs, VHOs and PCs such that the peaks and valleys are averaged out.

So...those are my opinions on lighting. In most cases, our lighting is good enough that food/water movement are important. Corals like carnations and flowerpots are not easy to keep because they need food. With the use of our super skimmers to prohibit unwanted algae growth, these corals don't get the food they need. IMHO, I would put a flowerpot in a refugium -- tons of food there :) Anemones...feed it well and they will be happy. Anemones can get their energy from light or from food.

I hope that gives you a fuzzy idea of what kind of light you should aim for.

- Victor.