PAR intensity vs time lights are on

Is it just me or has this thread been totally taken off the question of the OP? I was hoping for some similar information and will continue to follow and see if we can get this back to a discussion of PAR vs time.

:D
 
Is it just me or has this thread been totally taken off the question of the OP? I was hoping for some similar information and will continue to follow and see if we can get this back to a discussion of PAR vs time.

:D
It's not off-topic. The amount of light that corals can use is directly affected by the amount of flow they get ,as higher flow directly increases respiration and photosynthesis and significantly decreases photoinhibition. So I don't think it's off-topic, as light and flow are directly related and shouldn't really be discussed in isolation.
 
It's not entirely off-topic. The amount of light that corals can use is directly affected by the amount of flow they get ,as higher flow directly increases respiration and photosynthesis and significantly decreases photoinhibition. So I don't think it's off-topic, as light and flow are directly related and shouldn't really be discussed in isolation.
Ok, point taken, so lets decide to agree that if flow is good/adequate for types of coral being grown, then PAR and time are the next issues to be contended with.

With the LED lights I continue to adjust PAR intensity and time and still have not found a comfortable spot in my tank. I would love to hear from others using LED's or hybrids as to what PAR and time they are using with success.

Jen
 
Perhaps you didn't read the article. They clearly lay out through testing that flow does more for reducing photo inhibition via nutrient export than it does for nutrient import. Bottom line, flow matters. Higher lighting requires higher flow.
 
Ok, point taken, so lets decide to agree that if flow is good/adequate for types of coral being grown, then PAR and time are the next issues to be contended with.

With the LED lights I continue to adjust PAR intensity and time and still have not found a comfortable spot in my tank. I would love to hear from others using LED's or hybrids as to what PAR and time they are using with success.

Jen
The problem with LEDs is the ability to change spectrum and intensity, as it's easy to keep playing with the settings and the corals never get the consistency they need. I believe they can adapt to different spectrums quite well but if you keep changing it then they don't get the opportunity to adapt as it's constantly changing.

My PAR levels go from about 150 on the sand bed to around 450+ at the top of the rocks. Using XR30 G4 Pros I use the AB+ schedule (blues and 'UV' at 100% and everything else at 24%). I have added a period in the evening of low intensity for viewing. From memory there is a 7-hour period of peak intensity, currently at 80%.

I'm running two MP40QD pumps at 80% in anti-sync mode, so there is plenty of flow in a 4-foot tank. I was running them at half of that setting and every time I have increased flow I have seen greater polyp extension and corals seem happier.
 
The problem with LEDs is the ability to change spectrum and intensity, as it's easy to keep playing with the settings and the corals never get the consistency they need. I believe they can adapt to different spectrums quite well but if you keep changing it then they don't get the opportunity to adapt as it's constantly changing.

My PAR levels go from about 150 on the sand bed to around 450+ at the top of the rocks. Using XR30 G4 Pros I use the AB+ schedule (blues and 'UV' at 100% and everything else at 24%). I have added a period in the evening of low intensity for viewing. From memory there is a 7-hour period of peak intensity, currently at 80%.

I'm running two MP40QD pumps at 80% in anti-sync mode, so there is plenty of flow in a 4-foot tank. I was running them at half of that setting and every time I have increased flow I have seen greater polyp extension and corals seem happier.
How many gallons is your tank? pics? would love to see how it looks. I am running same light, same schedule with peak at 70% for 4 hours, with ramp up and ramp down. My adjustments are very small. I use 3 mp40 with reefcrest with one on either side and one in back of my cube. I have measured PAR and am not quite at your levels, with sand bed at 90-100 and top at 300.

Thanks for the input.
 
Perhaps you didn't read the article. They clearly lay out through testing that flow does more for reducing photo inhibition via nutrient export than it does for nutrient import. Bottom line, flow matters. Higher lighting requires higher flow.
I did read the article, thanks
 
How many gallons is your tank? pics? would love to see how it looks. I am running same light, same schedule with peak at 70% for 4 hours, with ramp up and ramp down. My adjustments are very small. I use 3 mp40 with reefcrest with one on either side and one in back of my cube. I have measured PAR and am not quite at your levels, with sand bed at 90-100 and top at 300.

Thanks for the input.
I've only just got my tank to the point of parameters being stable after having to reboot it (never run Triton without a very large algae bed... unless you want your display to become the algae bed), so I'm only now starting to see frags starting to take off as parameters drop to suitable levels, rocks are clear of all algae and bound phosphate finally appears to have been released from the rocks and sandbed. That was a fun 8 months... in hindsight it would almost certainly have been better to bite the bullet and simply pull the rocks and sand and, effectively, start again. Anyway, always learning!

The tank is a Reefer 350 - 91 Gallons and 21" high. Perhaps your tank is deeper?

What percentage are you running your MP40s at?
 
Since corals come in 2 variations, photosynthetic and non-photosynthetic, one can postulate that those are the main things gearing those corals. Since they're vital to the corals, we see 2 directions that dictate metabolic function in said corals, light or food. Though it seems each can survive a period of time with ONLY food, the photosynthetics NEED light. But as it's been discovered, they can receive light, and then internally 'shut down' their photoreceptors, and even spend energy trying to compensate. Thus this invites the premise that you need light, but not too much. If you do not approach photo-saturation, the corals metabolism continues to operate within the range defined by how much light they receive.
Thus there's a middle ground for par vs duration. Unless you can account for the geographic location of each coral, you're guessing.
So to sum it up, it's best to have lower par to avoid this maximum, but as long as a duration as you can to avoid all the other negatives. (algae growth, unwanted other photosynthetics, heat in some cases)

I myself am up to around 14.5 hours of light with a few hours peak, all the while seeing a minimal amount of algae. You WILL see algae no matter what, this is the environment algae grows in, and to try to 'beat' it by raising the spectrum to be void of all but blue, can be a very fine line between success and failure. I myself tried this, and all sps suffered or did not grow. You can definitely have necrosis events by giving the corals too little light.

It took me a few months to raise my lights to where they're at, the final point in which I stopped was when I started to see some corals pale-out on top. I theorize this is the same as approaching a 'bleaching point' in which too much light is causing negatives. After ceasing raising the PAR of the lights, I can see it's probably correct because the ones that have paled on top under the hot zones, are now growing AWAY from the hot zone.

It will be difficult to find your middle zone, but give it time, start low, and allow a week or two inbetween raising the PAR little by little.

The other points on flow work into the equation because as you raise the metabolism, the corals will have excess waste to remove, this is enabled by flow. But again, you don't want too much flow as this can be detrimental to the coral as well.

It's a multi-pronged situation, but that's why the number one attitude towards the hobby is 'slowly make changes' as it can take days and/or weeks for the coral to adjust.

I hope this helps!
 
I've only just got my tank to the point of parameters being stable after having to reboot it (never run Triton without a very large algae bed... unless you want your display to become the algae bed), so I'm only now starting to see frags starting to take off as parameters drop to suitable levels, rocks are clear of all algae and bound phosphate finally appears to have been released from the rocks and sandbed. That was a fun 8 months... in hindsight it would almost certainly have been better to bite the bullet and simply pull the rocks and sand and, effectively, start again. Anyway, always learning!

The tank is a Reefer 350 - 91 Gallons and 21" high. Perhaps your tank is deeper?

What percentage are you running your MP40s at?
my tank is 60 cube, 24 inch depth. MP40 vary between 20% and 40%, with rotating which one is at 40%. I do nutrient export maybe once per week. I am running with very low nutrient levels. I feed heavy and export heavy.
 
my tank is 60 cube, 24 inch depth. MP40 vary between 20% and 40%, with rotating which one is at 40%. I do nutrient export maybe once per week. I am running with very low nutrient levels. I feed heavy and export heavy.

Sounds good. I wonder what difference you would see from slightly higher flow? I was astonished by the difference in polyp extension just by increasing flow by 10%. I've only got SPS.
 
Sounds good. I wonder what difference you would see from slightly higher flow? I was astonished by the difference in polyp extension just by increasing flow by 10%. I've only got SPS.
I have been thinking the same. I have been slowly upping the flow, worried about it being too high has been just one more issue. I think I will up flow in one of the three at a time and see the effect. leaving lights as is to help to measure effect.
My experience in the hobby is long, but did not include LED lights, thus my need for lots and lots of information about PAR and time. I was successful in the past with MH and T5s. It did not seem so easy to screw up then. lol
 
I have been thinking the same. I have been slowly upping the flow, worried about it being too high has been just one more issue. I think I will up flow in one of the three at a time and see the effect. leaving lights as is to help to measure effect.
My experience in the hobby is long, but did not include LED lights, thus my need for lots and lots of information about PAR and time. I was successful in the past with MH and T5s. It did not seem so easy to screw up then. lol
Yeah, should I turn the light on or off... lol

You obviously know what you're doing by making one change at a time and waiting to see what happens. ;) I'd like to hear the results.
 
Can you make up for lower intensity lighting by providing longer light exposure?
 
Can you make up for lower intensity lighting with longer exposure times?
 
Can you make up for lower intensity lighting by providing longer light exposure?

Yes, to a degree. It’s not going to get you from softies to acropora. However if your corals are darkening and the bulbs are old or you are at 100% running them longer can help.
 
Yes, to a degree. It’s not going to get you from softies to acropora. However if your corals are darkening and the bulbs are old or you are at 100% running them longer can help.
thank you
 
The Daily Light Integral (DLI) will determine the dosage of light, and better yet, we actually have some numbers to compare. The formula is simple:
Light intensity (micromole/m2/sec) x hours in photoperiod x60 mins/hour x60 secs/min = total number of photons/1,000,000. This requires a PAR meter of course. Extended photoperiod can make up for lower light intensity, but respect for minimum and maximum light intensities still apply.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2013/9/aafeature
 

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A REEFING EXAM, WOULD YOU PASS?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%
Back
Top