Can lighter clownfish get sun burned more easily?

[ISpeakForTheSeas]

So, can a lighter colored, say white, be more prone to sun burn or be more prone to irritation due to higher intensity light than a classic or domino clownfish? If so, would reducing the UV spectrum help?

Yes, white clowns would be more prone to "sun burns" (damage from UV rays) than clowns of different colors. If the UV is strong enough to be causing problems (i.e. if there's enough UV light to give the clown a "sun burn"), then yes, reducing the UV spectrum would help.

 

[gbroadbridge]

Can a lighter colored, say white, be more prone to sun burn or be more prone to irritation due to higher intensity light than a classic or domino clownfish? If so, would reducing the UV spectrum help?

Not sure why you're concerned.

Water blocks most UV.

The lights you buy for reef tanks use the term UV very loosely.
They emit virtually no UV, but a lot of short wavelength violet.

 

[xiongsy]

Not sure why you're concerned.

Water blocks most UV.

The lights you buy for reef tanks use the term UV very loosely.
They emit virtually no UV, but a lot of short wavelength violet.

Thanks for your response! I am concerned because I changed my UV from 0 - 50ish and they left their heteractis magnifica to hide under their rock. That is why I asked.

What are your thoughts regarding previous posts that are associated with stated findings.

Does water really block UV rays?

 

[jdpiii3]

they really do love hanging out under the natural sunlight.

 

[ISpeakForTheSeas]

The lights you buy for reef tanks use the term UV very loosely.
They emit virtually no UV, but a lot of short wavelength violet.

This part is particularly true - most LEDs found in the hobby actually emit very little UV.

Most UV in aquarium lighting is 395nm (with 400 nm being the cutoff for UV, it borderlines on not being UV at all). The reasons I've seen that explain why we can see it is that the 395nm lighting actually produces a range of light (say, 390-400nm, for example), and some of that light (basically any that is 400nm or greater) bleeds over into the visible light category. So, the wavelengths produced may average out to 395nm, but the range of light actually produced varies enough that we can see some of the light.

Thanks for your response! I am concerned because I changed my UV from 0 - 50ish and they left their heteractis magnifica to hide under their rock. That is why I asked.

What are your thoughts regarding previous posts that are associated with stated findings.

Does water really block UV rays?

Personally, I'd assume in this case that the clown leaving the nem would have less to do with the UV ray damage and more to do with the change to its environment caused by the change in lighting (again, UV is visible to clownfish, so the change may have been just enough to throw the clown off).

In other words, the clown may have just left because of the brightness of the light, not because it was being burned by the light (the clown being burned by the light is extremely unlikely in this scenario, which I should have clarified in my initial post - sorry).

Yes, water does block UV rays - the amount blocked is discussed in the link in the quote below.

Two side notes here, 1 ) the clown might just have felt like leaving the nem, and 2 ) I would assume (but may well be wrong) that a clownfish would be smart enough to leave the light if they were at risk of getting a "sun burn," so I wouldn't be too concerned about the UV in this case either.

*Source (Figure 4 is particularly relevant):
https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.4319/lo.1989.34.8.1623

 

[xiongsy]

This part is particularly true - most LEDs found in the hobby actually emit very little UV.



Personally, I'd assume in this case that the clown leaving the nem would have less to do with the UV ray damage and more to do with the change to its environment caused by the change in lighting (again, UV is visible to clownfish, so the change may have been just enough to throw the clown off).

In other words, the clown may have just left because of the brightness of the light, not because it was being burned by the light (the clown being burned by the light is extremely unlikely in this scenario, which I should have clarified in my initial post - sorry).

Yes, water does block UV rays - the amount blocked is discussed in the link in the quote below.

Two side notes here, 1 ) the clown might just have felt like leaving the nem, and 2 ) I would assume (but may well be wrong) that a clownfish would be smart enough to leave the light if they were at risk of getting a "sun burn," so I wouldn't be too concerned about the UV in this case either.

Thanks! I changed the UV to 12% and they're back in. I guess we'll never know.

 

[gbroadbridge]

Surprisingly, they didn't have to use unnatural amounts and it actually would be likely within reef limits - at least according to the data I can find.

The study had UV levels of 0.2 and 0.4 W/m2; using a relatively conservative conversion metric to switch from μmole.m2/s to W/m2, UV levels of 0.4 can be found in shallow water (~6 meters or less deep) and 0.2 can be found pretty deep (~18 meters or less).* If you use Apogee's conversion metric, you could find levels of 0.4 to about 10 meters or less and 0.2 to about 22 meters or less.**

*Source (Figure 4 is particularly relevant):

https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.4319/lo.1989.34.8.1623

**Source:

PPFD to Watts Conversion

www.apogeeinstruments.com

This last link is here because it's relevant to the unit conversion, though not necessarily for UV wavelengths specifically:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can-I-convert-PAR-photo-active-radiation-value-of-micro-mole-M2-S-to-Solar-radiation-in-Watt-m2

Interesting, and contradicts what I was taught many moons ago.

Of course, that paper was published about 10 years after I finished Uni

 

[xiongsy]

Interesting, and contradicts what I was taught many moons ago.

Of course, that paper was published about 10 years after I finished Uni

What's the current news?

 

[xiongsy]

they really do love hanging out under the natural sunlight.

Is that natural sunlight from the sun compared to lighting we place on top of our tank?

 

[jdpiii3]

Is that natural sunlight from the sun compared to lighting we place on top of our tank?

yes, it's real natural sunlight.

 

[xiongsy]

yes, it's real natural sunlight.

Awesome! Great looking fish! I understand you're saying lighter colored fish don't deal with irritation due to higher intensity lighting compared to darker fishes?

 

[D-Nak]

I think the question is not could it happen but would it happen--as in what is the likelihood? I think the answer to that is: relatively low. Unlike koi in a crowded holding tank, the clownfish will simply swim lower or away from the light source when they feel the need to aloe vera gel (sorry, I had to).