Cheato light schedule

[Reeferdude1888]

Hi guys I've been running my refugium light 24/7 for about 2 months the cheato is growing well so I decided now that it is established to put it on a reverse light cycle from main aquarium lighting.

Any opinions.

 

[SteveEreef]

I did the same thing. My nitrates got too low so I just run the refug light at night. Also reduced the skimmer to three days a week

 

[Flippers4pups]

Hi guys I've been running my refugium light 24/7 for about 2 months the cheato is growing well so I decided now that it is established to put it on a reverse light cycle from main aquarium lighting.

Any opinions.

It's got to rest photosynthesis like any plant, or it's cells can be damaged. Reverse light schedule opposite your DT helps in keeping your PH up as well.

 

[S2G]

I run 12/12

 

[Scrubber_steve]

It's got to rest photosynthesis like any plant, or it's cells can be damaged.

That's what I believed, until challenged. Couldn't find any literature to back your suggestion.
In any case, the duration of the photo-period should be determined according to the inorganic nutrient levels you want to maintain.

Cheers

 

[Reeferdude1888]

Hi guys thanks for the quick response great info much appreciated

 

[Nburg's Reef]

Hi guys I've been running my refugium light 24/7 for about 2 months the cheato is growing well so I decided now that it is established to put it on a reverse light cycle from main aquarium lighting.

Any opinions.

I think the reverse light schedule would be the best option as it would keep photosynthesis going all day in your tank which will lessen the pH swing. I believe chaeto does best with a light and dark period while caulerpa may benifit from 24/7 light schedule.

Just as a PSA, I would watch your corals coloring. I have used fuges in the past and ended up scrapping them because they were too good at pulling nutrients. When I scrapped the fuge, my acros went from pale to very rich colors. They are great for tanks with more bioload, less live rock and smaller skimmers. I'm not anti fuges, I just never had the bioload to need one.

 

[Nburg's Reef]

That's what I believed, until challenged. Couldn't find any literature to back your suggestion.
In any case, the duration of the photo-period should be determined according to the inorganic nutrient levels you want to maintain.

Cheers

I always thought the same thing so I did a little researching and in my brief search, found this:
Photosynthesis of Algae in Continuous Light vs. Light/Dark Cycles

Interestingly, three marine microalgae, Skeletonema costatum, Phaeocystis globosa and Emiliania huxleyi,24 were studied for their rates of photosynthesis and carbon uptake mechanisms in continuous light vs. those same species in light/dark cycles (12 h on/12 h off and 16 h on/8 h off). The rates of photosynthesis were nearly twice as high with light/dark cycles as with continuous lighting. In two of the species (S. costatum and E. huxleyi), but not the third, the contribution of bicarbonate to the total carbon uptake increased dramatically in light/dark cycles compared to continuous light.

How this result might relate to growth and nutrient uptake in lit refugia where macroalgae are often grown to export nutrients is not known. However, it is a sign that perhaps continuous light is not optimal, in addition to being more expensive.

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-10/rhf/index.php#13

 

[Scrubber_steve]

I always thought the same thing so I did a little researching and in my brief search, found this:
Photosynthesis of Algae in Continuous Light vs. Light/Dark Cycles

Interestingly, three marine microalgae, Skeletonema costatum, Phaeocystis globosa and Emiliania huxleyi,24 were studied for their rates of photosynthesis and carbon uptake mechanisms in continuous light vs. those same species in light/dark cycles (12 h on/12 h off and 16 h on/8 h off). The rates of photosynthesis were nearly twice as high with light/dark cycles as with continuous lighting. In two of the species (S. costatum and E. huxleyi), but not the third, the contribution of bicarbonate to the total carbon uptake increased dramatically in light/dark cycles compared to continuous light.

How this result might relate to growth and nutrient uptake in lit refugia where macroalgae are often grown to export nutrients is not known. However, it is a sign that perhaps continuous light is not optimal, in addition to being more expensive.

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-10/rhf/index.php#13

Thats refering to micro, not macro. Thanks anyway.

 

[Flippers4pups]

That's what I believed, until challenged. Couldn't find any literature to back your suggestion.
In any case, the duration of the photo-period should be determined according to the inorganic nutrient levels you want to maintain.

Cheers

Do you have anything to substantiate your findings? (Entirely not meant to sound confrontational) Quite honestly my experience with chaeto has been reverse light schedules have worked best, of course with available nutrients to sustain their growth. Purely anecdotal as much of my experiences have mirrored other hobbyist over the years.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Do you have anything to substantiate your findings?

Which finding specifically?

 

[Flippers4pups]

Which finding specifically?

"In any case, the duration of the photo-period should be determined according to the inorganic nutrient levels you want to maintain."

Is there any guide or ratio to light duration and nutrients?

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Just simply lights on = photosynthesis = nutrient assimilation. Need to reduce your NO3 level,,, run the photo-period longer.